If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZCentral)   Having solved the state's other problems, Arizona lawmaker wants to force advertisers to disclose when they airbrush their models   (azcentral.com) divider line 86
    More: Silly, house commerce committee  
•       •       •

1609 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2012 at 12:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-15 09:28:41 AM
Why stop there? Why not disclose when a model has had breast implants, or a facelift, or a nose job, or in fact any kind of cosmetic surgery? Advertisers should have to disclose that the model's hair has been colored, or that she's wearing makeup and that her lips aren't really that red. There should be a shoulder pad disclosure; heel length and girdle tightness should be revealed in the fine print. Also, the amount of time she spends per day with a physical trainer should be included in all ads, as well as how many calories she's consumed within the past week (versus how many she's purged). If we're going to be serious about this, for God's sake, be serious.
 
2012-02-15 09:44:26 AM
Will the folks who did the 2012 SI swimsuit cover be called as witnesses for the prosecution?
 
2012-02-15 09:47:25 AM
This looks shopped to me. I can't tell from the pixels and the claw-like fingers.
i.dailymail.co.uk

Story
 
2012-02-15 10:28:06 AM
img339.imageshack.us

I agree. Airbrushing hides true character.
 
2012-02-15 10:39:43 AM
I'm torn over this. On one hand, I know there is a problem with young girls abusing their bodies to fit some crazed air-brushed ideal, and there needs to be a solution. I am not comfortable with the solution being government regulation, though. But, I am not sure what other viable solution there is... so, do I let the government regulate or resign myself to the fact that ad agencies are going to serious harm to our children with impunity?
 
2012-02-15 10:57:07 AM
Really?

That's easy... Every single time a photo for an ad is taken. There isn't a single image used in any ad that hasn't be color corrected and cleaned up prior to the publishing of the ad.

...And nobody "airbrushes" photos anymore. Everything you need to do to a photo to make it ad ready is available in Photoshop these day, Grandma.
 
2012-02-15 11:01:00 AM
He agreed that the evolution of photo-manipulation programs has made it nearly impossible for an average consumer to tell if a photo is real or fake. But he said legitimate advertising companies don't abuse that.

Nooooooooo, never. *rolls eyes*
 
2012-02-15 11:11:55 AM

Lucky LaRue: so, do I let the government regulate or resign myself to the fact that ad agencies are going to serious harm to our children with impunity?


C) let young girls develop self-esteem issues so they can be exploited for sexual gain.

/answer is always C
 
2012-02-15 11:16:19 AM

SJKebab: Lucky LaRue: so, do I let the government regulate or resign myself to the fact that ad agencies are going to serious harm to our children with impunity?

C) let young girls develop self-esteem issues so they can be exploited for sexual gain.

/answer is always C


That's as good an answer as any. Do you propose we build a regulation around that to send all mom's and dad's to "How to be the right kind of parent" class, or just lock them up when we disapprove of the values they instill in their kids?
 
2012-02-15 11:16:24 AM
i3.photobucket.com

What an airbrushed model may look like.
 
2012-02-15 11:18:23 AM

Lucky LaRue: SJKebab: Lucky LaRue: so, do I let the government regulate or resign myself to the fact that ad agencies are going to serious harm to our children with impunity?

C) let young girls develop self-esteem issues so they can be exploited for sexual gain.

/answer is always C

That's as good an answer as any. Do you propose we build a regulation around that to send all mom's and dad's to "How to be the right kind of parent" class, or just lock them up when we disapprove of the values they instill in their kids?


Sorry.. I threw in a "Don't" at the beginning of your reply and misread "can" as "can't".
 
