A Warning Label for Retouched Photos
Photo retouching in magazines is becoming more and more outrageous. Remember the GQ cover featuring Kate Winslet? The actress was shocked and angry to discover that the magazine used photoshop to make her legs appear longer and leaner than they are in reality.
The problem is that extremely thin, airbrushed photos of models in magazines can cause serious body image issues and even trigger eating disorders, especially in tweens and teens.
As part of a campaign against eating disorders, French lawmakers are now considering a law that would force women’s magazines and other publications to disclose whenever a photo has been airbrushed.
The disclosure would state, “Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person.”
I generally like the idea, but I wonder about enforcing it – I assume they won’t be able to enforce it in foreign magazines, so French women and girls would still have access to magazines that do not disclose the fact that they retouch photos. Plus, how will they know for sure if a photo has been retouched?
An amusing thought – since as far as I can tell all magazine photos are airbrushed to some extent (even the Lizzie Miller Glamour photo seems somewhat retouched to get rid of cellulite or otherwise make the skin look smooth), it will be interesting to see each and every magazine photo having a little caption under it with the disclosure. Or maybe they’ll get away with a general disclosure, which won’t be very helpful anyway.
What do you think about this initiative? Important? Ridiculous? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Filed under Women & Feminism —
Email This Post,
Subscribe To Comments, Trackback,
Subscribe Via 
JanB responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 am →
I think it is a WONDERFUL idea to provide a disclaimer. For too long, women have been looking at other women through a distorted lens and most of this is because the entertainment (movies, print, television) portray every person as thin, tanned and athletic, men and women.
Mike Goad responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am →
It’d be less effective than warning labels on packs of cigarettes or the terms of service agreements for social networking sites.
I don’t disagree that airbrushed images can convey the wrong impression.
However, I don’t think that more regulations is the correct fix for everything.
RC - Rambling Along... responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm →
I’m with Mike on this one. As much as I worry about the unrealistic appearance that these images enforce, I don’t think a warning can correct that. I think awareness and education of how much a photo is retouched, as well as consumers requesting less retouching can make the bigger difference.
Tanya responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm →
I would ban retouching for magazines altogether. I know, sounds pretty “Soviet” of me – ban everything
But to me, it just doesn’t feel right to take a person’s body and change it to make a profit. It’s the same thing as pinting a lie.
Michelle @ Find Your Balance responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm →
I think it’s a pretty good idea. But where to draw the line? A little blemish retouched out? Or two whole legs reshaped?
Hayden Tompkins responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm →
I would like a label. I used to think that I could actually get those superlong, uberfull lashes and that I must be doing something wrong. It wasn’t until I was older that I realized that commercials were lying to me. When you’re an adult all that stuff is pretty obvious, but when you’re a kid you believe what you see. That’s why magicians are still in business!
Dr. J responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm →
In the same vein as “Results not typical,” on many ads, it would seem an easy thing to add to magazine photos, so I think it’s a good idea from at least, the importance of being honest perspective.
Whether or not it will make any difference, I don’t know, but even if it makes a difference to someone, it’s a good thing.
Carla responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm →
I think its a great idea. We need to know what’s real and what isnt. I know this is especially important for both young women and MEN.
My only concern is that they would push models to be thinner to fit the “ideal” since the publishers(?) would be “outted” in a way when they have to reveal that Photoshop was used on the photos. Maybe I’m way off base…
Would this apply to all photos or just photos that have to with with model’s body size/type? I used to be disappointed that my hair didn’t look like the model’s hair when I used XYZ product.
J responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm →
I don’t believe this would be effective in any way. Anyways, I know that every single picture in a magazine such as GQ, Maxim, etc… are all photoshopped, so it should just be assumed anyways, though girls need to made aware of this. Should be something taught in High/junior high school.
Connie responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm →
I think it’s a great idea! It makes me wonder if retouching will be done away with entirely after magazines see that they will have to disclose this information right on the page. If they have to do that then what’s the point in even retouching, ya know?
Kelvin Kao responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm →
I sort of wonder if such a disclosure is necessary. Nowadays I just assume that they ALL are photoshopped.
Another question came to mind: Before there was computer animation, there were already special effects. They use make-up, scaled-models, special techniques in exposing films, special camera lenses, etc. to get those effects. Some of those techniques are still used today, while some have been replaced with computer animation. Now, if we need to have a disclosure for photoshop, then do we need one too for make-up? If not, then why do we treat removing blemish with photoshop and with make-up differently?
I personally don’t think a disclosure is necessary if we just assume all those photos are photoshopped. (But then again, that might be erring on the cynical side?)
Dominique responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm →
I don’t really think it will work. It’s a neat idea but would spell the doom of the fashion mag industry. As if there are already many warning labels on cigar boxes etc
Patricia responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm →
I know from my three daughters, it took the older two to overtly explain to the youngest that the pictures were photo shoped. My oldest does a lot of photo shop work in her job, and the librarian has to photo shop and then youngest did photo shop on her TV station internship – They were all in their 20s when the reality truly sunk in – and that commercials are selling something that might not be needed.
This takes big time parental teaching – any 4 year old can tell you if a chair is male or female…
We need such a great deal more honest communication.
I did not understand ads and commercials until I took a Mass Media Course in 1967 and it often takes a real jolt to truly understand fully.
Betsy Wuebker responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm →
Hey, Vered – It’s a great idea, but as other commenters have suggested, the reality is very little on the effective scale. Does someone quit smoking because of a message on the pack? Nope. Do I really want to believe that I could be “results not typical” when it comes to a weight loss pill? You bet I do. So MY needs are going to be addressed by access to the image, and subsequently the product, depending upon the specific thing the image is tapping – which will trump or override any cautionary statement. If I need to feel the wind in my face, I’m not going to wear a helmet on my motorcycle. Or if I need to think I’m stickin’ it to the over-regulatory man by not wearing my seatbelt, then that’s exactly what I’m not gonna do. If regulatory means are necessary to convey an acceptable message, however well-intentioned, then the individual’s autonomy is in jeopardy. We’re all pretty smart and we know when we’re being duped. That we collectively choose to tacitly accept it is the issue.
The Lawyer Mom responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm →
Fantastic idea! After all, lawyers who use actors in ads have to say “not actual client” or something like that.
A caption that says “not actual body” would be downright perfect.
Marelisa responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm →
I think Kate Winslet’s legs look like of odd on that magazine cover; I guess they did a lousy photoshop job.
I don’t think a disclaimer helps because the message is still there that the ideal is stick thin. I think the only solution is for women to stop buying these magazines until the models they use are more realistic.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm →
Thank you everyone for your comments. I think educating people about photoshopping is important – not everyone knows about it, especially not young girls – see Hayden’s comment.
Of course, it is just as much parents’ job to do that as it is the lawmaker’s or the media’s. And J, your idea that this should be addressed in school is not a bad one at all.
I do agree with many of you that there’s the question of “where do we draw the line” – what about retouching of a temporary pimple? And as Kelvin said, what about makeup? Carla, I agree that there’s indeed a risk that this would place even more pressure on models.
Davina responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 7:09 pm →
Well if this is the case, I could go into modelling now… and employ more photoshoppers, cause they’d have their work cut out for them
It wouldn’t make any difference to me. I’d still see the gorgeous woman and have to reinforce my own self image.
Cath Lawson responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 7:33 pm →
I think it’s a great idea. I’m sure many teenagers are unaware that photos are retouched. When I was in my early twenties, I remember Helena Christensen saying that even the super-models didn’t really look like the images of themselves in the magazines. But I still didn’t cotton on to the re-touching. I assumed that she was talking about the hours spent on applying make up and special lighting etc.
I did see a pic of Cindy Crawford, taken by a member of the public and I thought she looked kind of ordinary and un-super model like because the person was a bad photographer. I was v naive.
Bamboo Forest - PunIntended responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm →
Sounds ridiculous to me. Not because it wouldn’t serve a good purpose.
But it would only underscore how silly it is to airbrush photographs. It’s pretty amazing magazines do that.
If the people being photographed are beautiful people, then by definition the picture needs no alteration?
That’s what I would have thought. But perhaps those behind the magazines feel a need for artificial perfection.
It’s kinda trippy.
Barbara Swafford responds:
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm →
Hi Vered,
I like the idea of a photo being labeled as airbrushed, however, since nearly every one is probably airbrushed, soon the readers would become blind to the label and we could be back at square one.
Tara@Sticky Fingers responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 2:24 am →
Don’t we all just assume they’re airbrushed in some fashion anyway?
And I’m not sure younger readers would take much notice of such a disclaimer anyway.
Tracy responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 5:26 am →
Although in theory I love this idea, I think it would prove to be ineffective and become some sort of absurd joke.
I think we all need to educate our children on advertising (and magazine photo editorials are a form of advertising in my opinion) because the real problem is they are selling us a highly stylized version of an ideal.
Dot responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 7:03 am →
Europeans are so much more advanced than we are in some ways. I have no problem with regulations for something like this, since otherwise many would not realize it was happening. I didn’t know those legs were extended. I know they’ve been retouching faces for years, but being reminded of it every time would be good, too, although there are obviously many issues to consider. Why aren’t Americans more upset about such things?
janice responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 8:01 am →
I don’t know. I wonder how much reading some girls actually do in these magazines. For those who just flick through and drool or get depressed, I doubt if a disclaimer would make a difference. It does make a difference on TV ads though. My daughter was nearly manipulated into wanting a new mascara that would give her long, lush lashes until we pointed out a notice under the ad saying the model was wearing false lashes!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 9:49 am →
I agree that the most important thing is for parents to educate their kids, especially during the preteen years, when they start to become vulnerable to these messages, but still listen to us.
Kathy | Virtual Impax responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 11:52 am →
The fact that GQ did the photo shopping is no surprise. The practice of lengthening a model’s legs post shoot is an age old trick performed by almost EVERY “gentlemen’s” magazine. I don’t think it “taints” women’s self esteem as much as it sets the male reader’s expectations to “unrealistic”.
On the other hand, Kelly Clarkson was similarly outraged when her “retouched” photo was featured on the cover of Self magazine. While she was happy with her appearance – the editors felt otherwise and “slimmed” her down considerably. She expressed her outrage over the “photoshopping” but the editors at Self refused to back down.
I used to read Self. The magazine is targeted towards women and claims to encourages women to “reach their all around best.” I’m thrilled that Clarkson made a fuss adn expose the duplicity of Self. It caused me to take a “pass” on reading Self since.
I love the SPIRIT behind the disclaimer. It’s a kind of “truth in advertising”. However, I think the most POWERFUL tool we have is education. Educating young women that what they see on TV and in magazines is a FANTASY and not REALITY is the key. As long as sales rise when editors do this – you’ll have a hard time stopping the practice.
Squawkfox responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pm →
Fashion and men’s mags should all come with warning labels, period.
Warning: This magazine may rot your brain. Peruse at your own risk.
Kim Woodbridge responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 5:02 pm →
A disclaimer won’t help. We need to educate our children about this issue and simply not buy the magazines. Now I wonder what they are doing to the photos of the gadgets in Wired to make the products more desirable
Tess The Bold Life responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 6:00 pm →
I don’t think education is enough. I believe everyone know this is going on and it’s still effecting the self esteem of even adults. Yes I think it would be great ot put a little note under the photo saying, “Airbrushed! View at your own risk. May cause low self esteem, eating disorders and debt!
Michele | aka Raw Juice Girl responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pm →
I personally think they shouldn’t mess with the photos at all. It’s crazy to see someone on TV and then they’re on a magazine cover and look HALF their real size. It’s ridiculous! I think we should just appreciate whatever figure the models have (or don’t have) and accept that people aren’t “perfect” in any sense and we shouldn’t strive to be stick thin. I think it would change young people’s lives if they could read that disclaimer about the photos being retouched. It would be a breath of fresh air for them to know the people in the photos don’t really look like that. And I believe it would help those will low self-esteem feel MUCH better about themselves.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 7:34 pm →
Kim, what an interesting thought – retouching gadgets to make them look more appealing. I’m sure they retouch to some extent – play with saturation etc. to make it look more appealing. Not the same as lengthening an actress legs, though.
BunnygotBlog responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 7:44 pm →
Hi,
I totally agree with the body image issue. I wrote about it myself. The last things young teenage girls need is airbrushed photos influencing their already difficult period of life.
Great article Vered.
Daphne @ Joyful Days responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 8:39 pm →
I think what would help is a law that the undoctored original should also be published somewhere in the same magazine, perhaps in a thumbsize version on the back cover.
May responds:
Posted: September 29th, 2009 at 11:12 am →
I think that’s a fabulous idea! At the very least it’s a start in the right direction and a legal option women can look to in order to help them deal with body issues.