Drugstore chain CVS Health announced today that it will stop using photo manipulation in the promotional images for its store-brand makeup and will require all other companies to follow suit by 2020. Companies that continue to use manipulated imagery will have their adverts labeled by CVS to help customers understand that the photograph has been altered.
This is a bold move from an influential company that could have a large knock-on effect across the beauty industry. CVS Pharmacy President Helena Foulkes explained that the decision came about as a result of increasing amounts of research that shows that manipulated images are distorting women's concept of beauty and have become "a serious driver of health issues."
Acknowledging her role as a mother and president of a business whose customer base is mostly female, Foulkes went on to explain: "The connection between the propagation of unrealistic body images and negative health effects, especially in girls and young women, has been established."
Research from earlier this year suggests that most girls aged between 10 and 14 know that many images are manipulated but the profusion of imagery still has an impact on their mental wellbeing. They may realize that the photographs represent unrealistic aspirations but it still has an effect on the body esteem of young women. CVS Health's new policy may help to counter this impact.
CVS Health will introduce the CVS Beauty Mark, a watermark that will appear on all in-store imagery - not just its own products - to vouch for its authenticity. Any imagery that doesn't comply will be visibly labeled to make customers aware that the photograph has been manipulated, putting pressure on other companies to be more honest with their advertising.
The CVS Health website offers some detail of what this entails:
We will not digitally alter or change a person’s shape, size, proportion, skin or eye color or enhance or alter lines, wrinkles or other individual characteristics.
For retouchers working in the beauty industry, finding the line between what is acceptable and what will be labeled as manipulation might need greater clarification.
[Via USAToday]
How do they define "retouched"? Raw files out of camera only? Can I remove a pimple that could be covered by makeup or be gone the next day?
They did define it. Reread the article.
Can they just come out of the stores and make sure no one takes pictures of people on railroad tracks.
Hahahahhaa
I'm not in the beauty photography business--I just do portraits. But the women I photograph come out of the MUA's chair looking more like the woman on the left, not the woman on the right. I might have to deal with the wrinkles, but not the blemishes or the uneven skin tone.
The problem with a policy like this is that it will only lead to even more extreme requirements on models and instead of addressing things in photoshop there will be an increased demand for even more perfect makeup work. Its not like the image on the right reflects how that woman would look if you just met her on the street so there is still a certain degree of obfuscation compared to reality, regardless.
Totally agree! And when you think about it, what's the difference between retouched in photoshop and retouched with make-up ? It's not real anyways...
They are selling makeup, and that is why this is important. Makeup can only do so much. Retouching can remove all the wrinkles. Much more than any cream. If a woman buys some really expensive wrinkle cream and her wrinkles don't all disappear like they did in the overly retouched ad, she's going to feel ripped off. The ad was fraudulent. Ads should reflct the actual capabilities of the products, not mislead the consumers into thinking the products can do what they can't.
+1 to this... though I'lll add that posing and lighting also contribute to unrealistic beauty in picture. But CVS gets a PR win because consumers blame the problem on Photoshop.
Yup, was going to mention that too as well as lens choice. Though in that case those situations are very good for skilled photographers as it allows them to expand the gap between them and photographers who lack said ability and overly depend on photoshop.
It'll put a lot of average looking models out of work.
In my own experience, retouching actually brings out what I saw and felt at the time I took the shot. As you said Ryan, if I met the woman illustrated in the photo, I would probably see and feel the image on the left especially if the encounter were friendly, personable and funny. Am I crazy? (Don't answer that!)
Finally. I think it will become a new trend now. Because every single image out there shows the same skin texture that is coming from photoshop and is not genuine.
I wonder if they realize that unless edited raw files right out of the camera will give them a page of 1s and zeros.
Pretty sure the policy only applies to editing that alters the physical body or texture of the skin. Stuff like color correcting and other post processing is likely still very much acceptable. As would be any cloning needed to do things like clean up clothing (dust and lint spots) or background distractions.
Did you not read the article? There was no mention at all of editing and SOOC. They clearly talked about banning altering or even removig features. Like changing someone's body, removing wrinkles, altering skin color, etc
I'm ok with retouching in advertising...it's mostly aspirational in beauty & fashion anyway. I draw the line with extreme body reshaping though.