2012-02-15 11:30:22 AM

Pocket Ninja: Why stop there? Why not disclose when a model has had breast implants, or a facelift, or a nose job, or in fact any kind of cosmetic surgery? Advertisers should have to disclose that the model's hair has been colored, or that she's wearing makeup and that her lips aren't really that red. There should be a shoulder pad disclosure; heel length and girdle tightness should be revealed in the fine print. Also, the amount of time she spends per day with a physical trainer should be included in all ads, as well as how many calories she's consumed within the past week (versus how many she's purged). If we're going to be serious about this, for God's sake, be serious.


Why stop there? Maybe mention she's had a bad break-up recently. Or her parents split up and she spends more time traveling between custodians than she does in school. Or that she lives in a basement putting lotion in the basket.

Today's young girls deserve to know the motivation behind these models' desire to pose for pictures in the magazine.
 
2012-02-15 11:49:48 AM
Honestly I am okay with this. It is often used to market beauty products, then the models are artificially touched up to look even better. They are marketing an ideal that doesn't exist in the real world, and selling a product that doesn't do what the ad suggests.

Like mascara ads. "Makes your lashes fuller!" (Eyelash inserts were used in the production of this ad." Well no, it's not your goddamn mascara then, it's the inserts. Makeup that makes your skin smooth like a baby! But it will never ever look like this model, these photos were professionally touched up/altered to give a false impression of what this product actually does.

It's damaging to people because it sells an absolute falsehood, and the young people who are targeted by these are extremely impressionable and just don't quite understand that this is unattainable.

I would say that any company who does this needs to put in large letters, not the negative 12 point font currently used, that the images were altered. Or, give some teeth to advertisement regulation so they can't keep selling these lies.
 
2012-02-15 12:16:18 PM

Pocket Ninja: Why stop there? Why not disclose when a model has had breast implants, or a facelift, or a nose job, or in fact any kind of cosmetic surgery?


If you weren't in DC, I'd swear you were listening to KTAR Newstalk Radio this morning. I have to say, the only time this makes even a bit of sense is when advertising makeup and complexion modifiers. If the Proactiv ads are Photoshopped, then how do I know that stuff works or not?
 
2012-02-15 12:29:54 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-02-15 12:32:57 PM
Governor Leatherface's revenge
 
2012-02-15 12:40:12 PM
It's pretty simple: unless it's a "before" picture it's been photoshopped.
 
2012-02-15 12:40:17 PM
It'll probably be easier for everyone if they label the photos that aren't manipulated.
 
2012-02-15 12:41:21 PM
Fotoshop by Adobé! (new window, YouTube)
 
2012-02-15 12:44:27 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Governor Leatherface's revenge


Heh... It would take a couple of designers working for a week to make that prune look good.

I was working on a project a few months ago and the client was concerned that the photos we had taken at his office made him look fat and asked if we could do anything to make him look thinner.

I'm not sure what our client services guy said to him, but I would have opened with, "Well, the photos aren't making you look far... You are fat." (Probably why I work in the studio and not on Client Services).

I had to find a stock image of someone thinner and photoshop the client's head onto the thinner body. On the plus side, it was an extra four hours I was able to invoice. : )
 
2012-02-15 12:48:10 PM
going by past few days on FARK the fine state of AZ is top-heavy with batshiat crazy ladies trying to out-do each other.
either that or her and klein (CCTV FCC teacher censure bill) are sipping martinis and laughing their arses off.

IrateShadow: It'll probably be easier for everyone if they label the photos that aren't manipulated.


bingo!
 
2012-02-15 12:50:11 PM

keylock71: I would have opened with, "Well, the photos aren't making you look far... You are fat." (Probably why I work in the studio and not on Client Services).


"The camera adds 10 pounds. Sorry we had so many cameras pointed at you."

/stolen from Friends
 
2012-02-15 12:50:41 PM

keylock71: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Governor Leatherface's revenge

Heh... It would take a couple of designers working for a week to make that prune look good.

I was working on a project a few months ago and the client was concerned that the photos we had taken at his office made him look fat and asked if we could do anything to make him look thinner.

