There has been lately a small controversy about french parliament intention of warning whether or not one image has been modified using programs like Photoshop [CNN], which has rapidly received the opposition of the fashion and advertising industry [New York Magazine].
There's no doubt that there have been many abuses (as you can see in the pictures at the end of this post, but, is it necessary to make a law to control it? That is the real point.
My personal opinion? I think it is a good idea to try to put a limit to the use of Photoshop, at least in mass media and advertisement; but at the same time, I am pretty sure it is impossible to survey all the graphic content published (even if it was only in magazines).
And the last point, I would bet that at least 99,9% of images published in magazines are, at least, filtered with Photoshop or similar, so does filtering belong to the category of alteration with Photoshop? Does it deserve the warning? And if not, where is the limit where a real "alteration" begins?
There's no doubt that there have been many abuses (as you can see in the pictures at the end of this post, but, is it necessary to make a law to control it? That is the real point.
My personal opinion? I think it is a good idea to try to put a limit to the use of Photoshop, at least in mass media and advertisement; but at the same time, I am pretty sure it is impossible to survey all the graphic content published (even if it was only in magazines).
And the last point, I would bet that at least 99,9% of images published in magazines are, at least, filtered with Photoshop or similar, so does filtering belong to the category of alteration with Photoshop? Does it deserve the warning? And if not, where is the limit where a real "alteration" begins?
No comments:
Post a Comment