Digital enhancement to be illegal in France

Will it also be illegal to run a print ad that refers to a noticeably grubby Parisian coffee shop serving slightly stale, non-flaky pastries brought to you by a slow, surly waiter as "a charming bistro?"

Because it's the same damn thing.

I'd also like to know if models wearing some variety of delightful French undergarment capable of re-arranging their torsos into mesmerizing new shapes will require a fine print disclaimer. Or the ones wearing wigs, or veneers on their teeth, or ... makeup. To say nothing of photographers using flattering light, carefully chosen lenses, and wind machines to make models look more exotic and appealing than they would when doing their laundry or cleaning up after their little French dog after a night out drinking.

Because retouching some love handles after the shoot is deceptive, but spending a month at the gym (or an hour under anesthesia) and getting rid of them the painful way isn't?

Sacre bleu contact lenses, Batman!

I suspect the primary effects of such a law will be to 1.) severely damage the status of Paris as a fashion capital, and 2.) lead to the use of illustrations rather than live models in French advertising.

It would be nice if the lawmakers would pass a law fining politicians (and their PR people) for lying or "spinning" the facts.

As much as I would like to see politicians being called out for being deceptive, I think there are a lot better places to start than photoshopped love handles.

It also brings to mind Rolling Stone's alleged enhancement of Al Gore's...*ahem* features. And I'm not talking about his stance on the environment..

Just when you though California had all the crackpots :-(

Digital enhancement to be illegal in France…under the proposed law, all enhanced photos would be accompanied by a line saying…

So will it be illegal or not? The headline doesn't match the content.

Interesting comments. But when you consider the power the French fashion mags have (Vogue etc), the issue, for and against, is getting a lot of publicity. And I gather its no idle threat. The politicians think they are on a winner, and if it gets up in the French legislature, then that means the EU has to comply. I have a friend who works in the industry in Paris and she says its going to be bigger than the size zero model issue which is also polarising the main players as well.

The implications for photographers are vast. Just what does one define as "enhancement" and how does one know? Is changing the contrast or bringing out the shadows, in or out? A practised eye can spot a retouched photo a mile away, but who will be the arbiter? Will all original images submitted to photo editors have to be in RAW, and that these RAW files must be saved in an archive for future reference? Possibly.

The issue is full disclosure/disclaimer of enhancement, not an outright ban on enhancement. Read the text of the legislation, OK?

Same concepts apply, Gary. Are cleverly placed "genuine" shadows that sculpt someone's mid-section also going to require text on the photograph?

This goes back to the old issue of does a photograph show "truth"? By now, in the 21st century, the concept that most in the photography field have come to realize is that, especially in this age of digital photography, all photos are accurate but none of them are true. If there is any truth to a photo at all, then some small part of a larger and changing truth lasted for but a fleeting moment and further that this truth was perceived by only one: to the person (read photographer) who recorded that instant. Everyone else who was present at that moment perceived some variation of that truth. It is impossible to take a photograph without altering reality. The camera is an instrument to record light in 2 dimensions only and cameras can record only a very narrow band of light - nothing like a humman eye can preceive. The dichotomy arises when we consider that we live in a four - that's right FOUR dimensional world: height, width, depth AND the temporal component; for how can something exist unless it exists at some point in time? The photographer chooses the subject, the lens, the aperature, the shutter speed, the point of vue or angle from where the subject is to where the photographer is, the time of day, whether to use digital or film, if film, what type of film, what speed, black and white or color, should he use flash, what are the flash characteristics, etc? If he uses digital flash, would that be considered digital manipulation? This line of thought persists through capture, process and print and is amplified when a digital image is brought into the computer for further manipulation. Every one of these characteristics could be subject to the interpretation of "retouching or modification".
Lets really examine the line"all enhanced photos would be accompanied by a line saying: "Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person."
Lets assume a full frame 35mm sensor. To record this person on a digital negative, that person must first be "enhanced" to such an extent as to make them as small as a postage stamp and to be only 2 dimensional. Now there's retouching and physical appearance modification for you!
So ------ the idea that some narrow minded and uninformed politician or group of politicians can come up with a law that is inconsistent with the laws of physics is, at once, laughable and tragic. Let's assume they pass such a law. How and who will make the distinctions? The devil is always in the details and when such a case comes before the courts, the logic will be so full of holes it will fall apart.

time for me to get a new job?

wait! im living in Canada..im OK for now then ; )

I wonder if that includes personal portraits ?

