Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Edited images may be given disclosures

Edited images may be given disclosures - French parliament are to decide if airbrushed images need warnings to protect society from 'false' imagery.

 Add Comment

Category : Industry News
Share :

French flagA group of politicians in France want to create a new law which would mean all published images will have to say if they've been digitally manipulated.

Similar to what appears on cigarette packets, all images which are enhanced or edited will have to carry a clear warning stating: "Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person."

This move is part of a campaign against eating disorders and according to Reuters, anyone breaking the law could be fined 37,500 euros, or up to half of the cost of the advertisement.

Explore More

Join ePHOTOzine and remove these ads.

Comments


cameracat 10 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
24 Sep 2009 8:08PM
And we think our politicians are daft....Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed 10 17.9k 8 Norway
24 Sep 2009 8:11PM
Utter lunacy...
chensuriashi e2
8 132 17 England
25 Sep 2009 6:26AM
Another rule against Togs... smacks of a French Stealth Tax to follow,Hmmm deep thinking Pom that I am....Chen.
Gaucho e2
12 2.3k 2 United Kingdom
25 Sep 2009 7:01AM
The difference is that if the French think a law is stupid, or not suitable to them, they ignore it. Or hit the streets Smile Refreshing really.

Malcolm
Mayfly 9 485 2 United Kingdom
25 Sep 2009 7:30AM
Bah what a load of tosh.

Photography is a creative process, when an artist creates a masterpeice on canvass with brush and paint, will that have to carry a health warning too ?

The final result of the scene or person that they have painted won't be as it is in real life, it's their interpretation of it.

Same thing as digital manipulation.

Idiots !
jakabout 10 1.7k 1 United Kingdom
25 Sep 2009 8:07AM
I reckon they're talking about photos used in advertising so that women / men aren't presented with an unreastic view - and try to emulate it. I think it makes perfect sense from that point of view! It's nothing to do with stifling creativity, from the sounds of it they're not restricting you at all, they just want a disclaimer saying that the model was retouched. Not exactly an in-camera thing is it!
mcgovernjon 5 138 United Kingdom
25 Sep 2009 8:10AM
Manipulation will be very hard to define with the advent of in-camera dynamic range approval and other features.
MattGrayson 7 622 3 England
25 Sep 2009 9:05AM
I don't think it's about that. There's a definite link between the perfectly airbrushed models we see on advertisements and the public trying to look like them. They then go to extreme measures to change themselves. We all know when an image is manipulated because we know what to look for, but there are some people out there who don't know if it's been adjusted.

I welcome the change because I think it could save someone's life. If that restricts my creativity, I'm happy to adapt. Smile
JackAllTog e2
5 3.6k 58 United Kingdom
25 Sep 2009 10:39AM
All magizines should carry a warning -
"Model may have make-up to modify their physical appearance."
Or "Light and perspective may affect the physical appearance of a person."
Or even "do you really believe everything you read and see"
MattGrayson 7 622 3 England
25 Sep 2009 11:29AM

Quote: All magazines should carry a warning -
"Model may have make-up to modify their physical appearance."
Or "Light and perspective may affect the physical appearance of a person."
Or even "do you really believe everything you read and see"

That's just the problem, there are young and impressionable people out there who DO believe everything they read and see. They need to be protected.

Make up won't stop someone eating to get thin and no-one out of photographic circles understands about perspective control so maybe they should put the signs up?

I'm an advocate of common sense (although I have trouble following my own philosophies, sometimes Wink ) and think that something should be put up to protect certain people but not to extremes. Smile
Mayfly 9 485 2 United Kingdom
25 Sep 2009 11:54AM
I don't think that the manipulated images are to blame by themselves. I think the biggest problem are all the stars/starlets that the media hound into being unhealthily thin.

These images may or may not be manipulated but the people in them are conforming to a kind of lifestyle choice.

The problem is that they are idolised by many of these young impressionable people and I think the onus is on them, as the role model they should carry the responsibility of their appearence/status.

There was an interesting documentary on a few months back, Alicia Dixon appeared in it and it was investigating the industry and the use of digital manipulation and the impact upon it's target audience.

She was trying to produce an ad campaign featuring her, using an untouched image. She actually had difficulty getting anyone onboard.

So who is to blame ? the subject of the photographs, the photographer(s) or the industry?
CSuk 5 7 33 United Kingdom
25 Sep 2009 1:25PM
Its all getting out of hand. PC this, PC that. Will the supermarkets have to state in their ads that the cream on the strawberries is actually shaving foam, because the real thing melts under studio lights, so people should not expect their food to look the same at home?
It may sound daft but this is the sort of thing we are being pushed into each day by a few sad people (whom we allow to get away with it). The public opinion in France will probably hit the streets, as Gaucho remarked, and tell said imposers to go shove it. Unfortunately here in Britain, most people will be their lazy selves as usual and leave it to someone else to sort out (if same proposal crosses the channel that is).
27 Sep 2009 9:42AM
Does this only apply to portraits?
Kris_Dutson 12 8.2k 1 England
28 Sep 2009 9:59AM
I think every government should carry a health warning.
kenewars 7 3 United Kingdom
8 Oct 2009 2:27PM
I think this is a good idea. There is too much pressure on (mostly young girls) people to look like the magazine photos of models. All pictures in magazines are edited in some way. I don't think it will affect creativity
in any way, but as long as people know the image is altered they can make their own judgement.
2 Nov 2009 7:47PM

Quote: All magizines should carry a warning -
"Model may have make-up to modify their physical appearance."
Or "Light and perspective may affect the physical appearance of a person."
Or even "do you really believe everything you read and see"

All fashion magazines carry credits for the make up used, clothes worn, and usually the photographer as well. I don't see any harm whatsoever in saying the image has been digitally manipulated to enhance the looks of the model.
If it's simple adjustments in colour, lighting, or crop, etc... I don't think it needs mentioning. However, it would hopefully lead to photographers getting BETTER at their jobs, and editors being more responsible. I'd love to see the day when a magazine comes out with 'NO IMAGE MANIPULATION' on the cover. All-natural models with original photos and good lighting is all we need.
2 Nov 2009 7:49PM

Quote: Its all getting out of hand. PC this, PC that. Will the supermarkets have to state in their ads that the cream on the strawberries is actually shaving foam, because the real thing melts under studio lights, so people should not expect their food to look the same at home?

Actually, they do. It's called 'Serving suggestion' and has to be shown on any food packaging in the UK if there's a product image.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.