Kodak Says Goodbye to Kodachrome Film

Now would a blog about digital images be concerned about film? Because digital imaging has finally put the nail in the coffin of the medium of film.

Kodak built itself on the quality of the pictures photographers & filmmakers took. They moved into the family arena by capturing memories for all time, and thus, the photo album bloomed. For a century, we sent film roles in for developing, eager to get the images back in an hour. But alas, digital photography made that hour seem to long. Why wait when you could have your pictures instantly on your camera or computer?

As a result, Kodachrome, Kodak’s superior film format is now being shuttered. Simply put, consumers have spoken.  Digital photography & imaging has become the norm and consumers are moving to a digital platform.

For the concerns of this blog, it is the passing of an era. I remember getting pictures back from family vacations and always being excited about holding the prints and looking at the memories therein. But I also being yelled at saying, hold them by the sides and the popular…”don’t get your fingerprints on them.” Not anymore Dad…HA! I can touch my screen all I want. And…I can even change the picture to add extra eyes, a third leg, or any number of things to the picture. I can change it quickly. I can do it subtly so no one knows. Oh…the nirvana!

Don’t get me wrong, I am sorry to see film start to leave the shelves. Taking pictures with those cameras represents some very happy memories for me. But truth be told, I am excited to see what new endless possibilities there are with my new digital camera. It’s time for a new chapter for families…and business.

Classic Media Fakery – Fox News

Looking back at how Photoshop has been used, I cam across this nasty piece of altered images courtesy of Fox News Channel.

Fox News Channel altered pictures of two NY Times reporters in a disgusting segment aimed at discrediting the paper.

In July 2008, the morning show did a story about “attacks” on the network via the New York Times. To illustrate the New York Times staff, they showed two head shots of the reporters that were drastically altered.

Apparently, the producers at the network felt what they were doing was all part of the “fun.” The problem, Fox News bills itself as a news network with the slogan “We report, you decide.”

In order to be a news agency, you must present the facts as they are without changing them. The same goes for the people associated with the story. Here, Fox News’ altered images were not presented as altered but as representing who these New York Times reporters are.

The altered images distorted the reporters features drastically for comic effect. In effect, this was wrong and a disgusting ploy by the network.

Responding to criticism is nothing new. It is a necessity in today’s media landscape. But these kind of alterations are nothing short of juvenile and make the network appear to be run by a bunch of fraternity brothers.

Breaking News: Altered Images Harming People

Filippa Hamilton was fired after being photoshopped for a new Raplph Lauren ad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/6516537/Airbrushed-images-harming-girls-and-boys-experts-say.html

 

The Telegraph in London is updating its reports on the digital altering of images in the media as now having medical proof that these images “promote unrealistic expectations of perfection, encouraging eating disorders and self-harm.”

The debate on what the media advertising & editorial) world should and should not do with regard to the images it projects is rising into a fever pitch this year.

This new paper, now goes so far as to endorse the labeling of ads with digitally altered pictures as well as taking things a step further. Providing exercise classes & possible gym memberships to the teens and young adults affected by these images.

I do believe that advertisers have the right to alter images as they see fit. It is part of their creative capability. But I think government intervention is officially headed in the wrong direction.

Warning labels and bans are not effective. Education is. As they say, knowledge is power. And if we can not educate youth to know what is real and what is not, then we have done the next generation a complete disservice.

Arguably, there is some good coming out of  this. Telling the public an image has been altered may actually help people realize the unrealistic dreams they have of achieving a certain look. And, the idea of encouraging exercise is a wonderful side effect of all this. Let’s get people to lead healthier lives.

But in  the end, we still need to get people to realize that they can achieve any goal or body they wish, as long as the lines of reality or no longer blurred before them.

See how they photoshop! Dove Real Beauty’s Evolution

Ever wonder how those fantastic images of all the models in the magazine’s came to be?

Dove and the campaign for real beauty take you through the process with their amazing video: “evolution.” In it, a woman sits down in a chair. Over the course of one minute in time-lapse style, she is given a makeover including hair and make up, and her picture is taken.

Now, that picture is adjusted by some talented artist on a computer. The eyes are set farther apart, the eyebrows lengthened and raised, the neck elongated, the mouth smoothed and stretched…and the list goes on.

This blog was created to discuss the idea of what truly is beautiful, and just how that is represented in fashion and advertising.