I'm not sure what our client services guy said to him, but I would have opened with, "Well, the photos aren't making you look far... You are fat." (Probably why I work in the studio and not on Client Services).

I had to find a stock image of someone thinner and photoshop the client's head onto the thinner body. On the plus side, it was an extra four hours I was able to invoice. : )


Hey, losing weight ain't cheap

/ask anyone who's signed up with Jenny Craig
 
2012-02-15 12:50:43 PM
What, wait, you mean to tell me that the women in magazines don't really look like that? Color me shocked !
Han't anyone ever seen the "without makeup" images of the stars? Pretty scary.
 
2012-02-15 12:50:51 PM

keylock71: Really?

That's easy... Every single time a photo for an ad is taken. There isn't a single image used in any ad that hasn't be color corrected and cleaned up prior to the publishing of the ad.

...And nobody "airbrushes" photos anymore. Everything you need to do to a photo to make it ad ready is available in Photoshop these day, Grandma.


Came to say this, leaving satisfied.
 
2012-02-15 12:53:15 PM

Elandriel: Honestly I am okay with this. It is often used to market beauty products, then the models are artificially touched up to look even better. They are marketing an ideal that doesn't exist in the real world, and selling a product that doesn't do what the ad suggests.


In short, it goes back to truth in advertising. They're using photo editing and lighting tricks to make models look much better than they do in real life. It isn't any different than fast food companies who show product in their commercials that look nothing like they do when you buy it in a restaurant.

Arizona isn't banning the practice of photo editing. They're just asking for disclosure. I'm fine with that.
 
2012-02-15 12:54:08 PM
Farker with a degree in Advertising here, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Here's the deal. You can argue "puffery" to a point. When your product is no longer physically capable of producing results you claim, even under their VERY BEST conditions, you've crossed the line. If you have a photo shoot with professional models, makeup teams, and dozens of professionals working to get a single flattering image of your product and it's still insufficient to produce the image you want of an actual human being, you're misrepresenting your product.

It's not about creating "realistic beauty ideals" to me. I could not care less if women feel better or worse about themselves because they don't have your product or look like your glamorized model. It is not the responsibility of a company to monitor and improve the self-confidence of their customers. I do, however, care that a woman can buy your product expecting something that is literally impossible.

It's a shame that this legislation will (likely) not pass. But the current powers granted to the FTC allow them to address these types of deceptive or unfair practices without further legislation.
 
2012-02-15 12:56:01 PM
Perhaps it's time we start calling law makers what they really are - Freedom Takers. So many laws are getting passed with so few being removed, it's come to regulating things that make NO difference or provide NO benefit to the populace. It's only a matter of time before beer is regulated again to the point of you can only drink a maximum of 31.1034768 grams every thursday at 9 pm and no other time - ever.
 
2012-02-15 12:56:10 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: keylock71: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Governor Leatherface's revenge

Heh... It would take a couple of designers working for a week to make that prune look good.

I was working on a project a few months ago and the client was concerned that the photos we had taken at his office made him look fat and asked if we could do anything to make him look thinner.

I'm not sure what our client services guy said to him, but I would have opened with, "Well, the photos aren't making you look far... You are fat." (Probably why I work in the studio and not on Client Services).

I had to find a stock image of someone thinner and photoshop the client's head onto the thinner body. On the plus side, it was an extra four hours I was able to invoice. : )

Hey, losing weight ain't cheap

/ask anyone who's signed up with Jenny Craig


cdn3.sbnation.com

This bread truck ain't gonna pay for itself...

(or is that Weight Watchers?)
 
2012-02-15 01:00:52 PM
I could get behind a law that outlaws certain digital trickery. I'm just tired of seeing photos of women whose skin has no texture.
 
2012-02-15 01:03:43 PM

cig-mkr: What, wait, you mean to tell me that the women in magazines don't really look like that? Airbrush me shocked !
Han't anyone ever seen the "without makeup" images of the stars? Pretty scary.


