BBC Last night - Alesha: Look but Don't Touch (Image retouching)

Did anyone, mainly in the UK but it was probably available off the BBC website, see that program "Alesha: Look but Don't Touch" last night?

Basically it was about the glamour industry and the way they retouch every image they use, in most cases way beyond what the model originally looked like. it was quite interesting to see what the industry, specifically the companys used to retouch the pics, thought.

when the BBC website has the "watch again" up i'll post a link to it..

but in your opinion what is acceptable and what is too far in regard to retouching images?

discuss..

for me it's very simple.... People are in charge of their own psychosis.

Customers DO NOT want average people advertising their fashion to them. Fashion is a fantasy, a departure. Average people are not a fantasy. Put simply, there are more average people than there are on either extreme (basic statistics), and if they truly wanted something, those doing the selling would be giving it to them.

What you have is a bunch of wowsers, who have never actually seen clothing advertised to them by average people - pushing for that to be the industry standard. What they fail to realise is that EVEN THEY would be less inclined to buy clothes if advertised to in that way.

....

So, with that in mind, as far as I'm concerned when it comes to advertising, there are no limits to retouching. Retouching images just saves advertisers the cost and effort of hiring the only 12 people who actually look like that.

If advertising were truth, we'd all be cleaning our bathrooms in 15 seconds, by waving a magic wand and waiting for the sparkle. Doing dishes would never require scrubbing, and applying cream to a grazed knee would immediately stop the pain. Taking a pill would turn you from a sick wreck into an olympic gymnast, and opening a coke would ALWAYS result in a beach party.

If people want truth in advertising they should start THERE... but they don't really want that, do they? If they did, they'd never buy into the bullsh!t with both arms.

Do people not want truth in advertising, or to the people who create the advertising simply believe that they don't want truth in advertising?

I think the problem goes both ways, consumers are happy to be lied to, and advertisers are happy to be lairs.

interesting, because they did a street survey and all of the ones they showed (obviously i cant claim there was no editing involved there) claimed theyd rather see "normal" untouched images on covers etc.

they did an interview with a couple of blokes mags and got a mixed response, NUTS said theyd touch up an image but never alter the shape of a model as theyd "never sell a magazine" where as maxim said they would never concider leaving an image untouched..

they also talked about the "dove" (a body lotion company that uses "real" people for models) campaign for real beauty and apparently they get thousands of letters/emails from women applauding them..

sure taking out the odd spot or blemish seems okay but personally obviously touched up images dont do it for me.

neil_g wrote in post #6458518
interesting, because they did a street survey and all of the ones they showed (obviously i cant claim there was no editing involved there) claimed theyd rather see "normal" untouched images on covers etc.

most people are largely unaware of the reasons for their actions. Advertisers rely on this basic tenet.

"why'd ya do that?" often has no readily forthcoming answer, until people stop and think a bit about themselves.

Of course people's first response will be "no I don't want to be lied to" because being lied to seems like a bad thing to want.... but the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.

As mentioned before, it's certainly an easy pill for advertisers to swallow, but I really do believe that consumers are getting exactly what they want. I mean, if they didn't want it, why would they accept... no... ravenously consume it?

Marketing is about presenting your product in the most appealing way to consumers. If consumers really wanted truth, then the most appealing way to present something would be an honest unbiased evaluation.

Clearly SOMEONE is wrong... and my money is on the consumer having no idea about what really motivates them to buy... and even if they do know, I bet they're embarrassed to admit that about themselves.

I'm not ashamed. Reality isn't nearly interesting enough. Lie to me, and I'll believe it because I want to.

you have some good points..

its just a little concerning that this so called perfect image is leading to very young girls trying to change themselves, when the images theyre seeing are largely fake. imo of course.

Whether they're fake or not doesn't make much difference. There are always going to be better looking people out there, so people (particularly girls) will always wish they were one of them.

In fact, the more fake they are, the more obvious it is to everyone that they're fake... so clearly they're not doing anything unrealistic -- unlike porn, where girls with small waists go around sporting massive breasts. Clearly advertising works within the bounds of plausibility, therefore the question of whether they're fake or not has no real meaning.

If they could be real people, then just assume they are, because if they could be, then the only reason they're fake is because it's cheaper than finding one that isn't. If you stop them using software to enhance people, they're just gonna have to do what they did before the software, and go out and be more selective -- which in turn will put more pressure on real models.

...

Getting back to the point... if these people can be passed off as real, and they do indeed give you a boner, or they're being recognised as attractive, what's the issue? If they give you an image, and your biology says "me rikey a rot!!", whose fault is that?

Did those mean ad agencies re-wire your genetics? Does anyone even remotely believe that what's attractive to people can be prescribed? I know that's the party line, but guys, really... procreation doesn't work that way. You can tell me that cellulite is normal all you like, but that will never make me prefer it.

