
Is she Photoshopped? In France, they now have to tell you - DanBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41443027
======
indubitable
The implication of this article is that agencies would be obligated to use
what the article calls "more obtainable" bodies. Is this actually the case? I
think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply
increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other
individuals were being photoshopped to have.

It'd be like if a country banned all voice processing software when singing
(which has become ubiquitous today). It's not like studios would simply begin
accepting people with less than ideal singing voices. Instead they would
actually have to seek out talent that can sing without having their voice
filtered through digital signal processing software. And in the end, I think
this would (and will) be a good thing. Authenticity should be encouraged and
incentivized.

~~~
coldtea
> _The implication of this article is that agencies would be obligated to use
> what the article calls "more obtainable" bodies. Is this actually the case?
> I think it's vastly more likely that this will do little more than sharply
> increase the demand for people that actually have the bodies that other
> individuals were being photoshopped to have._

You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine
follows the distribution of weights/heights in the general population (with
some margin of error). And heavily fine them out of business when it does not.
Problem solved.

(The voice processing ban example doesn't capture the problem with body
photos, because people don't go out of their way to sound like their favorite
singers -- auto-tuned or not--, nor does it have many adverse psychological or
health effects to have singers voices be unattainable to most people. Whereas
body image from ad/fashion/etc models influences the self-perception of
billions of people, and leads a multiple-100s billion dollars industry).

~~~
jogjayr
> You could always insist that the distribution of bodies shown in a magazine
> follows the distribution of weights/heights in the general population (with
> some margin of error). And heavily fine them out of business when it does
> not. Problem solved.

That sounds like an infringement on the freedom of speech, in countries where
it applies.

It also seems ridiculously difficult to judge and enforce. The government
would need to do periodic surveys of height/weight in the country (or get the
data from doctors), prove data is correct, set up an office that reads
magazines all day, tries to judge the heights and weights of the people in the
pictures by looking at them...the more I think about it the worse it sounds.
EDIT: Or mandate that every magazine files the height/weight details of every
person pictured in every issue with the government.

It's like the premise of some dystopian black comedy or satire.

EDIT 2: No seriously that would be quite funny. "Sorry Bill we can't do that
feature on the Indian women's volleyball team, we got Shaq on the cover this
month. We're over our height budget"

~~~
briholt
But is it really fair that surgeons or NFL players don't match societal
distributions for their respective traits? Think about how this makes all of
the low-dexterity, low-coordination little boys and girls feel. For the sake
of feelings, I demand mandatory mediocrity for every profession. Anyone trying
to be exceptional should be hampered accordingly.

~~~
zdkl
You're comparing advertisement to skill based jobs...

~~~
briholt
TIL being a 6'5" athletic model is not a skill, being a 6'5" athlete is a
skill.

~~~
zdkl
Athlete, yes. 6'5, no. Come on man, do you hear what you're saying?

~~~
briholt
Woosh.

------
Xoros
> It's no secret that images of models are often retouched

Well it's not a secret, but it's not obvious for most teenagers. And may be
not either for people without high degrees education.

A lot of people, and I suppose not only in France, are not at peace with their
body shape, even if they're not obese nor anorexic. Been exposed to not really
existing bodies images can be painful for self esteem.

Of course, computer modified photos are recent, but fashion already used
lightning and tricking exposure when producing photos from film since, well,
the fashion press exists I guess.

~~~
cJ0th
> Well it's not a secret, but it's not obvious for most teenagers.

Fair enough but the list of things that can harm a teen's self esteem is
endless. So in a way there is no way around learning how to deal with issues
of imperfection on a personal level. And this, in turn, makes you wonder
whether you couldn't spend the money that goes into this project more
worthwhile. For instance, you could invest it in free sport programs. That way
teens wouldn't just improve their body image but also do something for their
health.

IMHO these kind of initiatives are mostly egotrips of people who want to make
their mark.

~~~
coldtea
> _Fair enough but the list of things that can harm a teen 's self esteem is
> endless._

Many things are endless or numerous, that's why people prioritize dealing with
a) the most important ones, b) low hanging fruits.

