Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'  (Read 8703 times)
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2011, 11:00:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The products weren't make-up as such, but so-called 'rejuvenating' lotions & potions, claimed to make skin younger looking & so on.
Sure, all true.  But it's a makeup company who sells makeup designed to cover blemishes, hide wrinkles, etc.  Is it unreasonable for them to combine the effects of their products when advertising just one?  And if so, how strange would it be to see a lady without any makeup at all, but with just lipstick, or mascara, or eyeliner.. They never do that.  If you see an eyeliner commercial then you also see eye shadow, foundation, lipstick, and all their other products together to create the desired image.. as women normally use them.  A woman wouldn't only use a lotion.  A woman has an arsenal of products to choose from and they almost always use several to many of them together.  IMO way too many of them way too often, but I digress.  

I just don't see what L'Oreal did as unusual or dishonest.  Everyone wants to be the idealist and blame the greed of the corporations.  But what about the greed of the vain consumer who is so concerned with knocking off 20 years of age, that they don't stop to think that the picture they're seeing isn't all about lotions.. but rather a total product line?  Consumers, imo, have more responsibility to exercise their vote through their purchasing power.  They don't need some clueless agency messing without our art to protect them.  It's politics.

And let's take it a step in an adjacent direction.  When shooting advertising photos/videos.. do we want an agency looking over our work and dictating what visual components we can use?  Is it reality when a Nissan Maxima is driving through the muddy ruts and driving rain.. yet the car remains spotless?  Does food carefully prepared for a product food shoot always have the same care when dropped in front of you at the restaurant?  Does Allstate really have a giant pair of hands holding you during emergencies?  Advertising photography almost always puts forth the best case scenario and often impossible scenarios.  BMW's advertisement for the M1 on top of a 100 story officer towers heliport 'drifting' from edge to edge with machine like precision.. can the car really do that?  Can a driver really drive that well?  Or was it a spliced together chromakey production like most every movie we watch on the big screen?

We shouldn't let our idealism strip us of our rights by allowing such powerful oversight in our work.  Idealism is great.  But it's not reality either.  Maybe less so than a wrinkle-free Julia Roberts.  Don't ban the advertisement.  But instead make them put some captions or notice on the add saying they were combined effects or something to that effect.. and if we did that, then get used to seeing that notice to the point we just totally ignore it.. because it will be on every commercial we watch and we'll be so used to seeing it, we won't see it anymore.  And make the damn consumers step up and take responsibility for having a brain.  They don't protecting.  They need to get over their vanity and consumer greed.

Okay.. stepping down now..   Lips sealed

Btw -  The advertised product, Teint Miracle, is a foundation.  At least according to the ASA..
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 11:09:52 PM by Steve Weldon » Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 858


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2011, 01:16:04 AM »
ReplyReply

For a lighter look at beauty industry try the Gruen Transfer video. The panel looks at the marketing of tubs of anti-ageing, anti-wrinkle, oxygen-filled white goo, two agencies pitch for Buy Nothing Day and Ad of the Week.

Contains advertising and nudity, 27 minutes long, Australian content, I don't know if it can be accessed OS.

Cheers,



Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3691



« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2011, 01:54:13 AM »
ReplyReply

For a lighter look at beauty industry try the Gruen Transfer video. The panel looks at the marketing of tubs of anti-ageing, anti-wrinkle, oxygen-filled white goo, two agencies pitch for Buy Nothing Day and Ad of the Week.

Contains advertising and nudity, 27 minutes long, Australian content, I don't know if it can be accessed OS.
It can't. Not from England, anyway.

Jeremy
Logged
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 858


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2011, 02:16:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry you can't get it. Some from You Tube; Gruen Transfer on Skin CareDove and Cosmetic Surgery for Children.

Cheers,

Logged

Eric Kellerman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2011, 03:02:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Let's not forget that naughty French painter Ingres with the extra vertebrae on his Grande Odalisque of 1814 ...
Logged
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2011, 04:47:37 AM »
ReplyReply

...I just don't see what L'Oreal did as unusual or dishonest.  Everyone wants to be the idealist and blame the greed of the corporations.  But what about the greed of the vain consumer who is so concerned with knocking off 20 years of age, that they don't stop to think that the picture they're seeing isn't all about lotions.. but rather a total product line?  Consumers, imo, have more responsibility to exercise their vote through their purchasing power.  They don't need some clueless agency messing without our art to protect them.  It's politics.

