Warning labels on Photoshopped photos!

[Peacock]

In France at least! WOW!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...m_campaign=rss

[ronocnikral]

les personnes de francais sont tres bizarre.

if we are going to start doing what the french do, let's start with their work week. with all that is going on in the world, this is what the french choose to work on?

je suis desole JB, c'est le vraiment!

[kenw]

How will Darwinism ever come about if we keep protecting the stupid from themselves?

[wclavey]

WARNING - This photograph was cropped, had the levels and contrast adjusted, and employed a gradient layer while being produced in Photoshop. Local small manipulations may also have been applied. Viewing may affect your self esteem as a practionner of photography since you will not be able to duplicate it in the camera.

[toverman]

American newspapers use the subtle "photo illustration" label in the credit line to distinguish between unaltered photos to ones that bend reality. At least that's the intent. Probably means little to the average reader, and I haven't worked at a major paper recently to know where the line gets crossed.

[iCe]

I never use Photoshop. I have a good camera that always takes good pictures.

(Can I go to hell for typing a lie? I didn't really speak the lie. Just wondering )

I spent a day in France once. Paris actually. Awesome town. Not too impressed with the people but it's hard to evaluate people in a day... They probably weren't too impressed with my jet-lagged though very handsome personage either.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by wclavey

WARNING - This photograph was cropped, had the levels and contrast adjusted, and employed a gradient layer while being produced in Photoshop. Local small manipulations may also have been applied. Viewing may affect your self esteem as a practionner of photography since you will not be able to duplicate it in the camera.

I could use that warning label to protect my self esteem. hahaha

I almost ask as one of my first questions, "How much work did you do after you fired the shutter?"

[deep_creek]

Original French AFP article here, translated:http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...d.php?t=108871

[iCe]

Originally Posted by groovyone

I could use that warning label to protect my self esteem. hahaha

I almost ask as one of my first questions, "How much work did you do after you fired the shutter?"

Ehh... the reality of digital photography is that:

(A) if you shoot RAW thou shalt always use Photoshop or some method to bring the image data up to the best quality that you can muster. It's not different than the dark room of the old (and still used) days. (if you shoot JPG you are killing pixels that want to and deserve to live)

(B) it's your image. Spin it around upside down if you want to. Self satisfaction doesn't come from outside the self.

[venchka]

Maybe we need a disclaimer for all the warning labels. Or a simplified, universal warning disclaimer:

WARNING: Life may be hazardous to your health and well being.

That said, as a rule I don't like huge cities. Paris is an exception.

France is like Utah. A week isn't long enough. A year might be too short.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by iCe

Ehh... the reality of digital photography is that:

(A) if you shoot RAW thou shalt always use Photoshop or some method to bring the image data up to the best quality that you can muster. It's not different than the dark room of the old (and still used) days. (if you shoot JPG you are killing pixels that want to and deserve to live)

(B) it's your image. Spin it around upside down if you want to. Self satisfaction doesn't come from outside the self.

I understand and can appreciate people's post processing skills, but if I am trying to get the same result, I find knowing if they did work after saves me a lot of stress from trying to get the same effect in camera.

[janikphoto]

I'm not complaining here. These laws will mean that companies will need to hire more skilled photographers, instead of relying on post production. This means a lot of so-so photogs will be tossed to the wayside and companies will have to invest more of their budget in the good photogs... assuming they want to avoid using the disclaimer on their ads, brochures, etc.

Now, the question for lawmakers is "where do you draw the line?". Basic cropping, color, contrast and spot removal doesn't really "alter" the image. Using rubber stamps, reshaping figures, removing skin blemishes and merging multiple photos definitely alters the image. Do they take a standard newspaper stance, only allowing the basics without a warning? Or, does the warning apply to ANY photoshopping?

[johnastovall]

And before Photoshop, Playboy had the air brush.

[ronocnikral]

to me, the end result is more important than how you got there. if it is pleasing to the eye, i could care less if it was done in camera through various mediums, and what was done in post. and if people can get away with calling one medium another, i don't really care.

most "good" photographers these days do most of the work in post and very little comes SOOC. again, i care less about that. kudos if they are a good photog and good at post, but if the end result is spectacular, I can admire that, regardless of how they got there. if I don't care for it, I don't really care how they did it either.

[toverman]

Every photographic image ever taken has been cropped, because the camera can't see everything. And every photographic image ever taken has altered reality, taking it from three dimensions to two.

The line is going to be arbitrary, but if it's clear and understood it could at least serve as a guide.