Makeup Ads Banned in UK for Too Much Photoshop

fsnewslogo Makeup Ads Banned in UK for Too Much Photoshop

I just read on PetaPixel that the “Advertising Standards Authority, the ad industry watchdog in the UK, has banned an advertisement by Lancome featuring Julia Roberts for being misleading, stating that the flawless skin seen in the photo was too good to be true.”

I’m curious to know how fellow photographers and retouchers feel about standards and regulations governing our practices where advertising is concerned. How would it effect the way we do our jobs or how we look at things aesthetically, creatively and socially?

“The spread, shot by Mario Testino, shows 43-year-old Roberts glowing and fresh-faced, the result of having used Lancome’s Teint Miracle foundation. The ad claims the foundation ‘recreates the aura of perfect skin.’”

roberts Makeup Ads Banned in UK for Too Much Photoshop

“The ad authority also went after the cosmetics company for altering photos of natural beauty Christy Turlington in an ad for Maybelline’s The Eraser foundation, which contrasts parts of the model’s face covered in foundation to parts left untouched.”

turlington Makeup Ads Banned in UK for Too Much Photoshop

turlington Makeup Ads Banned in UK for Too Much Photoshop

I understand that their primary concern centers around exagerated product claims but I can’t help but feel there is the deeper issue here, concerning the unrealistic perception of health and beauty that advertisers and the media places on people. Would it be such a bad thing if we had someone looking over our shoulders while we did post production, going, “tsk tsk tsk”?

via [PetaPixel], [NYDailyNews]

From Kenn:
Do you like what we are doing? Then show us some love. Tweet and Like your favorite articles and be sure to leave your comments below. Heck leave a comment even if you don’t like what we are doing. We can take it. ;)

If you want to receive the best of the month’s news articles in a convenient newsletter with added features such as Easter eggs, upcoming contests, great deals and more… then don’t forget to subscribe now.
And don’t be shy. I could use some more friends these days so hit me up on Twitter and Facebook.

July 27, 2011

Kenn Tam

FS News

« Check Out This Affordable Ring Light For Video Or Stills

Japanese Band Androp Uses 250 Canon Cameras and Flashes For Their Stage Show »

