Digital manipulation of models in advertisements is nothing new in the world. While the practice is contrary to our editorial work (we don’t digitally manipulate or stage any photograph for any reason other than a clearly stated photo illustration), the practice of manipulation for commercial use is widely (ed note: unfortunately) accepted. Here’s the interesting part, according to the NYT,

“Concerned that girls and women feel excessive pressure to live up to the digitally botoxed and liposuctioned images of human perfection they see in glossy magazines, lawmakers in Britain and France are trying to get marketers to acknowledge the tweaking done to the photos. Under their proposals, ads containing altered photos of models would be required to carry disclaimers.”

That’s a very interesting concept, given that there currently are warning labels on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, heavy machinery, etc, to warn people of the health dangers. Now these European lawmakers are seeing Adobe Photoshop as a “menace.” Some go so far as to consider “rating” photographs that are altered on a 1 to 4 scale, “depending on the degree of retouching. A “1” might involve only altered lighting, for example, while a “4” might warn of cosmetic changes via Photoshop, she said. And the label would have to include an explanation of the changes. “If people knew they had to describe what they had altered, it might make them less likely to do it,” Ms. Swinson said.”

The problem I see is that retouching usually is a case-by-case issue. Some advertisement photos are very retouched, others aren’t. We here in the photo department apply color correction and standard darkroom practices to our photos in preparation for reproduction online and in-print. Those actions are acceptable of course, but most of us photographers on the editorial front line would see the practice of “enlarging bosoms” or applying “younger skin” to models as extraordinarily unethical (in the context of editorial photography). A commercial or fashion photographer may completely disagree with me, and that’s fine. They do their thing, I do mine.

While it’s my personal opinion that this legislation is better left hanging on a coat rack than being pushed into law, there is the ongoing correlation between some women or girls and their perception of themselves in a digitally retouched world. I guess I see it different — maybe I’m just unplugged from the matrix from being a photographer — but people don’t need to be digitally retouched to push a product. We all have an inherent beauty that makes us unique, and that perception my dear friend, is perfectly fine for me.