No more airbrushing for magazines in London?

This is great, because lots of young girls look at models and don't realize that they aren't completely real.

once again, the masses completely miss the point.

photographs have been heavily manipulated as soon as they began to be mass distributed. as a youth i spent a great deal of time & money learning the finer points of photographic manipulation. and it never concerned me that the image was modified. first of all, printing for reproduction results in a crappy photograph that reproduces better. museum quality photographs will reproduce very poorly. now, i can print the same photo either way, which one is the "real" photograph? what if i retouch a bird out of the sky because it looks like a spot on the print? and as others have already mentioned, what if you make the model wear "falsies" during the shoot? wouldn't you also have to make that illegal?

but as i started out, the masses always seem to miss the point. the problem is nowhere near the "issue" of whether seeing only fabulous examples of human bodies ruins our self-esteem. research has shown over & over in all sorts of situations, people vastly prefer to view "attractive" people over just ordinary people. society sets the current standards according to what the people prefer to see. since the only reason the mass media creates anything is to get individuals to view the work, only an idiot would think commercial producers would start showing less attractive images.

besides, mass media images are not the problem.

ASSESSING SELF-ESTEEM FROM YOUR APPEARANCE IS THE PROBLEM. and if you really want that to change, YOU need to stop complementing people on their appearance. let's say that again, STOP telling anyone, in any way that their appearance is "good." this is exactly why the self-esteem problems really destroy women. research has shown that family, friends and even strangers are several times more likely to compliment a girl on how she looks and a boy on how he acts. come on people, you all cannot be so stupid as to think the problem of individuals with low self-esteem is because the mass media shows unattainable beauty.

our society is in far more danger from cooking reality shows. putting an abusive asshole on tv and encouraging him act in a fashion that creates a "hostile workplace" is, in fact, advertising a criminal situation. the angry outbursts of many of these "chefs" is defined by law as misdemeanor assault. that activity is criminal behavior. and you're concerned that showing pretty people has a negative effect. but apparently have no problem with mass media rewarding lying, backstabbing, manipulation and more with a million dollars to the one who treats individuals with the greatest disregard. so this, apparently, doesn't concern you. but i apologize for ranting.

once again, the problem is not too much beauty. the problem is that we consistently reward people the most for their appearance. we should we start heaping rewards on people for achievement (especially the small struggles), for honesty, for accepting responsibility, for compassionate acts, for respecting another's opinion, you know, reward children every time they do the right thing. do that and a few compliments on appearance will help self-esteem.

we are responsible for the content of our thoughts. it might have been easier to feel good about ourselves had we been rewarded for more than our appearance. but you are not being warped by all those images. you are just empty inside and have no other way to judge yourself. to "cure your illness" all you have to do is start putting worthwhile things inside of you. STOP THINKING YOUR HAPPINESS & VALUE IS CONNECTED TO HOW GOOD YOU LOOK!! no one else is responsible for how you feel inside. when there is naught but your appearance for you to take pride in, your life must absolutely suck. unhappiness, sadness and self-loathing can only live on an empty soul. put value inside yourself & your real beauty will have a chance.

Yes! This is a super cool idea annnnd goooo swiyyah. Good idea.

good its time for some equality here men can't front when they got a little wang, and its time for women in entertainment fronting like they got porn star tits.

your an actress if you need tits to sell it, then your in the wrong job. your supposed to get lauded on your acting skills.

but don't get me wrong i'd prefer more scarlet johannsen clones than meg ryan's in her prime or whatever chick that is above.

also its making girls have more and more plastic surgery. its getting to the point where normal chicks think they need botox and implants and its not always true. you have to have some sort of substance somewhere, and you can't get that on a table with a doc implanting something in your chest.

horrible

This is such an awesome idea. Can we note that difference between boob size in that Keira picture? I mean, really? That's so messed up. Media is doing a huge disservice to women and men alike by airbrushing these photos; we're all human beings--get over it!

