Photoshop Abuse? Part Two
You guys may have read my original post that asked the question; What can be considered “Photoshop Abuse?”. I have found several more advertisements similar to the first one I found on Digg. As I mentioned in my original post, it is my opinion that this could be considered false advertising even though they write “simulated imagery” on the ad (which you can see at the end of the post).
As a designer I realize that viewers will only spend a few seconds looking at the ad and those few seconds will be spent looking at the imagery and most prominent graphics such as the “call to action” buttons. The simulated imagery text in the tiny font size becomes very unnoticeable.
We all know magazines and other publications also “Photoshop” images of people on their covers, but I don’t believe they have to write simulated imagery on there like these advertisements do, even though they are both selling to the consumer. I don’t know the exact laws behind this, so technically they may not even have to write simulated imagery currently and could just be doing it to help prevent any legal issues that might arise.
Once again I will ask:
Do you guys think these ads below are too over the top or do you think writing “simulated imagery” is enough to inform the consumers? Also do you think magazines and other publications that doctor photographs to sell a product or service should have to have some sort of disclaimer or “simulated imagery” text?
Joanne - February 1st, 2008
Yes I think these are horrible abuses. I think it’s okay to colour correct these but when the photoshoped picture is your “proof” that a product works. That is lying. The bottom example is simple such a bad comparison. I wonder who believes these things?
Andrei Constantin - February 1st, 2008
That’s quite a point you’ve made here and one subject to further look into.
While I don’t see any reason, not even moral for the graphic designer itself to judge him for the misleading add, I do agree though that the company promoting this type of advertising, should be immediately penalized.
I think is the company’s politics or strategy to mislead people with these false ads, despite the technology used, be that photoshop
Brain - February 1st, 2008
I stated this on the last post (part 1) but I think is still rings true
“I completely agree with everything that has been said above.
But what about the age old advice of “buyer bewareâ€, or “if it’s too good to be true, it probably isâ€. Does the consumer not also have a responsibility in the matter?”
Gino - February 1st, 2008
Brain - True, but consumers are often easily mislead so we often need government regulations to help protect the consumer and this usually does not happen until people start to talk about the abuse or till some one gets hurt or sues some one.
Though part of the game of life is to educate yourself. If you don’t research and think things through you will probably end up getting ripped off or hurt, so I do think it is partly up to consumers to minimize risk themselves, but in the end I think a team effort is always best for protecting people.
I know us designers are not super heroes, but I do think it is good to reflect on these kind of issues to see where we stand on them.
Leigh Frampton - February 3rd, 2008
This is down right dangerous. A few years ago I went to see a chiropractor for a bad back. He took a photo of me and, while I filled out some paperwork, he went to his computer. He then sat me down to show me the “poor prognosis” his “computer analysis” came up with (a picture of me with my head pulled forward and down and a giant hunch back courtesy of the liquefy filter). But, not to worry. If I began to see him regularly he might be able to prevent the inevitable. That’s right folks! Don’t mind the software behind the curtain, just pay attention to the professional in the white coat. I was at least smart enough to leave immediately, but not quick enough to consider suing him for fraud.
rorie kelly - February 3rd, 2008
I have to say I feel this is not just an issue of lying to consumers, but also one of overt sexism and ageism. The ridiculous over-the-top simulated effects are not only (obviously) misleading about the product, but also painting this demonic picture of female aging, and sending the message “If you were really taking care of yourself, you wouldn’t have to have wrinkles. Wrinkles are for lazy, stupid people.” Adding the photoshop effects only serves to worsen the existing problem, by making this extremely young and airbrushed looking skin seem totally attainable.
Gino - February 4th, 2008
Yeah I think these ads really mess with people’s perception of what is real and whats not, especially going back to when I mentioned the topic of airbrushing in magazines.
I think our society has developed an incredibly false sense of what beauty really is.
Most people really believe that the people on those covers are actually that good looking…
Leigh - That reminds me of medical TV commercials where they stick actors in white lab coats behind a wall of diplomas and call them doctors…Or they just pay the doctors off to endorse their products.
Ryan - February 5th, 2008
I believe that the companies who have to use photoshop to create “proof” photos, don’t believe in their own product enough to use real life proofs.
But then again, most people who use their products will see some kind of improvement but not enough that will stand out in a real photo.
Laurent - May 8th, 2008
I really enjoy the last one, to be honest it just looks like a joke. I checked their site and their before/after (treatment not photoshop ) is far less funny, almost realistic (https://www.dermitage.com/content/successStories.html).
Checking some blog like Photoshop Disasters is also fun and helps to have a diferent look about nowdays imagery.
I’m ok to tell that it’s a lie because it’s showing false proof of efficience, but who gonna believe in this? maybe the same people who believe that they’ll have huge *everything* by clicking spam links, or become rich by returning the letter with a small check …
Spam links doesn’t have disclaimer, letters sometimes have small legal terms written, but both have answerers… So the disclaimer maybe not the only solution.
It’s reality? No it’s an Ad! Don’t believe an Ad