UK Advertising Standards Authority Bans New Dior Ads

UK Advertising Standards Authority Bans New Dior Ads

The ever vigilant UK watchdog group the Advertising Standards Authority has banned yet another advertisement from appearing in any UK markets. The offending Dior Ad, featuring Natalie Portman was cited for being over photoshopped and Dior has agreed to withdraw the ad without a fight. This is probably due to the fact that if they were to stage a formal appeal, they would be forced to argue that they didn't over retouch the image in the ad.

The image, which was shot by Mert & Marcus has clearly been retouched, I mean, unless I'm mistaken, Natalie Portman does in fact have pores, but the question is, is it OVER retouched? Is the over retouching of make up advertisements borderline unethical or is it just the overreaction of a watchdog organization?

Let us know your thoughts on the matter in the comments below.

via The Gloss

Posted In: 
Log in or register to post comments

50 Comments

UK Auditors are psychos!

The Advertising Standards Authority follow up on complaints made to them. In this case there was just one complaint from competitor L'Oreal about the over-enhacement of the mascara. Nothing to do with skin pores. 
I'm interested that make-up companies suffer from claims of over-retouching when most car companies get a away with advertising cars with 3D renderings.

 Ehhmmm 3D is making the car look more real. It be wrong if they advertised the car flying or doing something unreal

You don't watch many car advertisements, then. A lot of them are ridiculous, which is the point of advertising. It's meant to catch your eye and make you interested in the product. You're selling an idea, not the product.

Mike Kelley's picture

Good- I can't stand advertising like this. 

Andrew Houser's picture

Me too! I'm completely tired of looking at how gorgeously perfect Natalie Portman is. If I could only find a ladder, I could take down that poster of her face which hangs on my bedroom ceiling.

NIgel King's picture

you would have to see the double page spread to offer a true opinion. Even at 1200 pixels it is hard to judge. http://www.designscene.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Natalie-Portman-Di...
At least you can read the type!

Daniel Flores's picture

i think the problem resides in what they are advertising... They are advertising beauty supplies and clearly Natalie Portman's beauty was photoshopped. They were lying about their product, that is unnethical

eh, tough call. Sure we can all tell the skin was pretty heavily photoshopped, but this ad is for mascara. Yeah, the eye lashes were probably photoshopped but its difficult for me anyways to tell if they were over phtoshopped. 

 Compare with her other images and u can tell.

The ad is for mascara, why is her skin relevant?

Jens Marklund's picture

Looks like she's wearing a mask. And when it comes to the mascara, her eyelashes are probably pretty photoshoped/brushed as well.

Roman France's picture

I've seen more egregious images. It's a little tough, but hey maybe this wills bring folks back down to reality.

Peter Kremzar's picture

It’s definitely NOT over retouched. It’s a great photo and thumbs up to the photographer. I don’t say this often but I really like this photo.

I share your opinion, but then again, I reside in the US (A place where it is perfectly acceptable for a woman's waist to appear the same diameter as her neck, and pores do not exist)

I don't think it's a judgement based on how retouched her skin is or not - but rather if the advert was misleading or not.

If it were an advert for, say a phone then it would fine, but it's the appearance of the product itself (mascara) that has been changed.

Its just a portrayal of the beautiful idea that we are all so in love with. I don't mind the "illustrative effect", but do mind the educational impact my profession as a retoucher has on the younger generation that is learning a perception of beauty. She has gorgeous enough skin & eyelashes to appear "as is", and previously made house of Dior listen to her opinions, could be nice if she could have taken a stand on the way she is portrayed. On another hand, we all have bills to pay & kids to raise, can't expect activism

Jim Nowakowski's picture

They have too much time on their hands...suggest they find something better to do. 

Natalie Portman soooo naturally beautiful I really don't see a reason to photoshop her photo but then again I forget how out of whack the beauty industry is.

Agreed, if the UK Advertising Standard Agency wants the ads to more resemble real life people, then they should ban Natalie Portman all together, because she is definitely an exceptional beauty.

We all hate excessive Photoshop but this is beauty advertising which always looks plastic but is the standard. The worst was a beauty ad a few years ago (I can't remember the product) featuring Julianne Moore where they removed all her freckles and made her plastic-looking with a greenish hue!

the funny thing is, this woman doesn't even need Photoshop to be stunning!!!

this is about Mascera....not her pores....overreaction.

I have been complaining that ALL mascara ads are false advertising!!! The ladies always wear FAKE eyelashes!!! 

 I'm probably on the ban's side, because heavily retouched pictures are the reason most females today have totally aberrated ideas about what looks good. Natural looks good, I hate plastic-doll women...

I support promoting natural beauty over lies, plastic surgeries, tons of makeup and over-retouching.

I think retouching is for correcting minor errors, removing pimples, etc and should not be used to the extent of falsifying someone's "beauty".

P.s.: I'm a Photoshop specialist, I'm doing photo-manipulations as art, and I still oppose these things.

Well its clearly been retouched, but not any more than any other beauty advertisement I have seen lately. I would not say its been over retouched at all. 

It's not about the model, it's about the style and overall idea conveyed by the image. People who complain about over retouching are thinking too literally. This is art, it's not means to be literally interpreted. Of course nobody looks like that, it's common sense. Grow up kids.

Mert and Marcus may be a couple of photoshop hacks but that doesn't stop the government's action from being pure fascism.

How do you come to that conclusion ?

"It is a broad question wether any measure of regimentation is compatible with art. In another country, (which certainly shall be nameless) an artist shall be sent to a concentration camp, for putting too much green in his sky, or too much blue in his trees. Even more grievous penalties would be reserved for him if he should, be found, be suspected, of preferring vermillion to madder brown. We should all agree that such rigor was excessive over here" - Sir Winston Churchill addressing the Royal Academy of Arts

Pages