As long as it applies to professional modelling and advertising photos as well then I think forcing the inclusion of a note saying a picture has been edited would be okay. I’d disagree with outright banning it.
I just go old school and put Sean Connery’s face over mine in MS Paint
Regulated as in telling people this picture has been altered/filtered, yes
It’s unreal what they can do
Probably need to determine the answer to ‘could’ before wondering about should.
I don’t know it sort of works both ways, some people just aren’t photogenic, I’ve met people in real life that look significantly more attractive than their photos, my cousin’s husband is an example of this.
In his photos he just looks like a generic man in his late 30s, in real life he’s intimidatingly handsome to the point where it makes me feel self conscious about my own body which I’m normally perfectly comfortable with!
May as well ban make-up as it does the same thing, right?
I’m not in favour of face altering stuff but let people do what the heck they like!
[deleted]
I think they would have to start with the fashion and makeup industry first if they were to ban altering pictures.
The way every photo is altered to unrealistic proportions is rather bad.
Am I in favour of it? No
Do I use any of the filters? No
If people want to be fake, let them, only them who will get hurt in the end when they get found out, as for those who fall scam to a pretty face!!! You should know better.
Yes.
Every picture posted online should include a clear disclaimer of both filters/software used for editing and a comprehensive history of the model’s plastic and cosmetic surgery procedures.
No, if that were the case then we’d be regulating make-up also as also zero women (and some men who war make-up) look fuck all like they do at home as when they leave the house. If someone feels the need to make themselves appear stereotypically prettier than they actually are then that’s more a mental health concern imo. People need to start feeling comfortable in their own bodies with their own features.
Sure, let’s ban slimming pants while we’re at it. Maybe those clips that change the shape of your bra. Hey, push up bras too, and minimisers, they’re ‘fake’. Let’s ban volumising shampoo. Eyeliner.
Or,.you know, the government and the regulators could focus on things that actually matter rather than tell Brenda she can’t Photoshop her forehead lines off anymore.
Its a murky complicated topic but I would argue yes. Especially as we are moving into a complicated world where video filters are now a thing.
Minor rant, using any form of filter on online dating apps should result in an immediate ban. Getting really sick of the fake freckles, eyelashes, “cute cute cute cute” etc…
Only if it also applies to movie studios and magazines that can afford to pay people to do it manually. That is the real source of the problem – not your mum editing out her acne on her instagram.
No, of course not! How else are people going to realise that wet dream so many of them are having about the end of truth? They fuckin’ love it!
Imagine getting your wedding photos only to find “The bride is uglier than depicted” watermarked across it.
I did an essay back in 2008 about models and how they promote eating disorders.
I was 7 stone, with a six pack. But it was just my bones and muscle showing.
We are going down a sloppy slide.
It’s a thought line to walk. I worked a photographer for a number of years and while there is absolutely a lot of editing, there’s also a lot of stuff that is achieved with make-up and lighting that would blow people’s minds.
You would also be amazed at what can be done with just manipulating colour and brightness curves. Skin tone, in particular, is very susceptible to looking really different with different colour and brightness curves.
So where do you draw the line? If someone achieves an effect with a filter that could be achieved with make up and lighting, should that be labelled as such?
What if I have a pen mark on my face that doesn’t usually exist, but I edit it out? Should that be labelled?
What about a visual effect I *could* have achieved if I had more money, but didn’t want to spend the money on that effect?
I think a cornerstone of the difficulty of a law like this is how you legally define the line and what does and does not fall foul of it. I don’t see how you could manage it.
People obviously go much further than what I have talked about, absolutely changing the fundamental bone structure and proportions of their bodies and faces. But finding the place that you draw the line and then legally defining where that line is will be a nightmare.
For those reasons, I just don’t see this becoming an enforceable law.
Regulate regulate regulate…
Can’t we just let some things be?
Who the fuck cares.
Edited and AI generated images of celebrities and political figures on the other hand could be used for even more egregious misinformation and should be regulated
It’s pointless to even have the discussion, because this **cannot** be regulated… it’s impossible
Perhaps educational films could be made, but like with most educational stuff the people who need it the most will engage with it the least. Or they’ll engage with it for a while, a few months or years will go by and they’ll completely forget it and claim they were never told to begin with. Or they’ll engage with it, but not be able to apply it outside of that context
21 comments
As long as it applies to professional modelling and advertising photos as well then I think forcing the inclusion of a note saying a picture has been edited would be okay. I’d disagree with outright banning it.