I somehow doubt Pascal Dangin will lose much sleep--or income--from this sort of "truth in packaging" legislation. Following the logic, why not also ask for full disclosure of any and all cosmetic surgical procedures/interventions performed on a photo's subject?. I'd love to see how many pages Joan Rivers would generate short of the New Testament. Laughs aside, this has been debated in France for some time and isn't really worthy of the Chicken Little coverage.

Thanks to all for your opinions. And to answer you Derek...yes, the illegality with be non disclosure of enhancements. But I can't see any fashion mag or makeup company agreeing to ugly watermarks. It might mean though, that only beautifully proportioned, flawless women will get a gig. Thats unrealistic. Kate Moss would possibly be out of a job for one. And that's the point. Its targeted at teens who look at retouched images and aspire to the unattainable. But maybe this move will not have the impact it needs to.

There are any number of "models untouched" websites for us to see the difference between the real and the retouched. I asked my 19 yo daughter about this, and she says that her generation know the fashion mags and all the makeup ads are drastically retouched to the point that its a joke with them. So I wonder if they are really going to achieve the aim of the legislation in the first place?

The other issue too, is whether fashion photography is trying to show off the model or the garment. Someone told me once that this is why catwalk models are told not to smile. That it would distract from the garment.

Opinions? Fact is, you apparently misrepresent the proposed legislation just to get attention then finally admit French lawmakers may actually have grounds for their decisions. What's up with that?

Politicians are too stupid to know what photo has been "enhanced" and what photo has not been "enhanced".

Politicians are too stupid to know what photo has been "enhanced" and what photo has not been "enhanced".

I asked my 19 yo daughter about this, and she says that her generation know the fashion mags and all the makeup ads are drastically retouched to the point that its a joke with them. So I wonder if they are really going to achieve the aim of the legislation in the first place?

If the aim is to demonstrate that lawmakers really care about the average woman , then yes, this legislation might help score a few points with those voters. Of course, a little label telling people what they already know isn't going to change anything.

Gary,
Did you read the whole newspaper article? I'm not offering my opinion, I'm asking for other peoples. I asked this community and I asked my daughter and offered her opinion.
I think its called shooting the messenger.

There is always someone who can't have a discussion without turning it into a debate, or thinking they are under attack. Such an attitude reveals more about a person than their words.

Photographers should not care. Pics still have to be taken, mags sold, advertising done. Models will get jobs, careers will be made, the world will not stop. The only change in the scheme of things is how far to go with enhancement. In fact, would it not be good, as there will be less work to do in post processing. Or Gary do you have shares in Adobe?

To the others who remain objective, thank you for your maturity.

You chose a provocative misstatement I suspect was intentional to spark "debate." Fine but don't feign upset when it didn't go the way you expected. Maturity? Please, Stephen.

No way this will pass. False alarm. :-)

FWIW a poster in the subway trains was recently defaced( all the ones i saw).The blurb said about a model, "What's her secret?" Photoshop, photoshop,photoshop...

It should be illegal. Enough photoshop crimes and enough impossible to reach perfection. We need real and beautifull models. Don't hire skilled photoshoppers. Hire skilled photographers.

Leandro, not all photographer use photoshop to save there ass..some use it like other used darkroom.

You have to be blind or disconected to think that pro photographer use photoshop to create there images; they use photoshop to pleased a demanding client that have demanding customer.