http://www.patrickhallphotography.com Patrick Hall
How can you ban an advertisement like this? The fact that Julia Roberts is even smiling at me puts it into the realm of fantasy ha. What’s next, wearing makeup is cause for deceptive advertising?
Christina Bernales
Not getting into the endless debate of how these unrealistic, overly photoshopped images contribute to the insecurities of young men and women in our society and the large implications of that. I think that they should be removed simply for the fact that it is false advertising. No one has skin that perfect, no one. And no make up can make it look even close to that.
http://kenkyee.myopenid.com/ Ken
They haven’t banned the exercise ads or the weight loss drug ads? The ones that show 18 year olds that supposedly lost 50 lbs w/ no stretch marks? ;-)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=510770943 Mike Distras
I agree that they should be banned in regards to them being false advertising.
However, all make up and adverts like this are heavily photoshopped anyway… So where is the line I guess?
http://www.facebook.com/hiroschneider Jaron Schneider
And a step further, who gets to decide that line? And what/who gives them the right to?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Spencer-Flohr/1306254999 Spencer Flohr
I think it is just that, an “advertisement”. It is not supposed to be a demo shot of their product, it’s supposed to be advertising. Who cares if it’s retouched to “perfection”, it’s supposed to catch your eye and get you interested in the product. If the ad said, “This product will make your skin look EXACTLY like this photograph!”, then yes, that would be false advertising. But the fact of the matter is that this is just an advertisement. It’s supposed to look overly good, otherwise the advertiser who created this ad would not have done his job.
In the world today people wear make-up (or cover-up, etc, what-have-you) to make themselves look better. In the world of photography, photoshop is used as a form of make-up to make people and things look better. It’s not always necessary but for companies promoting a product, they want to look the best. I understand both sides of the issue but in this situation I find it to be a little over the top to “ban” an ad for “over-photoshopping”.
(Disclaimer: I do believe that today’s media raises the bar everyday for young men and women as far as standards of appearance and whatnot. I think it does pose problems, so please do not think I’m advocating a bias for either side of that issue.)
http://www.patrickhallphotography.com Patrick Hall
I don’t know, with great makeup application and solid photography lighting, I bet you could get a ‘real’ photo at this websize to look that good. For Julia? Maybe not…but there are talented people out there who can do it without photoshop
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1403962574 Levy Moroshan
Wouldn’t it be the same thing like an ad for a juicy burger? I don’t ever remember opening up a burger and it even looking like the original ad! Your just trying to get your “product” to look as good as possible. Even when I have a professional MUA do makeup for a headshot session, I still need to go in after and make little touchups. Nothing wrong with people looking their best. :) IMO
Anonymous
I completely disagree with censorship….it’s totally wrong to ban this ad.
However, events like this are foreshadowing a future backlash against digital. The average person is getting tired of advertising and imagery that he/she considers to be fraudulent. It doesn’t matter if an image actually is fraudulent and this is not about some kind of “what is truth” philosophical debate. None of that matters because perception is what is important. There will be a backlash against digital manipulation (of most any kind) and it will continue to grow if people PERCEIVE that they are being lied to…
http://twitter.com/Joshgaedephotos Joshua Gaede
are they going to ban advertisements for cars that say they get so many mpg. how about ads for fitness centers. i dont know the last time i paid for a gym and walked in to all women that weighed 125 pounds and abs you can bounce a quater off of. you can show sex on tv in the uk as long as the breasts arent photoshopped to look more perkiness isnt too good to be true.
Fabien Engels
If their products are so efficient, they shouldn’t need to retouch their pictures :)
More seriously, she looks like 25 yrs old …
http://twitter.com/mjgholland Mark Holland
I disagree that it can be “overly photoshopped” because its an advert. An advertisement should represent what you can achieve with that product. That’s the point of the advert, otherwise its false advertising. If you bought a car and it wasn’t the one in the picture you wouldn’t be happy! (other examples above about gyms, sex shows, and weight loss are not relevant in this debate! Its not the same thing)
Therefore, there should be some likeness between the image and what can be achieved with the product. That doesn’t mean no photoshop, it just means putting up some boundaries that reflect real life.
http://twitter.com/jdpetersdotcom Jason Peters
Ramble warning.