And let's take it a step in an adjacent direction.  When shooting advertising photos/videos.. do we want an agency looking over our work and dictating what visual components we can use?  Is it reality when a Nissan Maxima is driving through the muddy ruts and driving rain.. yet the car remains spotless?  Does food carefully prepared for a product food shoot always have the same care when dropped in front of you at the restaurant?  Does Allstate really have a giant pair of hands holding you during emergencies?  Advertising photography almost always puts forth the best case scenario and often impossible scenarios.  BMW's advertisement for the M1 on top of a 100 story officer towers heliport 'drifting' from edge to edge with machine like precision.. can the car really do that?  Can a driver really drive that well?  Or was it a spliced together chromakey production like most every movie we watch on the big screen?

We shouldn't let our idealism strip us of our rights by allowing such powerful oversight in our work.  Idealism is great.  But it's not reality either.  Maybe less so than a wrinkle-free Julia Roberts.  Don't ban the advertisement.  But instead make them put some captions or notice on the add saying they were combined effects or something to that effect.. and if we did that, then get used to seeing that notice to the point we just totally ignore it.. because it will be on every commercial we watch and we'll be so used to seeing it, we won't see it anymore.  And make the damn consumers step up and take responsibility for having a brain.  They don't protecting.  They need to get over their vanity and consumer greed.

This.

Well said.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5033



WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2011, 11:57:47 AM »
ReplyReply

... Is it unreasonable for them to combine the effects of their products when advertising just one?... the picture they're seeing isn't all about lotions.. but rather a total product line?...

Steve, it seems to me that you are saying that the government agency was against using other make-up tools to advertise just one particular (a lotion)? If so, I think you are missing the point. The agency, and those who side with it, are against using Photoshop to alter reality WAY beyond what a make-up alone could do. We, photoshopographers™, of all people, know perfectly well how you can make someone 10, 20, even 50 years younger using just Photoshop and no make-up.

As for who is greedier, the vain consumer or the corporation feeding off it, seems to me this would be yet another of those chicken-or-egg riddles. In all fairness, human vanity predates by far the birth of corporations, although snake-oil salesmen existed probably the moment our predecessors discovered their image reflecting in water. The issue today is, however, are those corporations just satisfying existing needs, or are they actively creating and peddling new ones? Ever thiner, younger, more perfect? And, as in the case of tobacco and junk-food advertising, aren't they praying on the most vulnerable, impressionable and gullible among consumers, the kids and teens? Yes, it is parents' role to educate, but it is a tall order and an uphill battle against the billions those corporations spend.

Granted, it is a complex issue, with a lot of logical inconsistencies.  Why are we against altered reality in make-up advertising, and do not complain when colored sugar water with gas bubbles or gum that bubbles are advertised?

And it gets even more complex when we start considering the role of government in shaping our lives. Should we be forced to buckle up when no one else but us would be hurt if we do not? If a government agency acts today with the best interests of the public in mind, and the most honorable of intentions, are we certain that will continue to be the case tomorrow, once they have unrestricted power to do so?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
schrodingerscat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2011, 12:17:19 PM »
ReplyReply

It's just marketing, which works mostly on the subliminal level anyway. As previously stated, what's the difference from makeup and retouching. This British thing sounds more like politicians posturing for soundbites(more marketing). And maybe trying to get the public's mind off the Murdoch mess. Hmmm...wonder how this is going to effect the Page 3 girls.

Marketing has mostly been snake oil, and has rarely been about so-called reality. Those doctors, lawyers, mechanics, housewives, students, etc, in commercials and print ads are all out of the SAG and talent agency catalogs. In the 70s Levis came up with the 'lifestyle' ad, which morphed into the first ad campaign that didn't even show the product for six months. In fact, the product wasn't even on the market yet. When the first Infinity commercial aired that actually showed a car, they sold them by the boatload. Most people had no idea why they were willing to pay $5k more for a rebadged Datsun/Nissan.

As far as the 'pictures reflecting reality', they're no worse than a lot of HDR images used in editorial publication.

Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2011, 12:34:32 PM »
ReplyReply

The agency, and those who side with it, are against using Photoshop to alter reality WAY beyond what a make-up alone could do. We, photoshopographers™, of all people, know perfectly well how you can make someone 10, 20, even 50 years younger using just Photoshop and no make-up.

 The issue today is, however, are those corporations just satisfying existing needs, or are they actively creating and peddling new ones? Ever thiner, younger, more perfect?

