post processed photos in the media

D

dunk

Messages
140
Edit My Images
Yes
i saw a while back on the news something about post processed photos would possibly have to have a statement or something saying that the photo has been edited in one way or another (i seem to recall Kelly brook being interviewed about it), sorry if it's been discussed elsewhere on here.
Anyway, from what i can recall it's been discussed because pretty much every model in magazine ads etc has been ""photoshopped" and is creating a false image to those that see the ads and think using a product can make them as "beautiful"
What do you guys and girls think about having to list what modifications you do to every single photo that appears in the media?
 
For 'Hard news' images no processing other than 'normal darkroom practice' is allowed: lighten/darkening of selected areas, colour-correction, slight vignetting is allowed. Removal or addition of elemnts withing the image for artistic or dramatic purposes is not allowed.
Get caught and you're fired - pure and simple - you'll never work in News Photography again.

For editorial imagery more leeway is permissable as long as 'manupulated image' appears in the file info.

Also the international naming protocols give a clue to what's been done to an image: suffixes attached to the file-name tell an editor at what level of enhancement or manipulation has occurred...
R = Raw or unaltered - straight from camera, in other words.
E = Enhanced: normal darkroom practice as described above. No requirement to list edits.
M = Manipulated: image may have elements added or removed for artistic or drmatic purposes (listed in file info).
 
Arkady said:
For 'Hard news' images no processing other than 'normal darkroom practice' is allowed: lighten/darkening of selected areas, colour-correction, slight vignetting is allowed. Removal or addition of elemnts withing the image for artistic or dramatic purposes is not allowed.
Get caught and you're fired - pure and simple - you'll never work in News Photography again.

For editorial imagery more leeway is permissable as long as 'manupulated image' appears in the file info.

Also the international naming protocols give a clue to what's been done to an image: suffixes attached to the file-name tell an editor at what level of enhancement or manipulation has occurred...
R = Raw or unaltered - straight from camera, in other words.
E = Enhanced: normal darkroom practice as described above. No requirement to list edits.
M = Manipulated: image may have elements added or removed for artistic or drmatic purposes (listed in file info).
Click to expand...

not quite what i meant, say for example a "skin smoothing,wrinkle removing" product advert in a magazine or on television showed a ladies face, very smooth because of post processing (false advertising?) and below the image the copyright owner had to list all editing done, or at least own up to the fact that the models skin isn't as smooth as the image portrays. how would the photographers on here feel about that?
 
Honesty can only be good IMO. On TV now, those mascara ads showing 2" eyelashes now admit that the lashes are falsies, NOT just the result of the advertised product.
 
dunk said:
not quite what i meant, say for example a "skin smoothing,wrinkle removing" product advert in a magazine or on television showed a ladies face, very smooth because of post processing (false advertising?) and below the image the copyright owner had to list all editing done, or at least own up to the fact that the models skin isn't as smooth as the image portrays. how would the photographers on here feel about that?
Click to expand...

For adverising products that appear to promote anti-ageing properties, listing P&P enhancement to the accompanying imagery should be mandatory IMO...
 
The photo of Tony Blair on the front of one of the broadsheets today look really over processed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top