~~~
orinthiscase
of course, it’s not clear that there’s an actual, rational reason to believe
this will have any positive effect, so it’s probably option c) must be seen to
try something

if they could eludicate the mechanism that has this impact, they would likely
also have evidence that violent video games cause male violence, or that
bowser kidnapping princess peach causes sexism.

my guess is the operative pressure arises from peer groups, and this
initiative is pissing in the wind

------
caseysoftware
My mother and wife were both photographers at some point and basically every
photo is modified, touched up, and otherwise "enhanced" in Photoshop or other
tools. It doesn't matter if it's a landscape, a room setting, or a person.

While saying "this has been modified" might be valuable, without knowing _how_
this seems misguided at best.

~~~
ghaff
To be fair, the law seems to be quite a bit more specific than that. It
applies to commercial use of models "whose physical appearance has been
modified through the use of image processing software to slim down or thicken
the model's silhouette" according to the translation on this site. [1]

[1] [http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2017/08/france-photoshop-
decree...](http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2017/08/france-photoshop-decree-
coming-up-soon.html)

------
igaray
We've had that in argentina, in all billboards and magazine ads, for a while,
but you need an electron microscope to read the warning.

~~~
gus_massa
Also, each and every photo in an add has the same warning, so it's completely
ignored by the people.

------
GhostVII
This will probably just end up being another warning that is stuck on
everywhere, and doesn't mean much. Just like the "we use cookies" popup, or
all the "x may cause cancer" warnings, it is easier to just add the warning
than change the product/advertisement.

------
microcolonel
Are they going to start telling you when they're wearing makeup or not?

~~~
edent
They already do in the UK - to a degree. Here's a mascara advert which was
banned because the model was wearing fake eyelashes.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/rimmel-mascara-
ad...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/rimmel-mascara-advert-
starring-cara-delevinge-banned-use-false/)

A similar case in the USA -
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/fashion/Mascara-Ads-
Draw-C...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/fashion/Mascara-Ads-Draw-
Criticisms.html?mcubz=0)

~~~
microcolonel
Well that's a bit different. That would be a direct misrepresentation of the
product. i.e. you can not make anyone look like that with the advertised
product.

------
zakk
> any commercial image that has been digitally altered to make a model look
> thinner

This will backfire. Ads will only use ultra-thin models, it's not like there
aren't.

~~~
pulisse
Images of those ultra-thin models are themselves typically photoshopped to
remove signs of anorexia and bulimia (arm hair, gray pallor, dental
discoloration, pronounced tendons). This is (according to an acquaintance
whose day job used to be retouching fashion photos) a frequent enough need
that language like "remove visible signs of anorexia" is included in the
boilerplate instructions given by agencies to post-production teams.

~~~
paulddraper
Sure, but this law doesn't really cover those edits.

------
watertorock
Stupid. Are they going to tell us when men's physiques are photoshopped too?
How about wrinkles or hair color changes or blemish and scar removals? What
about wearing makeup?

If a picture is printed, it has been edited.

~~~
chalupa-man
It applies to men and to women, and not to blemishes or colours but to
reshaping silhouettes. It's worth taking thirty seconds to read something
before attacking it as stupid based on your imagination.

------
bitL
Of course she is photoshopped. All photos you see in magazines are by default
heavily photoshopped, even of "flawless" models. You literally don't see a
single photo straight out of the camera where retouching wasn't applied when
it comes to women.

------
learn_more
This law should be good for the careers of models who actually are nearly
perfect looking.

~~~
gus_massa
Nah, if there is a bad shadow or they want to remove a few hairs from the
fringe, they have to add the same warning. They ant write "This image is 99%
not Photoshopped.".

------
pbhjpbhj
They'll probably just render a completely digital image instead, no
photoshopping involved in that.

~~~
wruza
Looking how modern game characters look and _move_ , I think ad models will
feel the competition very soon.

------
notadoc
How absurd. Virtually every single photo of every male or female that is
printed is photoshopped. A lot of people photoshop their pictures before
posting to Facebook even. Should that all be declared too? What about those
filters on social media apps that make peoples eyes bigger and clear the
complexion?

And why the emphasis only on pictures of women when pictures of men have just
as much photoshopping? Seems a bit sexist.

~~~
icebraining
_And why the emphasis only on pictures of women_

Where do you see this?

------
DoofusOfDeath
The subtext of the article seems to be that anorexia is a worse public health
problem than obesity.

~~~
omosubi
it may not be a worse public health problem, but eating disorders, especially
anorexia, have the highest fatality rate of any mental health disorder.

source - [https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/directors/thomas-
insel/blog/2...](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/directors/thomas-
insel/blog/2012/spotlight-on-eating-disorders.shtml)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
_Obesity_ has the highest co-morbidity of any mental health disorder.