But, how can anyone live up to this ideal? The woman who appears in the final billboard technically does not even exist. She is a creation, a complete fabrication.

I am not here to be an advocate for advertisers to do as they please in their ads. Color correcting lighting and fixing blemishes I can completely understand. But as a professional in the industry (fitness no less), it seems that there must be better self-regulation.

Legally, no advertiser can put lies and false claims in any copy that they publish to promote the company or product. The same really should go for the images that accompany it.

No Model Can Fit into Ralph Lauren’s clothes…

Model Valentina Zelyaeva on the Ralph Lauren website, left, and on the right, the untouched version of the image

…so, the advertising department continues to air-brush the models.

Barely two weeks after firing a model who was airbrushed, fashion house Ralph Lauren has repeated the process by making model Valentina Zelyaeva “impossibly skinny” as several news outlets have reported.

The new ad appeared on-line and in shops & boutiques in Sydney, Australia. In the altered photo, Ms. Zelyaeva’s hips are so slim, they don’t even align with her shoulders as they would naturally.

The first incident involved model Filippa Hamilton whose contract was terminated after the incident was discovered. The company has simply stated “completely inconsistent with our creative standards and brand values”.

Hamilton has been very vocal about the altered image, saying it is embarrassing and does not represent her or other women.

Is Ralph Lauren at any fault here? Are they pushing forward an unattainable ideal?

Some may argue that that is part of what advertising does… inspiring people to be better than they are. But what is better than looking so unnatural and what are the long-term detriments we face?

It’s possible to argue that young women are being lead into a false sense that they too can have the body they see in ads. Studies have argued that this causes eating disorders and other unhealthy behavior.

But in the end, isn’t it just an ad? End of story, and we shouldn’t place any more value on it than that? Maybe. But it seems with legislation pending in a few countries to put “warning labels in ads” and size requirements for models on runways (in Paris), the time may be coming for the fashion and advertising industries to stop doing what they can do and focus on what they should do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/fashionnews/6389095/Ralph-Lauren-in-second-airbrush-model-row.html#

Self Editor Says Mag. is not about Journalism?

Kelly Clarkson Retouch Flap Continue

►

      (video from AdAge.com 3 minute news)

Lucy Danzinger, editor of Self magazine, took part in a panel at NBC Universal for their new health initiatives for women.

The network’s medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman raised the issue of “body image” in women and young girls. Is the media doing their part or is it creating distorted ideas of what is an ideal body?

Danzinger discusses at length how the magazine did photoshop Kelly Clarkson for the September cover all in an effort to make Kelly look “better.” She praises Clarkson as a strong confident woman who is healthy & works out. They merely wanted to improve her look.

What is disturbing is, two minutes in (timestamp 2:21), Danzinger responded to a  question (off camera) about ever publishing photos that are not photoshopped. Danzinger’s response is a bit disconcerting. She says ” we don’t do a lot of photoshopping, mostly if a hair is out of place…we are, as honest as they come other than a newsmagazine like Newsweek or Time…our stock in trade is not journalism…we are inspiring and informing.”

How can an editor of a magazine say they are not in the business of journalism? This may not be breaking news on the war, or on medical breakthroughs, but Danzinger seems to dig herself in to a hole when she says the job is to inspire & inform. As a former journalist, I know most of my peers wanted to inspire change, but mostly they wanted to inform their readers. That is the role of a journalist. How can an editor says it is not?

Dr. Snyderman continues ”is photo shopping done to increase ads or sales whether or not it changes the mores of society?” Interesting question that is going to require a larger forum.

Bottom line, photoshopping is here to stay. Most of the time, it’s used to correct minor issues, hair out-of-place, lighting , color adjustment and more. But it is the “more” that is coming to play again and again.

There is a growing voice of whether or not the  media industry should regulate this more. It is no longer “could they” alter a picture, and more about “should they” alter it.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It makes my head spin. I’m going to go hit a spin class and get some McDonald’s to help me think about this.

GQ Abreast of Miss January Jones

GQ keeps abreast of the photoshop issue.

Page Six suggests that January Jones, the star of AMC’s “Mad Men,” may have been given some more ample assets to her cover shot.  Some people say these kinds of retouches are normal for any fashion magazine shoot. But this one seems a bit much. Of course,  GQ is denying any digital alterations.