Man, that Kiera has no boobs! I feel much better now.

Can't ban manipulation - but maybe some kind of self-certification could be introduced.

Maybe this could involve a logo showing when an image HASN'T been drastically altered?? That way we start from the point of view that all photos in the media have been manipulated - which I think is healthier.

Kudos would go to magazines and publishers who haven't altered their photographs - and the public would be educated without the need for a specific campaign.

What's and what's not ?!!

Welcome to the Matrix !!

Has anyone read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.? That is the first thing that came to mind when reading about this.
Self esteem is more than seeing airbrushed men and women in magazines or in movies. I feel very comfortable with myself and my imperfections (and yes, I embrace these imperfections), and that isn't going to change because of something I see in a magazine. And a lot of you bring up good points, it's artistic, and where exactly do you draw the line? Just my opinion...

there are definitely grey areas in the argument. for example, the picture on the left has also been photoshopped.

So is smoothening her skin or changing the hue just as damaging?

Right idea, wrong methods

Okay, wait a minute...
Photoshopping stars is wrong now because some people have low self esteem? Even at that, people trying to fix a culture's image of beauty is not going to work through banning airbrushing. Heck, I airbrush all the time, it doesn't mean I have a low self esteem, it means I have the skillz.
What's sad is that people can't help themselves even with image issues, so they run to their government to tell them they are beautiful and to tell someone else their job is no longer theirs because of the first people's self esteem issues/ poor parenting. Looks like America's nanny phase is spreading.

look at how much bigger her boobs were made...

exactly...wes' I was wondering too why people are so "convinced" something needs to be done about this. If the argument presupposed some responsibility for MARKETERS as unethically, inappropriately targeting youth we might have something but...

I think until women in general stop making the cosmetics industry, and the like (like perhaps the shoe industry???), so dam rich trying to look good, it's more or less a moot issue...

That is so ridiculous! Is no one else seeing that this is actually a restriction of free speech!? Photoshopping an image is just another form of art, so legislation against it would be restricting the free speech of the artist. When will it stop if we let this one go?

How about not trying to over-legislate our lives and investing in our children's futures? Creating a law like this is just going to cost insane amounts of money and accomplish exactly Zero. How about we take that money that we'd be paying Congress to blow hot air about and invest that in a series of classes aimed at youth on the perils of modeling one's self image after unattainable goals? Complete with a "photoshop" ( quotes because there are A LOT more progs out there that do the same thing) course, a health course on eating right, and an ethics course on promoting healthy imagery both on ourselves and others. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the programs would cost less than a week salary for each member of Congress to do nothing but circle jerk around till the close of the session. That's got my vote.

I don't necessarily agree with this. While having perfect models in magazines does encourage bad practice on young girls, the technology we have is used to make better photos.

If I take a picture of myself, then edit it and airbrush it in Photoshop, the photo is going to look a lot better, no question. This is a photographer's practice and shouldn't be removed.

"How about allocating a small percentage of the proceeds from every picture photoshopped (to make someone look 19lbs with 34 C's) go to image counseling classes FREE to all women who want them (and some guys?). "

As in Eastern medicine. We should treat the problems, not the symptoms.

Interesting....

This is actually quite simple:

1. Love Yourself for what you are!
- Keeping in mind that, while you, just like me, are temporarily in this World, there are always a chance to improve yourself with good food and exercise. Accept everything as a motivation to your personal growth.

2. Love Others!
- We are here in this world; in case you haven't figure it out yet; to learn how to love, help and live in peace with others despite of our differences.

3. Do not compare yourself with anyone!
- You are an unique creation of GOD. If you have not learned how to separate your illusions from reality yet, something is wrong with you not with others.

4. Your real beauty comes from inside.
- Most, not all of Your physical beauty comes from your SPIRIT. Then it is suitable to just wake up in the morning and Thank your G-O-D for everything you have and be happy to be alive and being able to see, hear, taste, walk and write.