~~~
meowface
Is this illness olympics? Both are bad.

~~~
Godel_unicode
Facts matter. Obesity is much, much worse.

~~~
e12e
In France? With regards to mortality rates of young people?

------
gthtjtkt
Good, now if only they would do the same for male models who use illegal
performance enhancing drugs to achieve their physiques. According to many male
fitness models, anyone who earns money based on their body is almost
guaranteed to be using them.

I find it really strange how the topic of "enhanced" male models never comes
up, but these articles about women pop up several times a year.

~~~
icebraining
Yes, they should really pass a law to deal with those _illegal_ drugs.

------
codegeek
Reminds of the Fast Food ads here in the US. Looks Gourmet on TV while the
real thing is not even close.

~~~
jaclaz
>Reminds of the Fast Food ads here in the US. Looks Gourmet on TV while the
real thing is not even close.

In that case there should be a warning that what is in the images isn't even
edible (often wax and plastic replicas are used in photo shoots and videos),
and even if the food is real _almost anything_ is added to it to make it look
better JFY:

[https://petapixel.com/2012/08/02/random-things-you-can-
use-t...](https://petapixel.com/2012/08/02/random-things-you-can-use-to-make-
food-photos-more-appealing/)

~~~
gus_massa
On the other hand, there was a very interesting documentary of McDonald's
about how they prepare the hamburgers for the photo. [tl;dv: It's true food,
but it's cooked in a very strange way.] "Behind the scenes at a McDonald's
photo shoot"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8)
(I remember that it was discussed here a few years ago, but I can't find the
submission.)

------
ungzd
What kinds of ads are required to have this warning and what kind of edits are
counted as edits? Does debayering, remapping brightness or denoising count as
"digitally altering"? Then all ads will have such warnings.

------
firefoxd
I can't find the actual article, but i was reading that the rise of instagram
or just selfie cameras has lead to an increased amount of face surgery.

Just the fact that people spend all their days looking at the imperfections of
their own body and compare it to perfect ones(the photoshoped) will lead to
surgery.

I think adding a photoshoped disclaimer is a step up, but it is not the
ultimate solution. At some point we will end up with a mandatory 200by200
picture of a failed surgery plastered on every doctored photo.

------
juancn
In Argentina it has been the case that digital alterations of the human figure
must be stated for several years, and people still use photoshop and just add
a tiny disclaimer below. Pictures are roughly the same.

------
d--b
that's it I'm investing in thinning mirrors.

~~~
atomical
What about a real-time enhancement with AI?

~~~
drdaeman
The trick with mirrors (pure optics, rather than image enhancement) is that
photos are not "edited" or "retouched" ;)

------
DanBC
We've seen first steps toward this in the UK. Ads for mascara now have to say
if the image is photoshopped or not. This is mostly policed by the companies
themselves, reporting each other to Advertising Standards.

~~~
jaclaz
The mascara thing you mention is about avoiding false representation of the
effects of the product.

This is very different, it is specifically about thinness, I believe that
anorexia (or if not anorexia at least the psychological troubles that can lead
to it) are becoming very common among teens, so it is more than anything else
a "public health" campaign to remove the (false, or retouched) images of
impossibly thin models from becoming the "reference model" of the youngers.

There was already something similar in a few EU countries, where Laws or Codes
of Conduct were made prohibiting to hire fashion models with a BMI lower than
18 for the catwalk:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#Legislation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#Legislation)

The debate was at the time (and still is) whether the BMI in itself is a good
metrics.

------
Godel_unicode
I don't understand, this seems like someone never bothered to learn about
anchoring. Is there research that I've missed which shows anchoring doesn't
apply in body-image situations?

~~~
abiox
how do you feel 'anchoring' applies in 'body-image situations'?

~~~
Godel_unicode
The underlying problem we're talking about is that people are seeing these
unrealistic images of what a body should be, and are comparing themselves to
that. I would argue that given what we know about how anchoring works, even if
you tell someone that the image they're seeing is fake, the damage has already
been done. Consider the Barbie doll; everyone knows that Barbie is a plastic
doll and not a real person, yet there was a generation which grew up with that
body being the goal.

------
randyrand
i don't see this working.

will girls have to label their instagram photos as airbrushed as well? It's
much more common than you think.

