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
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.
Good- I can't stand advertising like this.
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.
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!
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?
Looks like she's wearing a mask. And when it comes to the mascara, her eyelashes are probably pretty photoshoped/brushed as well.
I've seen more egregious images. It's a little tough, but hey maybe this wills bring folks back down to reality.
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
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
Where does the Advertising Standards Authority say anything about "pores", only the author mentions "pores"...
If they want to stop false advertising, they should start with Subway sandwiches.
For that matter what about all the beer/redbull/Axe hair care products. Getting truth in advertising is like expecting politicians to never say anything bad about there competition.
Her upper lashes are fake. It should not matter whether the lashes were physically applied at the time of the shoot or created in post with Photoshop. This is false advertising. This really has nothing to do with art, or beauty it is about deception and dishonesty. Just because we have learned to accept and to have become numb to these kind of fraudulent practices does not make it ok for manufactures to continue to mislead the public. I say good for the watchdogs for taking a stand on this. Look at it this way, take a car ad that states you will get 40 miles to the gallon when in reality you only get 25 mpg... same king of thing here. There are somethings that are important and truth in advertising should be one of them.
Well - if it is an ad for mascara making your eyelashes look longer, and the eyelashes are faked I think there's a good reason...
Absurd. They are paying Natalie Portman to be a mannequin, they are highlighting an eyeshadow. They don't want your focus on her pores.
If this was some sort of mask or pore-shrinking ad, then I can see the grounds. But airbrushing has nothing to do with the fact that this product makes your eyelashes black, and her eyelashes are black. I really don't see the issue.
Socialism or communism... Is it over retouch? It is obvious but what happen to the free market is a real question!!!
Needless to say the reaction by the watchdog group is an over-reaction - to say the least. I get what they are trying to prevent or protect, but is there anyone left on earth that believes models, actors, and such look exactly the way they appear in advertisements... uh, wait, I take that back. And if you believe that eye-liner is going to make you look like Natalie Portman, well, good for you... grab the lipstick too, seriously as long as it make you feel good more power to you.
MH~
While they're at it, why not just ban make up altogether in the first place?
Same rationale. Think about it...
So this is the UK - the land that is almost as broke as greece, worrying about photoshop. Unemployment 7.9% same as Obama land.Land Rovers being made in India. Same as Jeeps being made in China. Maybe they keep the unemployment count down by hiring photoshop police. Now there is an idea that will certainly rear its head after tuesday. ROTFLMAO
If the model isn't that famous... would someone even care if its over retouched or not? Someone just want to be famous...
If the eyelashes are retouched then I agree with the advertising standards. As far as her missing pores, that shouldn't matter when you are trying to sell mascara.
As for me, this ad is fine because Natalie Portman rather a symbol here of a certain type of women not her personally. Everyone can see that the photo is fake. These ads are selling a dream rather than a specific product. It is not expected a snapshot of a real Natalie here.
I didnt even see it was Portman at first. So i guess its kind of over retouched.
Please read the Guardian-UK's article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/24/dior-mascara-natalie-portman...
"Rival L'Oreal lodged a complaint with the Advertising Standards
Authority that the ad "misleadingly exaggerated the likely effects of
the product"." - Because eyelashes was 'shopped.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this shot and think the claim is ludicrous. We've all seen Natalie Portman in film - we know this is relatively close to what she looks like. And we're all big boys and girls here - we know what Photoshop is used for and how it is used. In my opinion, this is a great image, not over Photoshopped, and aspirational to those of us who retouch photos.
I don't think this pictures is over retouched. After all, you see the pores and no part of the picture looks clearly fake. For me personally, I think a picture is fine as long as it looks natural in a way that "with good make up, light and a good photographer, it could really look like this". And to me, no part of this picture looks obviously unnatural.
I take beauty pictures myself and its incredible, how perfect a face can look with the right light and make up ... and a naturally perfect skin. Yes, it does exist.
Just because 99% of all women dont look like that doesnt mean its fake. Question is, what you make out of it. I also dont look like Brad Pitt. Does that mean all pictures of Brad Pitt should be banned?
I dont think its over retouched, nothing is over the top her face doesn't look WEIRD or anything. Its just enough to make her look smooth and flawless.
I'm a retoucher and I TOTALLY AGREE with the ASA!!! What's wrong with pores?? And wrinkles?? And reality????? NOTHING! Companies/art directors/designers/etc create these over retouched images to show perfection though amazing software technology and its totally awesome what is possible. BUT it has a severely negative effect on the viewers/consumers/customers!!!!! NO ONE looks this way, NO ONE is that perfect, and its absolutely acceptable for a board to judge these images as unacceptable portrayals of beauty / advertistements.
I am slightly torn about this.. I think this board and L'Oreal have overstepped in a major way regarding a beauty/cosmetic ad. L'Oreal may have in fact made it more difficult for their own ads. Are they really going to incorporate untouched images in their ad campaigns. I think not. Is it not the main purpose of all advertising to hype, exaggerate and sell Illusions? Do consumers lack that much intellect to discern the difference between advertising and real life implications. One last question. Are creatives, Photographers retouchers now required to perform more simplified, realistic shoots and edits? If so, can't almost anybody with a camera and photoshop become a player in advertising?