There is no doubt that there is a very serious social issues at play here. Both in the furthering the insecurities of young teens and for that matter just about everyone else but also the consumerism that seems to run our society. Photographers and retouchers who do this kind of work have some involvement in these issues but lets be honest, photographers give ad agencies what they want and ad agencies give the consumer what they want. Seems to me the one group that can change things happens to be millions of people that don’t really know what draws them to an ad anyway.
Alright, that was kinda ramble-y but I think what I am getting at is I just don’t see things changing very quickly. If one cosmetics company pulls things back to reality a bit more then other companies there sales will drop so they just won’t do it… Anyway I think at least the second is way over retouched to the point of being unattractive.
I think that is is or once was implied that the makeup done in these ads is the makeup you can buy off the shelf at wallyword (or what ever the uk equivalent is), which as far as I know is just not true. So false advertisement? I guess? Overreaction? yes.
Sorry for the scattered thoughts but one thing I am sure about is that I am glad I shoot advertisements for mountain bikes not cosmetics!
http://www.facebook.com/kidyosh ‘Sa Jamil Hogan
I can understand why they’re banning the ad in the sense that it’s making the product appear to be better than it really is. The best way I can switch this to another product set would be if say ford showed the Fiesta beating a Viper/911/GT-R or car of that nature in an ad. I do agree that some of the images used in advertisement can be a little too photoshopped but it’s come to the point where the general public knows that anything they see plastered on a wall is photoshopped and overly fake.
Graham Binns
For clarity, AIUI: The ASA banned the images not because they were overly photoshopped, but because the companies in question could not show evidence of how much retouching had been done to each image.
http://www.facebook.com/nicholas.gonzalez3 Nicholas Gonzalez
I just find it odd that THIS image is being singled out, above other images that were poorly lit and terribly retouched. I’ve seen magazines where a models torso was made outrageously skinny, or an image of a celebrity whose well known birthmark or scar was removed entirely.
This Julia Roberts image is well made and beautiful. I’m sure she had the best hair stylist, makeup artist and a photographer (with an assistant or two), who lit the hell out of her face. Is it false advertising that she may not have even applied the makeup to herself? Everyday women and men don’t have makeup artists, let alone octobanks or triangulated kinoflos, accompany them.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Z6TUYVIMNCA5IY5C36GD6UV7EE Tommy
Results may vary.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Paulo-Matos-Raimundo/100000947657515 Paulo Matos Raimundo
I think that you sir underestimate the characteristics of the human being. If these images are to be banned then ban them along the “perfect ass” and “breast” that other woman have that are too good to be true… I think its an exaggeration all of this
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=847470423 Louis Rafael Rosenthal
True, but did you notice the labels for the maybelline shot? “crow’s feet” vs. “fine lines”??? That’s messed up. The Lancôme one – whatever, but those labels are too much.
http://blog.dafyddowen.com/ Daf
I think the French suggested system may be better – to clearly mark images that have been retouched.
http://www.facebook.com/shannon.wimberly1 Shannon Wimberly
i wonder if, in the UK, you would be able to advertise yourself as a photographer/photoshop retoucher, with a claim that ….’you too can look as good as Julia Roberts’…. and post images too good to be true…. would that violate their standards? …. i mean really. (and then could slip in at the bottom…. ‘make-up by Lancome’..) ;)
Christina Bernales
Fair enough. It just irks me that they are essentially suggesting to potential customers that this is what they could look like that if they use their product, which is, false advertising. Though this is applicable to many other advertisements, beauty or not.
http://www.christinabernales.com Christina Bernales
Well yes, I agree that these particular images are banned, then all other unrealistic portrayals of the human body should be banned as well. It just so happened that these were the examples.
And no, I don’t doubt that people can have skin this perfect and be this beautiful (not to say that people who don’t have perfect skin, limbs or mid-sections aren’t beautiful) I just think that the industry has set their “beauty” standards to a very unrealistic bar. Even men and women who are beautiful straight out of camera get shopped. It’s almost as if they’re looking for imperfections, but why?
http://www.christinabernales.com Christina Bernales
Well yes, I agree that these particular images are banned, then all other unrealistic portrayals of the human body should be banned as well. It just so happened that these were the examples.
And no, I don’t doubt that people can have skin this perfect and be this beautiful (not to say that people who don’t have perfect skin, limbs or mid-sections aren’t beautiful) I just think that the industry has set their “beauty” standards to a very unrealistic bar. Even men and women who are beautiful straight out of camera get shopped. It’s almost as if they’re looking for imperfections, but why?
http://www.facebook.com/GhislainLeduc Ghislain Leduc