5. The last one. Do some form of charitable work helping the sick, the poor and underprivileged ones.

Giving it is an Art of Love that will change this cruel world for the better.

Love the models! They are here to give you visual beauty and pleasure, and if you cannot catch that in real life at least you can do it using and exercising your imagination.

dam, she's more flat-chested than I thought...

generally covers are a creative endeavor...censorship is a crap idea. It really shouldn't be about what you draw from a magazine cover that tells you who or how much value you have as a person sexually or otherwise...even if it's negative. Images convey so many different things to so many very different people, it's entirely too subjective to police...

and who wants to forgo any obviously apparent aesthetic value for a healthy over-powering dose of reality? =P I mean, isn't that why we buy magazines and go to see movies, at least on some level??? =D to ESCAPE to what could or should be??? =D

I think this would be a huge step in the right derection.

OR i also would liek to see a small notice that has to be put on the bottom of any page that photoshopping or airbrushing is used, that would work well.

While i think it's sad that peoeple can;t relile they are beutiful the way they are

the fact is that the don;t and see these images as role models, not just regular models . . .

I've got it!!!

How about allocating a small percentage of the proceeds from every picture photoshopped (to make someone look 19lbs with 34 C's) go to image counseling classes FREE to all women who want them (and some guys?).

I think it's obvious that ANY form of advertising implies some level of 'embellishing' through lighting, retouching, composition, etc. This is something the public must learn and understand.

I agree that it could be argued that this has negative effects on the self-esteem of some people, but should we go as far as to legislate it?

Is our image-obsessed media a reflection of our culture or is media shaping our society? Is legislating this practice really the best approach?

I think the question here is not whether this has any influence or not on the viewers, but whether is the government's role to control this practice.

airbrushing is not freedom of speech. In fact, usually it's the magazine that decides to airbrush and the celebrity or models have no idea that they will be airbrushed. It's happened to many stars who have come forward and said they were unhappy with it. It just says inadequate. I think that it is a good idea, especially with the increase in eating disorders among women and teens.

While we are at it....Let's ban all special effects in movies, ban art, music, and imagination too! We have come so far people, what's wrong with a little creativity or a variation off a theme?

Although I understand the intentions and idea behind such ban, I think it sets a very dangerous precedent for the freedom of the press. We must not legislate taste or creativity. It's a dangerous and naive idea.
How could you possible enforce such a ban? I think legislators should use their time and energy into more pressing issues than the retouching photographs in magazines.

We should educate teenagers about self-esteem, body image and the nature of advertising. Not try to legislate what they see. Body-image issues stem from more complex sources than just images in magazines.

Just click your heel's three times, and all of this icky photo shop stuff will go away forever. Oh, and chunky girls will start to rule the covers.

Now, don't you feel better?

Using Photoshop or another image manipulation program to alter an image is nothing more that creating art (although photography is art in itself).

The retouched image above IS NOT A photograph. It's a piece of art. Restriction of art is censorship.

Sure... enhancing a women's body is probably not the best thing for young women to be viewing, but maybe the issue isn't the manipulation of the photo as it is the education of the fact that the manipulated photo is actually art.

I'm against the banning.

Heck, companies retouch every single image the produce for consumer consumption. Even a stupid paperclip photo will get retouched.

That is a very very interesting social concept. One of two things can happen;

1. We have a natural tendency to define beauty and that objectivity will lead us to find the really FLAWLESS people out there. If they look that good natural, how does that make the rest of us feel?

2. Body self image might actually reflect who we are inside instead of a projection of who we want to be outside.

what a stupid idea/story

it'd be impossible to put a magazine together without retouching. sometimes the images you'll see on a cover will be a "comp" of 4 or 5 images from the same shoot. often it's a case of sorting out problems with lighting as well.

trust me, you wouldn't want to be looking at non-retouched images in a magazine.

what next? all movies should be filmed using a home camcorder, because it's more "real"?