I just go old school and put Sean Connery’s face over mine in MS Paint
Regulated as in telling people this picture has been altered/filtered, yes
It’s unreal what they can do
Probably need to determine the answer to ‘could’ before wondering about should.
I don’t know it sort of works both ways, some people just aren’t photogenic, I’ve met people in real life that look significantly more attractive than their photos, my cousin’s husband is an example of this.
In his photos he just looks like a generic man in his late 30s, in real life he’s intimidatingly handsome to the point where it makes me feel self conscious about my own body which I’m normally perfectly comfortable with!
May as well ban make-up as it does the same thing, right?
I’m not in favour of face altering stuff but let people do what the heck they like!
[deleted]
I think they would have to start with the fashion and makeup industry first if they were to ban altering pictures.
The way every photo is altered to unrealistic proportions is rather bad.
Am I in favour of it? No
Do I use any of the filters? No
If people want to be fake, let them, only them who will get hurt in the end when they get found out, as for those who fall scam to a pretty face!!! You should know better.
Yes.
Every picture posted online should include a clear disclaimer of both filters/software used for editing and a comprehensive history of the model’s plastic and cosmetic surgery procedures.
No, if that were the case then we’d be regulating make-up also as also zero women (and some men who war make-up) look fuck all like they do at home as when they leave the house. If someone feels the need to make themselves appear stereotypically prettier than they actually are then that’s more a mental health concern imo. People need to start feeling comfortable in their own bodies with their own features.
Sure, let’s ban slimming pants while we’re at it. Maybe those clips that change the shape of your bra. Hey, push up bras too, and minimisers, they’re ‘fake’. Let’s ban volumising shampoo. Eyeliner.
Or,.you know, the government and the regulators could focus on things that actually matter rather than tell Brenda she can’t Photoshop her forehead lines off anymore.
Its a murky complicated topic but I would argue yes. Especially as we are moving into a complicated world where video filters are now a thing.
Minor rant, using any form of filter on online dating apps should result in an immediate ban. Getting really sick of the fake freckles, eyelashes, “cute cute cute cute” etc…
Only if it also applies to movie studios and magazines that can afford to pay people to do it manually. That is the real source of the problem – not your mum editing out her acne on her instagram.
No, of course not! How else are people going to realise that wet dream so many of them are having about the end of truth? They fuckin’ love it!
Imagine getting your wedding photos only to find “The bride is uglier than depicted” watermarked across it.
Well, I’d say that this is an issue long predating the Internet and computers, [just ask Henry VIII about Anne de Cleves “profile picture”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Cleves#Wedding_preparations)!
I did an essay back in 2008 about models and how they promote eating disorders.
I was 7 stone, with a six pack. But it was just my bones and muscle showing.
We are going down a sloppy slide.
It’s a thought line to walk. I worked a photographer for a number of years and while there is absolutely a lot of editing, there’s also a lot of stuff that is achieved with make-up and lighting that would blow people’s minds.
You would also be amazed at what can be done with just manipulating colour and brightness curves. Skin tone, in particular, is very susceptible to looking really different with different colour and brightness curves.
So where do you draw the line? If someone achieves an effect with a filter that could be achieved with make up and lighting, should that be labelled as such?
What if I have a pen mark on my face that doesn’t usually exist, but I edit it out? Should that be labelled?
What about a visual effect I *could* have achieved if I had more money, but didn’t want to spend the money on that effect?
I think a cornerstone of the difficulty of a law like this is how you legally define the line and what does and does not fall foul of it. I don’t see how you could manage it.
People obviously go much further than what I have talked about, absolutely changing the fundamental bone structure and proportions of their bodies and faces. But finding the place that you draw the line and then legally defining where that line is will be a nightmare.
For those reasons, I just don’t see this becoming an enforceable law.
Regulate regulate regulate…
Can’t we just let some things be?
Who the fuck cares.
Edited and AI generated images of celebrities and political figures on the other hand could be used for even more egregious misinformation and should be regulated
It’s pointless to even have the discussion, because this **cannot** be regulated… it’s impossible
Perhaps educational films could be made, but like with most educational stuff the people who need it the most will engage with it the least. Or they’ll engage with it for a while, a few months or years will go by and they’ll completely forget it and claim they were never told to begin with. Or they’ll engage with it, but not be able to apply it outside of that context