Photoshopping Warnings ?

[Slynky]

LOL.

Take a look at this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-b...29283.html

Quote:Photoshopped images could soon come with a warning label

Photoshop and software like it can be powerful image editing tools to take your photography from boring to brilliant, but it also makes it relatively easy to alter photographs for less honorable purposes. Advertisers have been airbrushing models for decades to make them even more perfect than they might already be, and studies have shown that as the digital alterations get even more unrealistic, it's been linked to increased instances of eating disorders and unreasonable body image. After all, if a young girl sees nothing but impossibly skinny models in magazines and on the internet, it's not surprising that she might look at herself in the mirror and feel less-than-pleased.

Politicians in several European countries including the UK, France, and Norway have called for such images to be labeled, but the publishing industry is understandably uneasy about a one-size-fits-all label. As an alternative, Dartmouth College computer science professor and digital image forensics researcher Hany Farid has proposed a five-step scale which would allow advertisers to differentiate between minor cosmetic tweaks like adjusting the white balance or softening a few wrinkles and radical alterations that change the very nature of the subject.

The ratings Farid proposes are calculated based on eight statistics regarding shape, color, and texture. The statistics describe movement of pixels in the subject's face and body, as well as the amount of blurring, sharpening, or color changes. There are no specific plans yet to actually use the labels in publishing, but once the system is complete, many envision a labeling system like that used for video games or movies.

Thoughts?

[Kat999]

Will those still using film...have to label their darkroom enhancements too?

[photoprofx]

Let me ask you this... HOW MUCH REGULATION DO YOU WANT THE GOVERMENT TO IMPOSE ON US AS PHOTOGRAPHERS? We let them regulate, then they tell us what we can and cannot photograph, where does it stop?
What ever happened to the ethics of photography? We shoot what we see and try very hard to show things as they are not what they could be. Sure when it comes to females take out the odd wrinkle, the age spot, smooth out the skin a bit; but DO NOT step over the ethical line as a protographer. There are times when it is down right impossible to please a client because they want the photo to be retouched to the point it is NOT the same person.
You as a photographer have to set a line you will not cross EVEN if it means loosing money; how much does your reputation mean and how much is it worth.
You see in my User ID.. the FX on the end of the PhotoPro, yes I alter photos and seel what I call the fake! It's called compositing, a true art form. When you take an aged, weathered face and turn it into a young dazzeling image..this is not art.
PP is a wonderful tool, but ANY tool when misused can be a tool of harm.
WE DO NOT NEED THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD TAKING AWAY OUR CREATIVE EYE! Wake up and smell the coffee!
PhotoProFX

(11-30-2011 01:46 PM)Slynky Wrote:  LOL.

Take a look at this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-b...29283.html

Quote:Photoshopped images could soon come with a warning label

Photoshop and software like it can be powerful image editing tools to take your photography from boring to brilliant, but it also makes it relatively easy to alter photographs for less honorable purposes. Advertisers have been airbrushing models for decades to make them even more perfect than they might already be, and studies have shown that as the digital alterations get even more unrealistic, it's been linked to increased instances of eating disorders and unreasonable body image. After all, if a young girl sees nothing but impossibly skinny models in magazines and on the internet, it's not surprising that she might look at herself in the mirror and feel less-than-pleased.

Politicians in several European countries including the UK, France, and Norway have called for such images to be labeled, but the publishing industry is understandably uneasy about a one-size-fits-all label. As an alternative, Dartmouth College computer science professor and digital image forensics researcher Hany Farid has proposed a five-step scale which would allow advertisers to differentiate between minor cosmetic tweaks like adjusting the white balance or softening a few wrinkles and radical alterations that change the very nature of the subject.

The ratings Farid proposes are calculated based on eight statistics regarding shape, color, and texture. The statistics describe movement of pixels in the subject's face and body, as well as the amount of blurring, sharpening, or color changes. There are no specific plans yet to actually use the labels in publishing, but once the system is complete, many envision a labeling system like that used for video games or movies.

Thoughts?