Glossy magazines face airbrush ban??

mayday · #1 04-09-2008, 02:45 AM

I saw this article I thought some of you might be interested.

Has'nt retouching on actors and actresses been going on since the 1930's?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/nmags102.xml

mayday · #2 04-09-2008, 05:32 AM

I think magazines should start publishing the untouched RAW's straight from the camera then we can all see how bad all these celbrities really look maybe they would like that better.

Ziaphra · #3 04-09-2008, 05:41 AM

OMG...the world is ugly enough, now they want to take away our pretty pix!

KR1156 · #4 04-09-2008, 05:46 AM

not me.....i like my job, and like cashing my check even better.

diggnikon · #5 04-09-2008, 09:18 AM

i think the telegraph was blowing smoke up someones you know what !

the fashion mags would loose readership and Vogue would be out of fashion in five minutes .

Think Mariah or Madonna without airbrushing for PR stakes ? when hell freezes over .

Lets face it people like an airbrushed image and without the images the products don't sell .

Billboards without an image ....
Magazine covers without a bright face with sparkling eyes

NCP Doug · #6 04-09-2008, 09:49 AM

Fat chance!

(no pun intended)

diggnikon · #7 04-09-2008, 09:54 AM

thats my point !

thats like Pammy without implants ....it will never happen

Ant · #8 04-09-2008, 10:18 AM

Airbrush is a bad word and should be censored here. Where are the politeness police when you need them?

mayday · #9 04-09-2008, 10:30 AM

Hey I agree with you Ant its the name of the article and it goes further to prove how little these hacks know using that term.

Benny Profane · #10 04-09-2008, 07:20 PM

"Prof Janet Treasure, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, said yesterday that people's brains could be permanently altered in the process, making them more susceptible to other addictions."

Well, that may explain some of Benny's after work, uh, problems.

Hey, British friends, is that Telegraph as much of a rag as I suspect?

byRo · #11 04-09-2008, 08:18 PM

http://www.ppa.co.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/n...html?uid=12486

Quote:

PPA working group on digital enhancements

03 Apr 2008

PPA is setting up a working group on the use of digital enhancements in fashion photography following the Baroness Kingsmill report on model health. The only recommendation concerning the magazine sector was the suggestion of a voluntary code on the use of digital technology to adjust body shape.

Using digital technology to adjust images is a widely used technique across all media. Uses vary from correcting errant hair, smudged lipstick or loose threads, to smoothing out clothes and changing the colour of clothing.

PPA has been contacted by the British Fashion Council (BFC) who said that digital adjustment was outside of its remit, but believed it formed part of ‘the wider issue of model health.’ As this is a complex issue and there is no pre-determined consensus across the industry, PPA is currently canvassing views. PPA looks forward to developing discussions with both the BFC as well as editors within the magazine sector.

Details from Toby Hicks at PPA on 020 7400 7528.

Quote:

Hey, British friends, is that Telegraph as much of a rag as I suspect?

No,of course not. We all know that airbrushing is bad for "Model Health".

Rô

byRo · #12 04-09-2008, 08:24 PM

Seriously, though, I just can't see any logic in this.

If there was no retouching then all models would have to be perfect - and skinny.
With retouching, you can fix things that are out of place, and thin parts where necessary.

So, isn't retouching, really, protecting the models?

Rô

KR1156 · #13 04-09-2008, 08:31 PM

they're gonna stop the retouching to help with the health issues for the models, physically and mentally......but they'll compensate for the lack of retouching with more blow and slim cigarettes.

Littlecoo · #14 04-09-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayday

I think magazines should start publishing the untouched RAW's straight from the camera then we can all see how bad all these celbrities really look maybe they would like that better.

No need whilst there is a big rash of tabloid rags out there that go out of their way to 'reverse retouch' celebs to make them appear unrealistically hideous... Hmmm, I wonder this is to be included in this... er... 'airbrush ban'.

Noodles · #15 04-10-2008, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

"Prof Janet Treasure, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, said yesterday that people's brains could be permanently altered in the process, making them more susceptible to other addictions."

Well, that may explain some of Benny's after work, uh, problems.

Hey, British friends, is that Telegraph as much of a rag as I suspect?

Quite the opposite, the Telegraph is one of the more respected newspapers although that doesn't count for a great deal.

Lets be realistic here, the term 'airbrushing' is only bad because people associate it with the deceit of modern day publishing even though everyone who reads these magazines knows that they have had work done. Further more, where does it stop. Are we saying that a woman wearing make up is an act also done with the intention to deceive. Of course it is!

To conclude, I would suspect that most of the general public are only jealous because their own photographs aren't retouched professionally, and that given the choice they would have them done.

The whole thing smacks of sour grapes and jealousy. There you go, I've said it now. Feel much better.