Granted, it is a complex issue, with a lot of logical inconsistencies.  Why are we against altered reality in make-up advertising, and do not complain when colored sugar water with gas bubbles or gum that bubbles are advertised?

And it gets even more complex when we start considering the role of government in shaping our lives. Should we be forced to buckle up when no one else but us would be hurt if we do not? If a government agency acts today with the best interests of the public in mind, and the most honorable of intentions, are we certain that will continue to be the case tomorrow, once they have unrestricted power to do so?

1.  It's a foundation according to the ASA.. foundations are expressly formulated to hide blems, wrinkles, etc.   The ASA is trying to say Photoshop altered beyond reality (what a foundation would do), but this just can't be proven.  Makeup can change someone into a Klingon.. so I'm sure it can get rid of a few wrinkles.  

Now, the question on whether or not we should be using Photoshop vs. makeup, or what mix of each, in our work.. do you want a governmental agency who is probably untrained in both making those decisions based only on what they perceive as untrained critics making those decisions for us who do know?  I sure don't.  I don't want anyone telling me how I should complete my art, much less untrained govt agencies.

2.  New needs.  This is the crux of all inventions is it not?  We didn't know we needed airplanes until someone built one.  We didn't know we needed indoor plumbing, boxes of cereal, Liptor, medical procedures..  Anyone reading a newspaper, or a website (another invention many said we didn't need) knows we're living longer, looking younger, living more efficiently, and any number of things because someone invented a product and 'sold' it to us.  Personally I'm all for better looking women who age as gracefully as they wish.

What we 'need' are decisions best left to the individual, not our government.


3.  Are we against altered reality with makeup?  I really don't think so.  Many are against this particular case, but I don't think they're stopping to consider all the other exact same cases we're confronted with every time we access the media.  If the ASA had said.. "look at these 20 examples, but we're prosecuting just this one.."  how would we feel then? Our news anchors are made up with wigs, toupees, heavy makeup not to mention every entertainer out there.. menu's in restaurants are product photography and not reality.. there are thousands of such examples we see and gloss over in our daily lives but we're not stopping to consider them because they're not headlines.

 
4.  Yes, very complex.  But government control over our lives is a fundamental question everyone should spend time considering.  And when we realize the "government" isn't really some big all knowing "Oz" behind the curtain, and instead mostly power hungry greedy men who are merely competing with those they're trying to restrict.. then it becomes even more convoluted.    I've always said the truth is revealed by motivation.  Ask yourself, what is the true motivation of the ASA in restricting these ads?  Of course we have no way of knowing, but it's food for thought.  But I'd bet money there's at least several revealing back stories involved.  Someone at Lacome pissed off someone in govt, someone in power was turned down by a girl that looked like Julia Roberts, someones wife spends too much money on makeup.. it's small stupid stuff like this that have been known to start wars..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 588



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2011, 04:42:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope the American government stays out of stuff like this.  I don't want my tax dollars spent because some wrinkled woman mistakenly thinks that applying some foundation on her ugly face is going to make her pretty.  Frankly, if it makes her feel good, we should all mind our business.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3691



« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2011, 04:56:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope the American government stays out of stuff like this.  I don't want my tax dollars spent because some wrinkled woman mistakenly thinks that applying some foundation on her ugly face is going to make her pretty.  Frankly, if it makes her feel good, we should all mind our business.
I can't help but wonder if you've read anything about the matter under discussion before plunging in. The issue arises precisely because it won't work and won't make her feel good. Whether our politicians shouldn't be finding something better to do with their time is another matter, but although one publicity-seeking MP (that's member of parliament and nothing to do with the police) chose to grab some airtime, this was mainly a concern of the body which exists specifically to monitor standards in advertising.

And it gets even more complex when we start considering the role of government in shaping our lives. Should we be forced to buckle up when no one else but us would be hurt if we do not?
Sadly, Slobodan, that's not the world in which we live. In the UK, and I suspect in the USA and most other countries, we all suffer if some idiot sustains avoidable serious injury in a car crash. The NHS, for which we all pay, treats him; the local authority, which receives money from local and national taxation, provides him with accommodation, nursing care, aids and equipment; the state pays him disability benefits out of money raised by taxation; he no longer contributes to the tax take but drains it; and his family, for whom he might have been a breadwinner, now receives money from the state as well.

