Response to "Point, Shoot, Retouch and Label?"

1. A law that would force advertisers to put a label saying the photo is retouched is necessary. Young girls are looking at pictures of models whose waists are the size of their head and thinking, "that is what I have to look like." I believe that if young people were able to see that a photo was altered and that what they saw was not true, they would not go to extreme lengths to become skinny. When young girls see pictures of women who are the size of toothpicks, their mind is tricked into believing that the ideal look of a woman is what is shown in the photos. Enforcing a law on labeling photos as retouched is necessary for the safety of the young people.
I do not believe that mentioning the fact that a photo is altered takes away from the artistic side of the photo. The photo is the same, no matter if it is labeled as photo shopped or not. If i saw a photo that was labeled as retouched, the only thing that would change in my mind is I would wonder what it looked like when it was not photo shopped. Retouching photos is an art in its own and if I were to look at an the original photo and a retouched one, I would be able to critique how well not only the photo was taken, but also how ell it was photo shopped. This gives another dimension to photography.
2. The author of a photo, especially an advertising photograph, is the retoucher. Although they don't have the final say on what advertisement gets published (the advertising director does), they have the most influence over what happens to the original photo. The retoucher is able to change and tweak the photograph in ways that the photographer is not. This gives the retoucher ultimate control over how the photo comes out and what kind of message the photo sends to people. The retoucher is given the freedom to photo shop photos into the image and message the advertisement is trying to make, and they can use this freedom to take total control over how the ad has an effect on its viewers.

VIEW ARTICLE