Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Edited images may be given disclosures

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
Category: Industry News

Health warning on manipulated photographs - French parliament are to decide if airbrushed images need warnings to protect society from 'false' imagery.

Posted:
Print Article Add Comment Add CommentJargon Buster: Off Jargon Buster: Off
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

Datacolor Introduces SpyderHD

New Datacolor Calibration Suite

Datacolor introduces a new top-of-the-line calibration suite...

JVCKENWOOD Declares Support For Micro Four Thirds Standard

JVCKENWOOD Join Micro Four Thirds Standard

JVCKENWOOD corporation has declared support for the Micro Fo...

Mary Ellen Mark To Receive Outstanding Contribution To Photography Award

Mary Ellen Mark To Be Awarded At SWPA 2014

Mary Ellen Mark is to be honoured at the Sony World Photogra...

Join ePHOTOzine and remove these ads.

Comments

cameracat
cameracat  108575 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
24 Sep 2009 - 8:08 PM

And we think our politicians are daft....Smile

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
24 Sep 2009 - 8:11 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed
24 Sep 2009 - 8:11 PM

Utter lunacy...

chensuriashi
chensuriashi e2 Member 7129 forum postschensuriashi vcard England17 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2009 - 6:26 AM

Another rule against Togs... smacks of a French Stealth Tax to follow,Hmmm deep thinking Pom that I am....Chen.

Gaucho
Gaucho e2 Member 122066 forum postsGaucho vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2009 - 7:01 AM

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
Mayfly  8485 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2009 - 7:30 AM

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 !

Last Modified By Mayfly at 25 Sep 2009 - 7:34 AM
jakabout
jakabout  91741 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2009 - 8:07 AM

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
25 Sep 2009 - 8:10 AM

Manipulation will be very hard to define with the advent of in-camera dynamic range approval and other features.

MattGrayson
25 Sep 2009 - 9:05 AM

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
JackAllTog e2 Member 53469 forum postsJackAllTog vcard United Kingdom58 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2009 - 10:39 AM

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
25 Sep 2009 - 11:29 AM


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

Last Modified By MattGrayson at 25 Sep 2009 - 11:29 AM
Mayfly
Mayfly  8485 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2009 - 11:54 AM

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?

Last Modified By Mayfly at 25 Sep 2009 - 11:59 AM
CSuk
CSuk  4 United Kingdom33 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2009 - 1:25 PM

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).

Steve_Atkins
27 Sep 2009 - 9:42 AM

Does this only apply to portraits?

Kris_Dutson
28 Sep 2009 - 9:59 AM

I think every government should carry a health warning.

kenewars
kenewars  7 United Kingdom
8 Oct 2009 - 2:27 PM

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.

blindingphil
2 Nov 2009 - 7:47 PM


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.

blindingphil
2 Nov 2009 - 7:49 PM


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.

- Original Poster Comments
- Your Posts

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.