Hasn't the Beauty Industry gone too far? If the Industry didn't ask for it, the retouchers wouldn't do it. In their quest for perfection, the Industry has set an unattainable standard. Perhaps the people in charge should look at Peter Lindbergh's "10 Women" for a little inspiration. Unfortunately, the perception is that the heavy handed editing equates to quality product and that's unlikely to change anytime soon.
"We will not digitally......." They clearly do not know the power of cosmetics. Make up artists are ridiculously talented and with the right model/light?? ...pfff
Cosmetic companies creating anti-retouching policies to me seems slightly paradoxical. Creating false images of a product for sale is simply unethical, any product at all. However, cosmetics in themselves are retouching tools. I am increasingly becoming suspicious of this argument given that in my experience, beauty products in advertising are applied to models by professionals. The logic to me would be that if a company wants to create a vision or message of a natural product for real people, then perhaps they should use non-professional models who have applied the cosmetics themselves.
Yes, and let's ban the use of make up too as that really changes the appearance of the model. And don't get me started on lighting...
"For retouchers working in the beauty industry, finding the line between what is acceptable and what will be labeled as manipulation might need greater clarification."
Ya think?
If it makes 8/10 women feel better then lets do it.
They're in that cruel spot where they know that they're hot, but they're not 10/10.
They know that a lot of 10/10 women are really just 9/10 with some digital enhancements providing that extra hotness point.
If they can bring the vast majority of 10/10 women down to at least 9/10, their envy factor drops by at least 3 neurosis points, and they spend less time obsessively in front of the mirror critiquing themselves and then slipping into the destructive cycle of binge-eating huge amounts of chocolate confectionery, then starving themselves as they try to keep the dream alive.
The 7/10 women and below have just accepted that their chances of a huge Instagram following are probably not going to happen, they know how relatively worthless their lives are, and just focus on trying to develop a sense of humour or outperforming the other girls at work and winning employee of the month.
Women 4/10 and below have completely given up, got married and had kids, and are two cats into a ten cat obsession fostered by the knowledge that their husband sleeps with the 6/10 girl at the office. They don't even confront him, knowing that they're just lucky that he hasn't left the marriage.
If handled correctly, this is a step in the right direction.
It's a great news! Love it. I would love to see restriction for retouching in any type of commercials. It's 2017 already, world must change and become more honest.
"CVS Pharmacy President Helena Foulkes explained that the decision came about as a result of increasing amounts of research that shows that manipulated images are distorting women's concept of beauty and have become 'a serious driver of health issues.'"
I get where she's trying to go. I have a teenage daughter. But, if you examined everything that CVS sells in its stores, you'd be clearing out a lot of inventory if the decision was based on serious health issues.
OMG please stop this propaganda :D make up, good minded lighting, even clothes and poses, it's also a retouching....or how people like to say "photoshop" :) thanks god i just can shoot that i like and don't need to listen all this "natural beauty/look" nonsense.
This is silly.
I kinda get it. But you’re literally allowed to paint on a woman’s face and put in colored contacts and fake lashes and a wig; that seems just as fake to me.
Ban all cosmetic products that aren’t the actual product being sold and I’ll be impressed.
This is already happening in the cosmetics industry. Look through women's fashion magazines and you'll find notes on ads for mascara stating the eyes have been enhanced with false lashes. Helen Mirren insisted her wrinkles not be removed in the ads she has done for L'Oreal. It's interesting to see a drugstore chain do this, and I'm sure it makes for some great P.R.
With all due respect, some of the opinions in the comments are shared by people who have nothing to do with commercial beauty photography, therefore incorrect assumptions are being made.
The changes in the post-production policies by CVS - especially the fact that retouching isn't banned, but a "beauty mark" introduced - seem more like a PR stunt to me after a couple of days after this news splash has happened.
It is great for the public and brings very little change to the industry, except the brands that do want to be better and more responsible will pay a little more attention to the skill level of production teams they are hiring, which is great and always should have been this way in commercial photography of this level.
As a commercial beauty photographer and retoucher, I see that the problem stems from exactly there, and I expressed my opinion in my article on Retouching Academy for those who are interested: https://retouchingacademy.com/no-cvs-is-not-banning-retouched-images/
A fair point, though the article above does make clear the details. I think USAToday led with "ban" and the rest of us followed suit. Headlines are often clumsy at the best of times but this one could have been clearer. As writers, we sometimes forget that many readers don't get past the title.