FTFY
 
2012-02-15 01:08:13 PM
So all advertising then that uses images of models?
 
2012-02-15 01:16:37 PM
When a model is used to advertise a product and it's effectiveness they shouldn't be able to airbrush or shop how glowy the product makes your skin. It's false advertising.
 
2012-02-15 01:17:37 PM
House Bill 2793, proposed by Rep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix

Democrats ... Yup, they ROCK!

katiehobbs.org
 
2012-02-15 01:19:14 PM

Andulamb: I could get behind a law that outlaws certain digital trickery. I'm just tired of seeing photos of women whose skin has no texture.


(I work in ads as a photographer)

Depending on what the advertising is for, it could just be artistic intent regarding a certain lifestyle the brand associates with. No different than the old days when most ads were paintings. Dior ads come to mind that fit this - they have a certain style where the skin of the models is very altered.

Now if it's a makeup product advertising that their product will make you look like that, and it doesn't... this would fall under false advertising.

Food shoots are a good example of this. Food stylists often prepare the hell out of food with all kinds of inedible things. But, there are lines to be drawn for the specific item being advertised. Lets talk ice cream. Ice cream is a PITA to shoot because it melts quickly. Therefore, unless the product being advertised is the ice cream, we substitute with fake ice cream that doesn't melt so fast.

If we are shooting ice cream, we freeze it in dry ice, and it lasts a little longer on set. This avoids FTC false advertising charges.
 
2012-02-15 01:25:26 PM
What girls are trying to look like these airbrushed models? Everytime I go out most girls look like water buffalo that ate 2 or 3 of those models for lunch.
 
2012-02-15 01:27:15 PM

cig-mkr: Han't anyone ever seen the "without makeup" images of the stars most women? Pretty scary.

 
2012-02-15 01:28:34 PM

Lucky LaRue: I'm torn over this. On one hand, I know there is a problem with young girls abusing their bodies to fit some crazed air-brushed ideal, and there needs to be a solution. I am not comfortable with the solution being government regulation, though. But, I am not sure what other viable solution there is... so, do I let the government regulate or resign myself to the fact that ad agencies are going to serious harm to our children with impunity?


We have this handy mechanism called Family that utilizes a technology called Upbringing to regulate these potential problems. Perhaps you've heard of it.

The major flaw in the technology is that some people fail to use it.
 
2012-02-15 01:33:36 PM

watson.t.hamster: It's pretty simple: unless it's a "before" picture it's been photoshopped.


agreed... it would be easier to have them disclose if it had not been photoshopped.

/does this mean all the girls on Facebook are going to have to disclose when they photoshop their profile pics?
 
2012-02-15 01:36:32 PM
fun-gallery.com
What do you mean shes not real?
 
2012-02-15 01:37:26 PM

keylock71: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Governor Leatherface's revenge

Heh... It would take a couple of designers working for a week to make that prune look good.

I was working on a project a few months ago and the client was concerned that the photos we had taken at his office made him look fat and asked if we could do anything to make him look thinner.

I'm not sure what our client services guy said to him, but I would have opened with, "Well, the photos aren't making you look far... You are fat." (Probably why I work in the studio and not on Client Services).

I had to find a stock image of someone thinner and photoshop the client's head onto the thinner body. On the plus side, it was an extra four hours I was able to invoice. : )


I had someone come in once and hand me some pictures for a memorial service, the boss had died and they actually all liked him and wanted to do some large images for the service. They had one where the guy was talking to other people and basically wanted me to Shop his face onto the back of his head so he'd be facing the camera. Nothing matched from the photos that had his face, they were grainy or out of focus, or black and white, etc. I told them that it wouldn't look good AND they couldn't afford the amount of time it would take to come up with something like they wanted. Some people seriously believe that Photoshop can do ANYTHING...
 
