Photoshopping Illeagal in France
- Started
- Last post
- 22 Responses
- CGN
"The required warning would be needed in newspaper and magazine advertising, press photos, product packaging, political campaigns and art photography. "
- ribit0
Can see all sorts of problems with this.. Just about all editorial images are edited in some way to optimise them for a particular use. Even a brightness adjustment or cropping aimed at improving quality may fall foul of this law if it also alters the perceived shape of the model.
- ukit0
Read the article. The law wasn't actually passed.
- spraycan0
that's stupid
- shitehawke0
I think its not a bad idea, we live in an age where so many people have a fucked up view of prefection that is simply impossible.
After reading I dont think its cropping or minor adjustments to colour, its more about altering the image so much that it change a person’s physical appearance.
- So I should put an apology on my photoshop work because I might hurt someone's self-esteem. No TUatomholc
- sikma0
How would they police this? Seems a little far fetched.
- Horp0
- < I wouldn't be too sure of that. Retouching can get out of hand quickly.luckyorphan
- stupid frenchspraycan
- ta gueule pauvre con!benfal99
- Why would Alba pose for two totally different pictures that were effectively the same? Shopped.MrT
- Redmond0
Women will keep buying magazines featuring stick figures anyway.
- Women are women's own worst enemies, by a long way.mikotondria3
- Probably starts with all the Disney princess movies.CyBrain
- I want to know why there is always someone else to blame.MondoMorphic
- Samush0
can we get a photo of the french MP Valerie Boyer in here please. PSB is go.
thanks
- dyspl0
Dear QBNers, I apologize for that.
I swear we aren't all that stupid.I guess she needs voices from some women/christians associations.
- CGN0
This means the girls will actually have to get in shape and actually look good...
- ukit0
- ribit0
The whole premise is so flawed... A photo is only a limited rendition of reality that can also give a false impression of the subject. Anyone could claim to be altering the photo to be a more accurate depiction of the subject, and then getting it wrong.. etc.
And of course an image that appears to be a photo doesn't (currently) have to actually be a photo.. there is no claim in a lot of editorial that the images are actual photos, and it would be a big limitation on freedom in publishing to start to require all imagery to be classified and notated... ("this is a photo, this an illustration/montage that has some photo portions in it, this is an illustration with no photo portions in it, but samples colours and textures from several photos, etc..)
- randommail0
OMG, did anyone even read the article?
It says IF the law was passed, altered images of human figures would require a disclaimer of some kind.It's not a ban of all photoshopped images.
FUcking QBN.
- randommail0
OMG, did anyone even read the article?
It says IF the law was passed, altered images of human figures would require a disclaimer of some kind.It's not a ban of all photoshopped images.
FUcking QBN.
- formed0
Does anyone read the articles? I just wanna see pictures and ramble off some pointless remark, isn't that QBN is all about?
What's this about banning Photoshop??
- Corvo20
Poor Sarko.
- Corvo20
(Haven't read the article).
- Corvo20
(Now I did).