The quality of being attractive comes in many forms, and for many reasons. Most of those involve conversation or discovery... but an image won't go for coffee with you. An image must be purely physically attractive. No points from column B, just points from column A, nothing else!

This doesn't make Betty in accounting any less attractive. In fact because she's able to pull a little from column A, B *and* C, she might even be more attractive, which is the reason you have a crush on her, rather than just wanting to bend her over like that chick in maxim.

Again... that doesn't change the rules of attraction, it just means that advertisers need to maximise what they can achieve with only column A at their disposal.

They didn't force that into your biology, they're just concentrating the effect with the 'liquify' tool. You've been wired to react that way by your genetics. They give you what you want, even if in retrospect you really wish you weren't ruled by your biology.

Attraction -- though complex -- is hard-wired... if it were really so subjective and open to interpretation, then there's no way you could sell 50 million copies of anything, by putting jessica alba on the cover.

We're all more similar than we are different, despite what we want to believe... and we're all slaves to our genetics, despite wishing we could intellectualise it away.

milorad wrote in post #6459024
Did those mean ad agencies re-wire your genetics? Does anyone even remotely believe that what's attractive to people can be prescribed?

I'm going to quote myself, so I can argue to the next obvious response.

"go back 50 years, women in advertising weren't nearly as perfect!"

of course they were... and not only that, but they were dumbed-down intellectual shadows. They were submissive servants... but OK, lets just talk about how they looked physically.

They looked *as good as they possibly could*.

Obviously due to technology, the cost of achieving *as good as possible* has decreased, and the quality of *as good as possible* has increased.

But that doesn't change what's been going on in advertising since way back then, all it means is that like ipods and orange juice, advertising has become more efficient at doing what they've always been doing.

If you look at advertisements from the 50s, there's no way they'd be effective on you now... because in 50 years, it's not just advertising which has become more efficient, we've also become more sophisticated consumers.

We're getting wiser to their BS, so they have to appeal to human constants like laziness, appetite, and tingles in your pants. They get better at it, and we get better at spotting it. Doesn't that make it all a wash?

so going back to my original question.. in your opinion where is the line on retouching images for you?

hehe um yeah, sorry

well for me the line doesn't exist in advertising or art... but it does exist in documentary photos, or indeed commissioned work like portraits.

Documentary shots should be strictly out of bounds for creative lies. You know what I mean... Don't paste in any sniper fire behind Hillary Clinton, and we're all good.

I don't think people's personal photos should lie about what they look like. School photos, family portraits etc. A little softening of the truth is fine, but massive edits are out of the question. If it's supposed to be you, then it should be YOU.

As for the rest of it... images are made for a purpose, and the models that pose in them are creative tools, just like the lights, and photoshop. There's absolutely no reason to represent them accurately. That's not the purpose of those images.

I don't see that there's an ethical line in the sand at all, when it comes to editing pictures of models. Those photos aren't about the model, and aren't intended to represent the model.

Yes I saw it. and it seems most people do not know the processes taken to get the final image. But it just goes to show that there is no flawless person because there is still a great deal of retouching done on all photos.

Unfortunately because of competition, it has become normal for all photos to be photoshopped and it would be taking a step back to use the original. As in the program she found it very difficult to get her un-retouched cover.

The issues are not just for women in my opinion. Men are seeing photos and looking at these women and branding them their perfect partner. However they are equally unaware of retouching done.

In my opinion, as the cameras dynamic range often brings out different tones + marks in the skin that normal sunlight wouldn't, skin retouching is ok, but not body shaping.

I do what I want. Love it or hate it, it's my interpretation of what I saw in my mind.
How would you like this one without the sunset?
Mustang & B-17 + PS

the program is available to watch online now..

http://www.bbc.co.uk …esha_Look_but_D​ont_Touch/

it will be available until 11:34pm Tuesday 14th October

Only for UK based viewers it seems

Heh! As soon as a woman puts on the first dab of makeup, she's advertising herself to the world with a touched-up image!

As others have said, photo retouching has been going on throughout the history of advertising, fashion and glamour. We are not being shown "real people", we are being shown "images" that are designed to either promote a product/fashion line in a "beautiful" way or are designed to stir up, well, pleasant reactions. Either way, it doesn't serve the purpose of the image if flaws stick out. Whatever makeup won't fix, Photoshop will.

There is no line in those industries -- why should there be? For personal portraiture, well, I'd say its between the photog and the client: Is this a "glamor shot" where Photoshop would be desired to enhance a "look" right along the makeup applied, or is it a "natural look" portrait, where flaws and blemishes may be allowed but possibly softened? It's between you and your client, unless you are submitting your work to judges that look down on such touchups.