I think some of you are taking this too far off. Now yo guys are taking the jobs of artists and professional retouching animators.
- Wouldn't be that simple just to teach others, (kids and adults), the difference between "fantasy x reality."?

I am for developing jobs and creating an economy specially for artists, not by any means, burning them and their jobs on a stick!

This is about lack of self-esteem and an inability to recognize your own reality versus other people reality. Why don't you Love yourself instead comparing yourself with a model?

Hey Yo! "Gime" a break?

Lets not be foolish. Its not about the look of the photograph or what's in the frame. Its about what the people stand for that are being photographed.

wow! banning freedom of speech to prevent people from feeling inadequate. what kinds of genius things will we think of next?

glad i live in a country that still values freedom on at least some residual level.

I am afraid that will NOT happen here in self-centered-media-frenzy-America (that part of it at least).... Why would it end?

ultimately, i am for the truth...which puts one in an interesting position....censorship usually works to stifle the Truth...yet, in this case it could work to help reveal it...i guess i would have to ask someone in the advertising business:
"how/why do you consider this an issue of free speech?"

do we allow corporations to falsely advertise goods and or services without fear of possible legal back-lash?

if photoshopping is being done as a work of art, which i have seen a lot of fantastic pieces done for that reason, then i would consider that free-speech. but if a company is utilizing someone to "sell product" and alters the existing photo because they expect to profit more as a result.....well....that starts to feel a little morally reprehensible and strikes me as pushing the envelope on the question of "free speech".

The thing is, is that she looks more attractive in the first picture to me....Everybody knows Keira ain't got no tig ol' bitties!

I agree with this in that it is true you are who you are. The airbrush paints a fake image of you and I feel we can do better about promoting high self esteem.

Putting a tag or something on there could work.

But straight out banning the use of photoshopping most likely will not work, or stop anything. And it will just go to hurt artists who would be photoshopping for certain effects. Although, I do agree that in a good number of cases the amount the industry photoshops can get out of hand.

This is a great concept. A lot of womens magazines talk about improving body image, yet they perfect the pictures within the magazine. What kind of a message is that? I hope this law gets pushed through.

"I like swiyyah's idea."

Me too.

I like swiyyah's idea.

Isn't airbrushing considered art in some cases? Not fair to ban it.

i hope this will help stop people trying to hold themselves (and each other) to standards attainable only by image manipulation and alteration.

as flat as she is, they'd have to photoshop some boobs on her. but they could have tweezed her eyebrows a little better!!!....maybe thats a dude!!!!

I think that if something is photoshopped/ airbrushed there should just be a tag, "altered by technology", "edited by ____ ." That way we would know and not be ashamed of our bodies and looks, and photoshoppers and airbrushers could still keep their jobs.

yay! It's an idea whose time has come! It lets the rest of us know that beautiful people are not perfect either. :)

sloan has a good point and a lot better solution than a ban which would work as well as the RIAA trying to stop MP3 sharing.

Teaching people to recognize photo manipulation and the illusory nature of images is a lot more positive than trying to dam the flood with stopgap measures

I think they should enforce it via a rotating panel of 5 randomly-chosen internet message board frequenters. If 3 or more spontaneously blurt out "Dude, that's photoshopped!" when presented with an image, the image is rejected...

The idea of a ban is ludicrous. Silly. Crazy. Unenforceable. Plus, where is the line drawn? Can you photoshop for artistic effect? Could an artist be fined for using the wrong filter?

If this is a issue worthy of government involvement (and I'm not sure it is), then there must be other, more rational, ways to combat this industrial phenomenon. Fund education and support groups to help combat body issues and low self esteem. Offer tax breaks or other perks to publications and/or photographers who vow to reduce their use of photo retouching.

My point is, there's more than one way to skin a cat, pardon the expression. In general, I suggest we support paths that keep our rights intact.

