"Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person."*
*"Photograph retouched again to notify the viewer that the photograph has been retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person."**
**"Photograph retouched again to notify the viewer that the photograph has been retouched to notify the viewer that the photograph has been retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person."***
So if this goes into law then every fashion and porno magazine should have a banner on the front cover "Every picture in this magazine has been retouched so do not assume what you are seeing is real"
@chefgon: Try this. Your 12 year old daughter starves herself into illness trying to look like Hannah Montana.
Your 14 year old son lives in a state of constant self recrimination because he has acne and no abs.
You go to the local applebees and order something you saw in a GQ ad. What comes to your table looks like someone spit on your shrimp.. Dejected and totally depressed you go home and hang yourself.
@WyldeChef: If someone is starving themselves to illness to look like Hannah Montana then this strikes me as a problem that could be fixed with a quick visit to an optometrist and the subsequent purchasing of her first pair of glasses or contacts.
@OCEntertainment: Indeed. I believe this is really a way to undermine the "faux skinny" commercial models in order to support the "real skinny" high fashion models.
Excuse me, but this is a horrible idea. This could (and likely will) lead to the banning of free speech in many arenas.
Television, radio, newspapers, blogs, and more are all places that could potentially "lead people to believe in a reality that does not actually exist, and have a detrimental effect on adolescents." So why are they exempt? If this law passes, they will eventually come under fire also.
The solution to bad information is not banning information. The solution is teaching critical thinking.
@SkipErnst: The HECK, man? You work for a major news network or something, how the heck did you make that kind of a jump? I mean, you're right, it's a stupid idea, but at least criticize it properly.
No one's talking about "banning" any free speech. Unless you think cigarettes boxes are an infringement of free speech because they warn that you might get lung cancer. It's a freaking warning label. You're welcome to Photoshop the crap out of something, as long as you say it's Photoshopped. That's what's being proposed here. False advertising has always been illegal, and never an infringement of free speech. That's the category we're in.
That being said, yes, this is needless and unproductive. In fact, I've seen better efforts to educate young people on what, exactly, goes on behind the scenes from corporations than government (anyone remember that really killer Dove ad that showed the makeup/photoshop in fast motion?). For my opinion, I think this one's better left alone. Or if anything have something better than a dumb subtitle saying "this is photoshopped".
So, yes, it's a stupid proposal. But please, call it stupid for the right reasons.
Photoshopped images can "lead people to believe in a reality that does not actually exist, and have a detrimental effect on adolescents."
This is the absolute truth. I currently work at a studio where I retouch HS senior pictures all day. I've gotten to the point where I practically shudder in disgust at the sight of a photograph of a person that has not been retouched... and it sickens me that I've been so brainwashed.
If you are a company in need of a Graphic Designer in or near Jacksonville, FL please save me from this wretched job and let me do what I actually went to school for.
@Jux: Well, I usually get called a cheeseburger, but I'll take fat man in a barrel. If you right click on an avatar in the profile page, you can usually view the image.
That's kinda cool, but as a true lazy ass. I'd rather download that awesome 3D Rome add-on for Google Earth. I wonder if the flight simulator mode works with it.
Yeah, yeah, fine, whatever. What I want to know is when is Giz gonna start using augmented reality? I mean, this technology can only enhance stories like all those NSFW Wiimote posts.
Well if it's "interactive", then that's a whole different ballgame. It's not often I see "interactive" museum exhibits, especially ones that use "multimedia CD-ROM".
It's a neat application but not what I'd impressive technology. It's just moving back and forth across a 3d model that brings up some information. Now if this was integrated into a tablet, iPhone, or something like that so you could roam the museum and view any display and have new information come up. That would be cool.
09/24/09
09/24/09
09/24/09
"Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person."*
*"Photograph retouched again to notify the viewer that the photograph has been retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person."**
**"Photograph retouched again to notify the viewer that the photograph has been retouched to notify the viewer that the photograph has been retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person."***
***....
09/24/09
09/24/09
09/24/09
Your 14 year old son lives in a state of constant self recrimination because he has acne and no abs.
You go to the local applebees and order something you saw in a GQ ad. What comes to your table looks like someone spit on your shrimp.. Dejected and totally depressed you go home and hang yourself.
09/24/09
09/24/09
Makeup, lighting, crazy expensive wardrobes and unhealthy beautification diets are A-OK.
09/24/09
09/24/09
How existential.
Wait till the French government discovers we're all enslaved in slurry-filled pods with our modest electric outputs used to fuel an army of machines.
09/24/09
Television, radio, newspapers, blogs, and more are all places that could potentially "lead people to believe in a reality that does not actually exist, and have a detrimental effect on adolescents." So why are they exempt? If this law passes, they will eventually come under fire also.
The solution to bad information is not banning information. The solution is teaching critical thinking.
09/24/09
No one's talking about "banning" any free speech. Unless you think cigarettes boxes are an infringement of free speech because they warn that you might get lung cancer. It's a freaking warning label. You're welcome to Photoshop the crap out of something, as long as you say it's Photoshopped. That's what's being proposed here. False advertising has always been illegal, and never an infringement of free speech. That's the category we're in.
That being said, yes, this is needless and unproductive. In fact, I've seen better efforts to educate young people on what, exactly, goes on behind the scenes from corporations than government (anyone remember that really killer Dove ad that showed the makeup/photoshop in fast motion?). For my opinion, I think this one's better left alone. Or if anything have something better than a dumb subtitle saying "this is photoshopped".
So, yes, it's a stupid proposal. But please, call it stupid for the right reasons.
09/24/09
09/24/09
This is the absolute truth. I currently work at a studio where I retouch HS senior pictures all day. I've gotten to the point where I practically shudder in disgust at the sight of a photograph of a person that has not been retouched... and it sickens me that I've been so brainwashed.
If you are a company in need of a Graphic Designer in or near Jacksonville, FL please save me from this wretched job and let me do what I actually went to school for.
09/24/09
*raises fist*
"...And it sickend me that I've been so brainwashed."
*....slowly lowers fist*
Alright. So long as you know. Good luck on that new job, buddy.
09/24/09
09/24/09
09/24/09
Oh, I guess you're only familiar with the new GitEmSteveDave movies. I didn't need Photoshop to improve my physique. Pure SteveDave.
09/24/09
This changes everything.
09/24/09
09/24/09
09/24/09
09/24/09
I don't see it.
Is it the hair? It's the hair. It's gotta be.
09/24/09
09/24/09
04/13/09
04/13/09
04/13/09
04/13/09
04/13/09