Following the Advertising Standards Authority's (ASA) decision to ban an advert from L'Oreal featuring Julia Roberts Scotland on Sunday ran an interesting article by Claire Prentice.
'Claire Prentice: Face facts on altered images
Published Date: 31 July 2011
By Claire Prentice
BE HONEST. Which of these pictures is more attractive? The real, wrinkled, natural me on the left? Or the "perfect" me on the right, as tweaked, enhanced and digitally polished by this newspaper's finest technical wizards?
'Part of the ruling from the ASA
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that Julia Roberts was an actress well known for her beauty, and that professional styling and make-up were used to create the image. We understood that high quality studio photography, and the inherent covering and smoothing nature of the product also contributed to the image of flawless skin.
We noted that in addition to the factors above, the image was produced with the assistance of post production techniques. While Lancôme provided detail on the techniques they used, we noted that we had not been provided with information that allowed us to see what effect those enhancements had on the final image. We acknowledged the pictures supplied from laboratory testing were evidence that the product was capable of improving skin’s appearance, but on the basis of the evidence we had received we could not conclude that the ad image accurately illustrated what effect the product could achieve, and that the image had not been exaggerated by digital post production techniques. We therefore concluded the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form again.'
The ASA's ruling will doubtless set the rat amongst the pigeons in the beauty trade. In addition it raises issues of how far should photos be manipulated. Should one ignore the temptation of using Photoshop to improve a photo even to the extent of not changing the contrast or light/dark? Should a photo be like natural wine with all use of artfice banned or adjured?
And if Photoshop shouldn't be used what of the various aids available at the point of taking a photo – various coloured filters and polarisers; changing the light balance etc. If a photo comes out over-exposed and doesn't correspond to what I saw with my eye, is it right to tweak it so that it is a faithful representation of what I saw?
Where does the legitimate skill of using available technology end and unacceptable manipulation begin?
And if Photoshop shouldn't be used what of the various aids available at the point of taking a photo – various coloured filters and polarisers; changing the light balance etc. If a photo comes out over-exposed and doesn't correspond to what I saw with my eye, is it right to tweak it so that it is a faithful representation of what I saw?
Where does the legitimate skill of using available technology end and unacceptable manipulation begin?