2012-02-15 01:38:58 PM

inflatedKarma: watson.t.hamster: It's pretty simple: unless it's a "before" picture it's been photoshopped.

agreed... it would be easier to have them disclose if it had not been photoshopped.

/does this mean all the girls on Facebook are going to have to disclose when they photoshop their profile pics?


Problem with that is "before" photos are often photoshopped too... To make people look worse.
 
2012-02-15 01:44:49 PM

Mikey1969: Some people seriously believe that Photoshop can do ANYTHING...


Yeah, it's all about the source material you're working with.

If I had a dime for every client that had out of focus, poorly framed, or extremely low resolution photos they were expected me to work miracles on in a few minutes... Well, I'd probably be able to get myself a beer or two, I guess. : )
 
2012-02-15 01:53:26 PM

keylock71: Yeah, it's all about the source material you're working with.

If I had a dime for every client that had out of focus, poorly framed, or extremely low resolution photos they were expected me to work miracles on in a few minutes... Well, I'd probably be able to get myself a beer or two, I guess. : )




Also had a guy that wanted me to take a first generation cell phone picture(Circa 2003 or so...) and blow it up to 30"x42" and print it. I did a test run to measure the individual pixels, and they were 1 -2 inches on a side. This was gonna cost the guy around $75 or so to print, so I called to ask him if he REALLY wanted to pay this much for the garbage he was going to get. I explained that he would basically have to stand on the other side of the room for the picture to even resolve into something that made sense.

Guy actually paid for it. Maybe that's where the good money lies, stupid people and large format printing...
 
2012-02-15 01:55:58 PM
These lawmakers sure understand technology
 
2012-02-15 01:57:23 PM

KrispyKritter: going by past few days on FARK the fine state of AZ is top-heavy with batshiat crazy ladies trying to out-do each other.


23 years of living in AZ has done little to make me think otherwise.
 
2012-02-15 01:59:10 PM

Pocket Ninja: Why stop there? Why not disclose when a model has had breast implants, or a facelift, or a nose job, or in fact any kind of cosmetic surgery? Advertisers should have to disclose that the model's hair has been colored, or that she's wearing makeup and that her lips aren't really that red. There should be a shoulder pad disclosure; heel length and girdle tightness should be revealed in the fine print. Also, the amount of time she spends per day with a physical trainer should be included in all ads, as well as how many calories she's consumed within the past week (versus how many she's purged). If we're going to be serious about this, for God's sake, be serious.


Sounds about right. We have Carfax, don't we?
 
2012-02-15 02:02:56 PM
blog.robbiecooper.org

blog.robbiecooper.org

djiin.files.wordpress.com


Yep, Advertisers are the worst problem we face as a society today.
 
2012-02-15 02:04:13 PM

Mikey1969: Also had a guy that wanted me to take a first generation cell phone picture(Circa 2003 or so...) and blow it up to 30"x42" and print it. I did a test run to measure the individual pixels, and they were 1 -2 inches on a side. This was gonna cost the guy around $75 or so to print, so I called to ask him if he REALLY wanted to pay this much for the garbage he was going to get. I explained that he would basically have to stand on the other side of the room for the picture to even resolve into something that made sense.

Guy actually paid for it. Maybe that's where the good money lies, stupid people and large format printing...


My favorite are the folks that give you their photos in Word Docs... or when I ask for their logo artwork in vector format, they give me a 72 dpi .jpg that's 1 inch square. It got to the point where it was easier and quicker to just recreate the logo myself in Illustrator and fold the cost of doing that into the proposal.

One of my buddies is running his own large format printing company now... Doing quite well for himself, too. It's amazing the crap people will pay big bucks to have printed. I usually try to offer some alternatives to a horrible pixelated, expensive mess, but sometimes it's best to just bite your tongue and give 'em what they want.
 
2012-02-15 02:09:46 PM
If people are so easily manipulated that advertising causes them to do stupid shiat, they deserve what they get. I'd rather the government stay out of this type of thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report