No more airbrushing for magazines in London?

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..

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

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

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?

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!

: )

onechance i agree completely couldnt have said it better.

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

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.

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

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 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!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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

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

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.

As a professional airbrush and photoshop enhancer I believe that they should outlaw cosmetic surgery first.

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

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

I like swiyyah's idea.

"I like swiyyah's idea."

Me too.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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".

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

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.

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.

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?