In medieval times, only the immediate family was affected. Things have changed. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

Jeremy
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 588



WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2011, 05:30:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Once you go down a slippery slope of saying that because everyone suffers when someone is injured, you'll wind up restricting all freedoms you really don't want to give up.  I could make a case for shutting down the diamond slopes as being too dangerous when skiing.  Heck, I could make the case that we should shut down the ski slopes entirely.  Why should I pay for all those things you mentioned if someone gets hurt.  Shut down mountain climbing, scuba, car racing, you name it.  I don't think we want to go there or all freedoms will eventually be lost.
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 31, 2011, 05:44:12 PM »
ReplyReply

The issue arises precisely because it won't work and won't make her feel good.
Well, not really.   The issue arises because someone is 'claiming' it won't work, making her feel good isn't a factor.

How many makeup experts does the UK government employ, and are they the ones making this claim?  I know the American government employs quite a few, but they're not in a position to make such judgments.  The ones I know of worked with were often retired Hollywood (by this I mean they worked on movie sets anywhere) MUA's who were talked into working with the VA prosthetics labs to help patients who have lost ears, noses, entire fronts of faces, eyes.. one who I talked into working in my lab was amazing, he could paint a glass eye to exactly match the real one.  Ever seen a person who lost the entire front of their face due to cancer or an accident?  These guys could teach them how to apply prosthetic face/face parts and daily makeup so when they went out in public they'd escape 1st glances, often 2nd's.. (in comparison  making wrinkles disappear is child's play)  So I know the expertise is there, I just don't think your appointed politicians have such expertise.

Just because someone used Photoshop to apply makeup on a digital image doesn't mean the 'effect' can't be matched with real makeup.  And really, does the advertisement say Julia Roberts used this product?  Or did it just show a pretty picture to sell a product.. like we don't see that every time we turn a page in a magazine...
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 31, 2011, 05:45:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope the American government stays out of stuff like this.  I don't want my tax dollars spent because some wrinkled woman mistakenly thinks that applying some foundation on her ugly face is going to make her pretty.  Frankly, if it makes her feel good, we should all mind our business.
+1   I wasn't even happy with them deciding if Taco Bell really uses meat..  Grin
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2464



WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2011, 06:01:06 PM »
ReplyReply

This isn't a government thing - it's advertising industry self regulation. Think of it as fellow professionals judging a member's work has fallen below professional standards.

John
Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 858


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2011, 06:01:11 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the quotes from the Gruen Transfer that I liked was that two types of magazine covers that sell well. Those that are highly retouched and those that aren't, that is, Stars without Makeup.

I've got too much time on my hands at the present and have been watching Dr Phil. To all those people out there saying we don't want government interference to protect you from fraudulent and unscrupulous business practices I ask the question. How's that working for you?

Cheers,
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5033



WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2011, 07:02:35 PM »
ReplyReply

... Sadly, Slobodan, that's not the world in which we live. In the UK, and I suspect in the USA and most other countries, we all suffer if some idiot sustains avoidable serious injury in a car crash...

Jeremy, I heard that argument before. I still find it utterly ridiculous. There are many acts individuals commit daily that affect us all ultimately, yet we do not impose fines for it. Eating junk food and drinking sugary drinks leads to obesity which leads to many illnesses, for which we all have to pay (either  by taxation or by higher insurance rates). Alcohol consumption is known to have huge social and health consequences, yet we do not fine those who drink themselves to death or illness. The same goes with tobacco. As another poster already noted, the list can go on and on forever. Pretty soon government would tell us what to watch on TV and fine us for watching something else (hmmm... come to think of it, I would vote for a ban on all those time-wasting, utterly stupidifying reality shows and contests Wink).
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2011, 08:47:15 PM »
ReplyReply

We need a new Truth Tzar in Washington empowered to convict Photoshop experts of witchcraft. Think of the governmental jobs that would create; stake woodsmen, tinder shavers, rope weavers, and, of course, match makers.
Logged
artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2011, 07:38:45 AM »
ReplyReply

What we 'need' are decisions best left to the individual, not our government.


Very difficult for individuals to make rational decisions when corporations are lying to them through the medium of advertising.
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2011, 08:16:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Very difficult for individuals to make rational decisions when corporations are lying to them through the medium of advertising.
I suppose I have a lot more faith in the general intelligence level of our country's individuals.. who by the way make up our government.

It will be my undoing I'm sure..  Wink
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad