Another Photoshopping scandal

This pisses me off. People should use photoshop responsibly. That sounds like a joke but it isn't.

If they gonna start banning Photoshopped beauty ads they could simply ban all ads out there right now. I don't think there is one campaign which hasn't been retouched. Also, if we're going to ban Photoshopped ads, we should ban make-up and good lighting too. :)

I dont think that there is anything wrong with photoshopping commercially, the problem i have is with false advertising, Blatantly deceiving the public for financial gain is wrong but where the line stands im not sure.
Adding super polish to a car to make it look slick? Taking photos of food made from clay? there has to be a point where we say enough is enough.

If someone wants to try and sell a product that reverses time using some sort of dimensional portal cream thats fine, if it actually works. Face cream that just smells nice should not be advertised in a way that the general public fall for the false guarantees .

I can sell you a car that goes 1000 mph, no you cant so you cant put that in the advert.

I can sell you a cream that defies time, no you cant so dont put that in your advert.

Im interested thou, why did they not just get a younger woman with no wrinkles?

Agree with Robbie. This is the same as a teeth whitening campaign photoshopping teeth as before and after shots. (Actual results may vary.)

Photoshop should be used to clean up images, not falsify them to point of deceiving the consumer.

Banning ads (or retouch) is the wrong way to go. Ivan's right - EVERYTHING is retouched. You can make the argument that retouch is equivalent to professionalism. The better retouch - the more professional the ad looks. Auto makers don't WANT their cars to look like they do on the car lot - they want them to look BETTER. Put aside the obvious stuff like wrinkle removal - what about things like color? Every ad is color corrected and professionals do NOT want realistic color - they want "pleasing" color. They want that grass to be uniformly GREEN - they don't want to see dead spots or dirt holes where the dog was digging. They want that ocean water CRYSTAL CLEAR BLUE - they don't want milky green the way it really looks. People - this is a can of worms that cannot be opened. NO BANNING WHATSOEVER should always be the rule. It's better to have one ad here or one person there out of line than try to change the entire industry over one aging model who cheated on her wrinkles.

Test: down one bottle of tequila, pick up at your local meat market, and see if you can tell the difference between the person lying beside you in the morning from the night before.

Our realities will always hold the possibility of being distorted. Each of us hold the key to our own perceptions.

Man, I really gotta stop drinking....

they retouch everything at political campaigns

it's not the photoshoping itself that's caused the ad to be banned, per se. it's the misleading ad itself. the photoshopping/photo editing is misleading.

photo manipulation is not an issue if it's not used to mislead people. if you say, "this cream removes wrinkles" and then use photoshop instead of the cream to do so, that's a false or misleading advertisement.

banning photoshop manipulation is wrong. banning misleading ads (whether it's because of photoshopping or for some other reason) is totally fine with me.

This is amusing. I see nothing more or less radical about the Photoshopping they did to Twiggy than you see in any other ad for face creams -- even the ones in magazines catering to "authentic" women. Not that it's ethical, mind you. Just makes you wonder why they singled out this campaign.

I remember some super-model or another on a talk show back in the 70s -- maybe it was the refreshingly goofy Lauren Hutton -- said something like, "No woman can possibly look as good as the models in magazines. Hell, *I* don't look that good!" That was when mechanical air-brushing was the norm, way before Photoshop.

It's all about context. It's ad copy rather than images that are most likely to get an advertiser into trouble -- thus all the cheerful but meaningless claims these companies make. Nothing they say can usually be disproved. Anything will "brighten the eye area" or "soften the look of fine lines," even a spritz of plain water.

How different is this ad than Estée Lauder ads featuring their current favorite, English actress Elizabeth Hurley, who, at well over 40 years of age, is made to look as if she has the skin of an infant? Or Cover Girl pushing the aggressively authentic 50-something Ellen Degeneris with ads for its cheap drug-store products that smooth over whatever flaws she might have by shooting her from a respectable distance, and moving a mile a minute? No need for Photoshop to come to her rescue -- but is that honest advertising?

'its cheap drug-store products that smooth over whatever flaws she might have by shooting her from a respectable distance, and moving a mile a minute?'

LOL! That was just beautiful, Mara!

Genetics will determine wrinkles, Photoshop will blow them away.

That Olay advert is a misconception, do you know how wrinkly twiggy is in real life? My gosh its unbeliveable!