Sure, this will put me out of a job to an extent (I want to work in advertising), but I am glad that some people in the media industry are wising up. Perhaps I'll switch my major to journalism instead...

While it could have many positive effects, I think this would be in voilation of free speech in general. Also, what would this do to the art industry, if the reglation was taken too far? I think these issues must first be resolved before any government rushes into passing laws which could affect us in ways unforseen.

I wonder if we're not going in the wrong direction here. Instead of banning Photoshop manipulation in magazines, shouldn't we be teaching *everybody* how to use Photoshop, so they can a) identify photo-manipulation when they see it, and better yet, b) manipulate their own photos as well?

It's a classic genie/bottle thing. I say let's go forward, not back. I'm all for the democratization of manipulation.

I'm a big photoshop user for my Graphic Arts class, but finally, someone else realizes it's not right to fix flaws. Flaws are beautiful.

Yes! Tucker lets me be outrageous, because he's such a douche.

Why that's Tucker Carlson. Former co-host of Crossfire and bow-tie aficionado!

I never wrote that to advocate censorship, I wrote it to highlight how ridiculous it has gotten.

The magazines can do whatever they want, I was just commenting on how it makes women feel.

I would NOT advocate a BAN, but yes, I would be a huge fan of notice of the fact that it's totally fake.

Plus, I think natural beauty is much more beautiful anyway, but that's just my opinion....
Please don't hate anyone dude, it only hurts YOU.

Oh, and what's up with the bowtie? Just asking.

I am for it! How many people, esp. women, see those magazines and try to copy them. It is dangerous, esp. since those stars are airbushed!!! FAKE! Keira is very pretty, but lets face it, she looks way better airbrushed!!! Wouldn't we all in a way!

Does anyone care about censorship? Press freedom? Free Speech? (Only Benjamin?) This is why I am a liberal who hates liberals: they always want to fucking ban everything! Idiotic. Censorship does not solve anything. Ever. Period.

And, by the way, it isn't only women who get these messages, though they get them more often. There are plenty of impossibly hot, airbrushed men in the media making us feel bad, too. But I would never advocate censorship as a solution.

I had the same problem with my wife not being able to take compliments and she was very good at using Photoshop so that didn't make any difference. If someone is not going to believe a compliment then why would she believe what she sees in a magazine? Isn't that the same thing that Shakespeare wrote? "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves if we are underlings." There are a lot more issues involved in self esteem than whether images are fake or not

Freedom of the press anyone? Maybe we could just institute some sort of symbol that editors could use if they decided to not airbrush or embellish. Kind of like organic or fair trade.

Dont try too hard to make people who are unpretty, pretty!

onechance i agree completely couldnt have said it better.

Awesome!!!!

I'm all for it.
Magazines and this gross industry make women feel terrible when really they are so beautiful.

My own girlfriend has body issues, and can't even take a compliment from me without saying "no no" or "yeah right" or whatever...
Sucks.

No more fake crap!

: )

You could say that about poses, make-up, lighting and camera angles also. It's all very well just to tell an anorexic to eat but that's not going to solve the problem is it? Isn't it a whole lot better to get them to recognize that images shouldn't be taken role models?

keira was a bad choice for a visual aid, though. she might be flat chested but she's still gorgeous

we already know they are not that perfect or even that pretty, so why bother

I think its a great idea to ban photoshopping in mags... in theory ....... I am totally in agreement that these airbrushed models and super skinny bikini clad women with abnormally clear skin and flawless bodies is a bit depressing for the average female BUT I am not totally convinced that seeing overweight and blemished models would make me feel that great either...... It may just be me, but I think there is something slightly aspirational about seeing these images of perfection... They are not ALWAYS bad - in the sense that they can push a normal person to strive to be better.. fitter etc That is of course in the hope that this acceptance doesn't lead to or provoke an eating disorder or any other related illness - but i guess this is dependent on the individual..