[Leica] French to legislate image retouching

[kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney)]

Well, our French friends have a successful history.  I seem to remember that
in the 50's Chateauneuf-du-Pape passed an ordinance against flying saucers,
after an incident there, and there was no further trouble.

Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org [mailto:lug-
> bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Hopkinson
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:28 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] French to legislate image retouching
> 
> Hi Chris, anecdotally that causal connection seems commonly accepted.  I
> do
> realise that you have just provided a link and mentioned the causal
> connection. This is not meant to be negative regarding your post. I do
> think
> it is an issue relevant for everyone with a digital darkroom and worthy of
> discussion.
> This link is a practical example that we have shown our daughter.
> http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/ad/retouch/index.html
> Here this issue has been raised to an extent, with a voluntary code for
> women's magazines especially, to follow. Another related issue is minimum
> age and weight standards for fashion models. Following media attention
> stirring popular opinion, some successful European models have been
> withdrawn from high profile shows here on age or weight issues. Yet we
> have
> 13 yr olds launching successful careers from cover photographs on Teen
> magazines.
> Your linked article doesn't contain any actual facts or detail, as is
> common
> for this kind of op ed piece. I want to avoid straying into areas such
> as the quality of media reporting, perceptions arising from advertising,
> personal responsibility and liability.
> I do have reservations regarding effectiveness for any legislation to
> require disclosure on retouching.
> 
> Here are some points that come to mind for me:
> A meaningful disclosure on any fashion image would be complex and large. I
> don't see that as practical at all. It could easily double the size of a
> magazine for example.
> A generic warning (similar to a product health warning) may not be
> effective
> at all. It would realistically have to say that EVERY image in the
> magazine
> has been altered. The effect of such a warning label might be, more in the
> nature of "look we are doing SOMETHING" .
> Would the magazine just provide links where the information could be
> obtained? Would anyone go there except people interested in the field
> perhaps?
> Since many magazines are international in distribution, this could negate
> any national legislation anyway, editions unaffected by such legislation
> could be more desirable (cheaper? smaller? ).
> What about television and movie content? Do we require disclosure when a
> "stunt butt" stands in for the leading lady for unclothed scenes?
> Should disclosure extend to all printed or displayed images?
>  Who sets the standards and for what contexts?
> What would be the cost of implementation? Would there be practical
> benefits?
> 
> You can see how these ideas can balloon out of all proportion.
> 
> In my opinion, this sort of issue sounds like a great idea at first glance
> but is grossly impractical to actually implement. Do you have any
> professional insights on practical effects or implementations that you are
> aware of? Can you share any views on what you think is appropriate or how
> that causal link could be approached?
> 
> I sometimes take photos of my children (a lot!) and their friends if it is
> a
> party or similar.
> I've posted probably a 1000 or more images to the list (not only those
> subjects of course). All of those images have certainly had at least some
> modification with photoshop.
> Here's a more dramatic example, just for purposes of discussion that may
> be
> of interest. This is a young teen friend of my daughters. There were also
> gross problems with colour from the original processing (colour neg) and
> prints from them.
> The result pleased me,the subject and her family  and I don't see any
> negative impact at all. Put in another context you could argue that it is
> unrealistic, promotes unhealthy expectations, negative body image etc. I
> see
> it as making an attractive and positive photograph.
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DLoriginal.jpg.html
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DL.jpg.html
> A retouching disclsure would be extensive and detract from the appeal of
> the
> photo too. Yet it included a bw conversion with contrast, individual
> colour
> conversion adjustments, obviously removal of skin imperfections, lines,
> texture and luminace, eyes altered in shade, detail, sharpness, tone even
> highlight adjustments, localised focus adjustments throughout etc etc.
> I think that the viewer can look and is well aware that the photo has been
> idealised. Similarly, surely people in general are aware that all printed
> photgraphs are subject to entensive modification before publication. There
> are millions published every year.
> 
> 
> 
> 2009/3/18 Chris Saganich <chs2018 at med.cornell.edu>
> 
> > Another reason I like the French.  As a Public Health Professional I do
> see
> > a thread through image retouching, negative body image, and
> > psychological/physical harm through the entire population.
> >
> > <
> > http://video.nytimes.com/video/playlist/opinion/op-
> ed/1194833176718/index.html#1194838469575
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Cheers
> Geoff
> 'Pick up your Leica and make the best photo you can'
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/
> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information