------
mancerayder
The problem is how to define 'Retouched.' Being an amateur photographer and
having met a number of commercial ones, the sentiment and knowledge I picked
up over the years goes something like this:

Retouching a photo has been done since the (physical, real) lightroom days.
Many of the strange phrases and techniques in Photoshop (dodge and burn, and
probably crop and most others with photo-specific context) came from
techniques in the lightroom.

Even the most famous photographers adjusted their photos in the lightroom,
making alterations that are absolutely in the 'retouched' category. You can
find these online (Cartier-Bresson did this, and many others). Source:
[https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-
ico...](https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-
prints-edited-darkroom/)

Therefore, it's extremely common for any portrait or wedding or any other
photographer to retouch. Do 100% do it? Probably not 100%, but damn close.

It's not considered cheating to remove an element, lighten or completely
darken/render invisible an element of the photo.

What the photography community considers cheating is portraying something that
isn't there. There's a fascinating conversation with a photojournalist on the
topic here with examples: [https://petapixel.com/2015/08/04/interview-michael-
kamber-on...](https://petapixel.com/2015/08/04/interview-michael-kamber-on-
photojournalism-ethics-and-the-altering-of-images/)

So is taking a model and making her thinner, taller and tanner retouching to
the point of portraying something that isn't there? Which is a vague phrase,
admittedly. Perhaps.

But what about removing a pimple from the face? If you get a portrait done
professionally, it'll be almost automatic. Maybe it's not so bad. But if it
is, let's say, then what about giving you a better skin tone? Because a bare
flash without a CTO gel, or the mid-day sun, with a daylight white balance, is
going to make you look potentially weird (if you're caucasian in this example;
you might look ghostly). A lamppost nearby, or a store sign nearby might
change your skin tone too. So what if you change the white balance in
Photoshop/Lightroom/Gimp/whatever and make it look a little bit like sunset?
Is that cheating?

But if you do nothing, there's automated settings in cameras that will auto-
set skin tone and adjust lighting conditions. Is that cheating?

It's all extremely vague because the BBC article failed to explain the
criteria for retouching: the word retouching is too broad.

This is an endlessly debated topic in the photographic community, but banning
ALL retouching would, I am convinced, be reviled by almost everybody.

------
jimjimjim
Good.

------
c0l0
I'm disappointed and appalled how this headline is in gross violation of
Adobe®'s General trademark guidelines
([http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html](http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html)).
It should read "Is her image enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software? [...]"

Maybe that's the next thing that should be legally enforced somewhere in this
world.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
No the error is using a capital P in photoshopped. The act of photoshopping is
a generic term, I use The GIMP or Draw for my photoshopping.

By making it a capital P the suggesting only those editing their photos with
Adobe Photoshop will have to mark their photos as altered.

------
VirtualAirwaves
In the United States, Obesity is one of the leading causes of death, with
estimates as high as 300,000 deaths/year.

(See
[https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html](https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html)
)

Deaths from Anorexia are about 150/year

(See
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11513012](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11513012)
)

Yet we're all hypersensitive about telling women they are overweight or obese.

It would be like spending weeks in urban schools talking about how to avoid
poisonous snake bites and spending 15 minutes on automobile safety.

~~~
thatfrenchguy
As a French person: stop subsidizing corn, start subsidizing vegetables, stop
eating take-out.

If you look at a middle-class supermarket in France and in the US you
understand why your poor are obese pretty quickly.

~~~
craftyguy
Not just France, but most European countries.. every time I travel in Europe
there's always this initial realization that I'm no longer surrounded by obese
people. None of the places I've been to over there encourage the same eating
habits that you find prevalent in the US.

~~~
jdavis703
Well portion sizes are smaller, but most people walk, bike or transit to work.
For example this week I haven't done any exercise due to a "sports"-related
injury, and yet managed to burn an average of 2571 calories -- and before you
think I'm lucky to live near work, my one-way commute is 30 miles. Even just
40 minutes of daily physical activity built into a commute can make a huge
difference.

~~~
craftyguy
Oh yea, totally. I bicycle to work almost every day (it's ~6 mi one way), but
I'm lucky enough to live in a location with decent cycling infrastructure. I
think another aspect of why most folks drive here (the US) is because a lot of
locations have little or no infrastructure for getting around without a car.
In the area where I am originally from (different part of US), you'd get
smashed by cars pretty fast because you'd be forced to travel on
highways/freeways.