I have to agree with the ban…. These companies are saying: Buy this cream and you will look that perfect which is false advertisement. Even top model don’t look that good… So put on an ad the real thing… Yes we can create fantasy with photoshop but if you want to sell a product based on the image, you should not be allowed to do any cloning. Small adjustment just like NewsPaper are allowed… that’s it.
http://www.facebook.com/GhislainLeduc Ghislain Leduc
I have to agree with the ban…. These companies are saying: Buy this cream and you will look that perfect which is false advertisement. Even top model don’t look that good… So put on an ad the real thing… Yes we can create fantasy with photoshop but if you want to sell a product based on the image, you should not be allowed to do any cloning. Small adjustment just like NewsPaper are allowed… that’s it.
http://www.facebook.com/GhislainLeduc Ghislain Leduc
that’s basically what this ad is all about… Buy this and your skin will look like this…
http://www.facebook.com/GhislainLeduc Ghislain Leduc
that’s basically what this ad is all about… Buy this and your skin will look like this…
http://www.facebook.com/GhislainLeduc Ghislain Leduc
Honestly, I think companies should be watched way more… Way too many product are sold and don’t give you what you paid for. I hate when things are censored but this is not the issue here. It’s false representation. I totally support the ban
Jon McGuffin
Ugghh… this is so absurd and frankly the kind of thing I would expect from China. It’s a wicked downward spiral of taking the responsibility away from the people to make up their own minds and judgements about an image, an advertising company, a magazine, or a product, etc and putting it in the hands of somebody who presumably knows better than the populous. What this does in reality is just give people a false sense of security that now everything they see is real because, afterall, big brother is watching over and making sure that what’s being advertised is accurate and so no need to think critically for themselves…
Scroll down a few vidoes and take a look at the Canon advertisement for their Monopod the stillmotion guys put together. The woman in that video maybe should be banned from any form of media whatsoever as I’m sure many young girls esteems will be shattered should they realize this is the look they *must* achieve…
http://www.facebook.com/martinduke Martin Duke
As both a photographer and casual retoucher who lives/works/plays in the UK, I’m glad they’ve started doing things like this. The french seem to be getting it right in my opinion, and the rest of world should follow suit.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687531541 Kris Armstead
Ban pizza ads… drink ads… burger ads… hell… let’s just ban all magazine photography period. This is RIDICULOUS.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687531541 Kris Armstead
Next, they will start banning ads because the lighting is too flattering. Where is THE LINE?
http://thegirlinthemiddle.wordpress.com/ Molly_Mac
There is a covergirl ad out right now for mascara that has a disclaimer about the lashes being enhanced post production. Ugh.
Anonymous
Too much grey area and almost impossible to govern… I don’t like the way it’s all going lately either, the world of fashion has sterilised the human race into pampered, spoilt brats.. The money poured into this could do so much more but people’s vanity seems to be self prioritised over everything else.
http://www.patrickhallphotography.com Patrick Hall
But you realize what we are ultimately saying right? That the general public is so stupid that we need to protect them from the ways of advertising! I think that is a dangerous slope to go down. Doesn’t all advertising actually sell you something other than reality? Slash selling guitars, Tiger woods selling Rolexs, Chase Jarvis selling Nikon cameras (or Ashton for that matter). They are selling a glamorized version of the product that will never perform the same way it will when in your hands.
To start censoring the advertising world seems like a really bad idea to me. I mean what if the burger I just ate didn’t have fake cheese on it to sell it to me and it actually looked like what came out of the wrapper? McDonalds would be out of business :)
http://www.patrickhallphotography.com Patrick Hall
Curious how everyone would feel if this post was about Apple and how they sped up the app transitions on their iPhone commercials last year? It still does exactly what they said it does except much slower…but it’s still the best product I’ve ever bought. Again I think it’s a slippery slope to start censoring everything; instead we expect the general public to become better educated.
http://www.patrickhallphotography.com Patrick Hall
Or how about colleges that say you can get a higher education that allows you to find a job in that field?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=510770943 Mike Distras
I suppose its almost the same thing with the Calvin Klein underwear, they have an image of some super-toned bloke on the front. But that irritates me more, as I dont think “Damn if i buy these ill look like him”, i just think… Damn this is kinda gay just for some new underwear!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Tevan-Shii-Lockhart/1718337715 Tevan Shii Lockhart
