Do we need to label photo retouched portraits?

Every year the discussion about labeling retouched photos of women (mostly women) in media arises. It my eyes the whole discussion misses the point in the sense that it assumes that “common people” are too stupid to recognize that the photos on the covers are fake.

Especially for celebrities I cannot see the danger of highly retouched photos – why? Simply because while on one side the cover photos of magazine show highly stylized versions of persons who will be thrown under the bus by the yellow press showing shocking “paparazzi” photos where we can see them un-retouched.

Interestingly enough the audience for both photos is the same. So I don’t really see the danger.

On the other side I hear more often how someone is surprised to see that a celebrity actually looks like on TV when they see them on the street … doesn’t that tell you that we “know” what is real in what not?

#retouching #photo

Embedded Link

Researchers Create Way to Measure Photo Retouching
Faced with an increasing backlash against portrait retouching, researchers have crafted a program to quantify just how much the picture has been tweaked.

Google+: View post on Google+

2 Responses to “Do we need to label photo retouched portraits?”

  1. Allan Maurer says:

    I think for women in particular, it creates a culture in which these airbrushed models are passed off as some sort of ideal that doesn't exist in reality.

  2. There has always been this kind of ideals – look at the billboards from 10 – 20 – 30 – 40 – 50 and more years ago. With fashion they change, but the real problem is that women need to be educated to feel confident in themselves … and that's not the job of advertising, which only reflects what is already out there.