No one will like to buy anti cellulite cream if the model have cellulite on the picture..oh yeah, i have seen my share of that on the most beautifull top model legs BEFORE going to photoshop.. what will be better;

hire a 15 years old model to advertise this cream aim at 30-40 years old women of the world without photoshoping the image? (was done 15 years ago when i start in the biseness).

or use a 24 years old model and photoshop the cellulite out of her leg, and still sale the same crap to the same demanding 30-40 years old women in quest of eternal youth?

The real problem is what you want to be shot is really different of what people want to see on there packaging. Does the woman want to be eternaly beauftifull because of the advertising, or did the advertising use photoshop to artificially create this perfect world because woman want it?

i think anorexia is far more disturbing and problematic than a retouched model to give her a perfect skin...and anorexia is far more older than photoshop.. so pleased put your head out of the sand and do something more usefull than removing face from poster and blaming photoshop for it.

*** crackpot idea alert ***
If the politicians want to portray a healty image to the public and try to encourage models to be healthy, then they should impose a modified version of what the U.S. federal government did in the wake of the Traci Lords underage porn scandal: make anyone creating or publishing images for commercial use keep records demonstrating that the models used had, at the time of the shoot, a BMI in the healthy range, which is 18.5 or 19 to 25. For a 5'10" (1.78m) model, this would mean she would have to weigh between 129 and 174 pounds (58 and 79 kg). (As a frame of reference, in terms of a more average female height of 5'4" / 1.63 m, the BMI range corresponds to 108 to 145 pounds, or 49 to 66 kg.) If enforced, that would keep out the concentration-camp looking anexorics. And of course, today in the western world (especially the US), obesity is a much bigger public health problem than anexoria or bulemia, so the law would similarly prohibit overweight (BMI > 25) models. You are not allowed to protray people as desirable, goals to emulate, leaders, role-models, etc. unless they are in fact healthy. Big Brother will protect the public health! We have never allowed deceptive advertising, or the sale of dangerous products--and we won't start now! (Hey look, the is that the Marlborough Man running away at full speed? Oh, and I'm sure political ads will be excepted.)

(back to the reality of the topic)
If the disclaimer can be out of the actual picture area and in not huge type, it will largely go unnoticed and be irrelevant. If you have to put it as a clearly-visible watermark over the actual model, well, that may have an impact.

Mon dieu. Patrick, arent you in French Canada? You can run but you cant hide from the photoshop police. Photoshop in Quebec, I'm shocked. Round up the usual suspects. Its good to see we Americans dont have the market cornered on foolish politicians. But they better watch out, the French do know how to run a revolution. France was the birth place of photography. Nadar, Daguerre to the barricades!

It doesn't sound as if digital enhancement will be "illegal", per se. It sounds as if it will just be regulated for certain types of photos and accompanied by a disclaimer stating it was retouched.

Will it spread to nightclubs? Will us men have Warnings about pushup bras; perfumes; cosmetics and sexy clothes? What forms of enhancements will be regulated with written labels; disclosures to warn us? :)

Dave actually touches on something very real in his rant about BMI. Speed climbers had to start imposing a BMI limit on competitors because, in an effort to get up the rock faster, people were losing too much weight. So, some kind of BMI restriction isn't totally out of the question. But even if you do that, you have to limit the digital editing.
I do think the younger generation having grown up with "Photoshop" as part of the culture is increasing the knowledge to what is done to photos/models. Not to mention the tabloids that show these people in everyday situations, and how they look when not surrounded by an army of makeup, wardrobe, etc.
Besides is a little tiny label that you will probably ignore after seeing it 30 times going to make that much of a difference?

Derek Hofmann , Sep 22, 2009; 12:44 a.m.

Digital enhancement to be illegal in France…under the proposed law, all enhanced photos would be accompanied by a line saying…

So will it be illegal or not? The headline doesn't match the content.

Derek, I'm with you.

Bill P.

Another great example of a nanny state who thinks that the unwashed gum-chewing public must be protected from their own ignorance.