Are you insisting it is only wrong when it is false advertisement. Are you in accordance that other ads that have highly retouched models but are not claiming that their product will make the buyer look “perfect” are, in fact, acceptable?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1019489827 Freddy Oropeza
I can see both sides of the argument, and I feel inclined to lean more towards the false advertising side of things, but I can also feel for the artists,although having worked in advertising, the work ends up feeling more like work than art anyways.
See if you guys can get your hands in a documentary called Art and Copy, pretty good stuff, about advertising and the manipulation of the masses.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Tevan-Shii-Lockhart/1718337715 Tevan Shii Lockhart
That is your interpretation of the advertisement, and no doubt, many others as well. However, like Mr. Flohr, I did not see those specific words on the advertisement nor did I interpret the advertisement as such. Many of these kinds of debates are based upon how the “individual” interprets the advertisement, and it should be the “individual’s” responsibility to be able to accurately discern between reality and what is exaggerated for effect, not the companies.
As people we are too quick to point the finger and blame a conglomerate for our own weak judgement. I’m not condoning false advertisement by any means. False advertisement is a crime, and it should dealt with accordingly. I am stating that people should be mentally mature enough to know how decipher between fact and exaggeration. As for children who are not mentally mature enough and are still impressionable, the responsibility should fall upon the parent.
(Just added that in for anyone who might be thinking about playing the child card.)
http://www.facebook.com/paul.gessinger Paul Gessinger
I don’t think this is a question of aesthetics, it is simply about the fact, that her shopped fare implies that lancome’s make-up can make you look like Roberts on this picture, which it can’t.
It’s like if an ad claims that their yoghurt can make your ears shrink. That’s not just deceptive, it is an outright lie.
However, I agree, that there is nothing morally wrong with photoshopping a face, even to that extent. If that photo was to be used on a poster for a movie, so what, no one’s going to have a problem with that.
Jon-Mark Wiltshire
Where do you draw the line? What about great lighting? On the other hand, if a company is selling a product that is designed to alter the appearance of one’s skin, they should have to show what that makeup really does. If they retouch a model’s skin who is selling clothing, who cares?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=59503071 Matt Skalski
There is extensive research on visual marketing, and even if you consciously decide the makeup photos are touched up, it still impacts and effects your judgement on the effectiveness of the product which is false advertising and applies to us all. I find it quite annoying when people take moral/intellectual authority and say, “I can do it, so it’s your responsibility to be able to as well.” Not only is that an ignorant thing to say, it’s simply inaccurate.
http://www.rlmorris.com Lee Morris
“are they going to ban advertisements for cars that say they get so many mpg” well yes they already do that and they should because that is a fact. Makeup, or food isn’t and that is why I’m not surprized when my burger doesn’t look like the picture :)
http://www.facebook.com/people/Donna-Munshi/528165057 Donna Munshi
But the fact remains that the advertisement was not used for promoting anything else but to acquire a way to achieve a flawless skin as showcased which can be very misguiding to a lot of people. There is nothing wrong with post- production of an image, everyone does it, but to what extent is the question.
chris lawrence
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px ‘Lucida Grande’}
i totally agree with you Patrick. that would be so cool, cause so many “professional photographers” what be out of business, just because they think the no how to use photoshop. hey, more work for those of us who make a point to get it right in the CAMERA not photoshop. this is one of my pet peeves!! i hate porcelain skin!!!
http://www.facebook.com/GhislainLeduc Ghislain Leduc
No Pat, it’s not that people are stupid… People would be stupid to think that if you buy a guitar from Slash, you’ll play immediately as good as him, but when the ad says that if you buy my cream, your skin will look as good as this, it could be anyone’s faces but it actually says: You skin will get as smooth as this… then it should. As for your McDonald comment, it’s now in the law, they cannot use fake food in their ads anymore, they have to use real cheeze and real food. Yes I have to say, it’s not looking as good in the box, but… that’s not McDonald’s fault really, it’s each restaurant that let their employee work bad… I used to work at a Harveys’ 22 years ago, and believe me, the hamburgers look just as it was on the ad :)
http://www.colorspace.am Alex Masters
the people that harp on about getting it right in camera are clearly technologically inept.

Makeup Ads Banned in UK for Too Much Photoshop

Fstoppers Originals

Popular Articles

Recent Comments

Support Fstoppers

Makeup Ads Banned in UK for Too Much Photoshop

Connect with Fstoppers

Fstoppers Originals

Popular Articles

Recent Comments

Support Fstoppers