Could To Much ‘Photoshopping’ Get You Fined?
TweetIn Australia, to much Photoshop just might cost you $220,000!
You are probably aware of the debate and controversy over image manipulation. The most blatant examples draw plenty of attention and sometimes, repercussions.
Many of these cases are related to fashion and glamor photography surrounding the use of Photoshop to create unrealistic looking women (and men I’m sure) that have been made over. The issues are many but include the use of Photoshop on a women’s face and body reshaping to sell beauty products that may not do what the picture suggests.
Britain has banned a few of ads from running due to to much Photoshop work and we have seen a few times, nature and wildlife photographers in trouble for image manipulation.Now some would like to see anti-Photoshop laws in the U.S.
But Australia has gone one step further by making to much Photoshop work in a manner that obviously misrepresents ‘the product’, punishable with up to a $220,000 fine. This article spells it out and is related to the real estate market.
A few of the suggested infractions are retouching out power lines, which I do all the time, to over saturation of the sky, which many of us do all the time.
How long until they come after nature photography for retouching out the stick in the stream or the grass in front of the lens, and excessive saturation of the sunset.
While I acknowledge there is problems with to much PS work in a few rare cases, who will be in charge of deciding what is to much?
Please share your thoughts with a comment!
Related Posts: Extending Depth of Field in Photoshop When Photomerge Wont Work, Image Manipulation: Have I Gone Too Far on This One?
Book:
I agree that too much Photoshop for advertising purposes should be curtailed. It could be considered bait and switch, which I believe is illegal. This should fall on the companies using the over-worked images, instead of the photographer. It is the company that approves the images, or requests that they look a certain way.
Photoshop is merely our Darkroom. It has the capacity to dramatically alter a photograph, or make subtle color corrections. When it comes down to it, a photograph is “made” by the photographer, and only shows what he/she chooses to show. Our filters have left the front of the lens, and been put into Photoshop and its plug-in programs. Besides, a photograph is a subjective and crafted view of the world (nature or urban).
I think we should let photographers be the artists they are, and keep the laws applying towards the businesses that use them to manipulate the buying public.
I agree with Karen.We, as photographers are creative spirits and limiting that creativity can limit the art. I also think doing too much “Photoshopping” can give false representation of a product and should absolutely be curtailed. But as art, photography can use all kinds of tools in order to enhance or create a feel for the viewer. This is not a subject that is going away. It will be interesting to watch the process.
You know, they just put up those darn power lines a couple weeks ago after I shot the image….
Yes, and Stratocaster might not have made that wonderful image if the powerlines had already been there when he arrived, knowing that he/she would be criticized if he/she resorted to PS to improve the final photo.
Limit Photoshop use to keep truth in advertising, certainly. But for artistic expression, there should be no limits. Go visit some art galleries that carry paintings and see how much they have added, deleted and moved around. Law makers need to realize that advertising and artistic expression are two different things, and I believe they will.
Have Fun,
Jeff