Page Six cites a blog post on the GQ’s site titled, “Yes, they’re real. And they’re spectacular” (think they paid royalties to Seinfeld for that?)   The photographer supposedly likes to work with “harder lighting, and that can create a stronger shadow” it continues that “body position and perspective could give the illusion that her breasts are bigger.”

Lighting a straight on a shot of a beautiful woman caused for more ample assets to appear in the picture? Forget implants, all women need now is a camera and good lights. (Is that where the term headlights came from? I’m gay, I don’t know these things.)

The entire thing seems a bit contrived. January Jones is a beautiful woman in an acclaimed television series (AMC’s “Mad Men”). Judging from the picture I found of the cover and other shots floating around the internet, these are alterations that seem quite, er um…large? Regardless, it seems ridiculous that this stunner needed any modifications. They put her on the cover for her buzz, and growing reputation. Once again, someone needed to make it about the breasts & not the buzz.

Oh well. Hope t he issue is a sell out.

Breaking News – Photoshoped Model Fired by Ralph Lauren

Filippa Hamilton was fired after being photoshopped for a new Raplph Lauren ad

In a stunning surprise, a model who has appeared in the advertising campaigns for Ralph Lauren for over seven years has been fired for not fitting into the company’s ongoing brand development and image plans.

What makes this more shocking, is that the model was the subject of a recent photo shop disaster by the private label clothing maker that distorted her body to absolutely bizarre proportions that turned her stunning features into an emaciated skeletal creature.

Filippa Hamilton is 23 years-old, 5’10″ and 120 pounds, basically a size four (4). She is the epitome of a healthy and beautiful young woman.

 

Hamilton went on the Today show this morning with Cosmopolitan magazine’s editor Kate White, who also offered her an 8 page photo spread, to discuss the controversy. (Today Show story can be found here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33307721/ns/today-today_fashion_and_beauty/)

 

 

At odds, the fashion industry hiring models for the sample sizes of clothing that run size two and under. Also, as Hamilton describes, the recent image of her in a the current campaign that made her super skinny with skeletal arms and legs and a giant head. She says she was “sad” when she saw this photo being presented to young girls as what they should look like because it is unhealthy.

 

 

The controversy erupted when a Japanese blog, boingboing, posted it on-line. Hamilton has only started discuss it since her termination for as the company said in a statement “not meeting her obligations.”

 

 

Kate White made a very smart statement that as the editor of a magazine, she is sometimes at the mercy of fashion houses who promote their clothes with too small sizes & unrealistic body types.

 

 

It would seem that the fashion industry is starting to implode with this issue. Now, the models that they airbrush and photoshop aren’t even good enough to keep on  the payroll.

 

 

Where do you suppose this is going to lead?  If the industry can no longer hire girls to wear the clothes and model them, then be airbrushed, perhaps the modeling industry as we know it will soon be gone and the Old Navy mannequins will start appearing on the runway.

Are they blind, racist or just stupid?

Notice anything?

Perhaps that sounds a bit extreme. But when images are altered in media for advertising, news or any reason, shouldn’t the artist maybe learn a little something about the subject they are…”adjusting.”

Beyonce is one of the most celebrated women in music. She can sing, she is beautiful, and she is talented.

In September, photos from a shoot were sent out to accompany a series of interviews the singer did with various international magazines. A few magazines even picked the pictures for the cover, with the results in print being very different. How is that possible with the same photograph?

Beyonce is a stunning black woman. She celebrates her heritage. But, her skin tone is also naturally very light. So when this photo came across the desk of several certain magazine artists, it was naturally picked for several covers, with drastic differences.

Somehow, the artist at the international version of Glamour darkened the tone of her skin creating a picture that looks very different from the woman who has millions of fans around the world.

Is it possible that the artist did not know who she was and what she looked like? Possibly. But shouldn’t the artist or the editors have an idea of what the people they put on the cover or in the pages of the magazine look like so mistakes like this don’t happen?

Personally, Beyonce is just beautiful no matter what. But it is just a shame that the media can not appreciate a natural beauty no matter what she looks like without having to try to “improve” what is in front of them.

Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty – Is it all right?

When I started my graduate studies at Columbia University, I hadn’t expected to feel like I wanted to become an advocate for anything. As a media professional, my job has always been to act in the best interest of my client. Sometimes, I would feel conflicted. I would want to tell the client to perhaps rethink their position. Rarely did that happen.

It is even rarer for any company to break with the “status quo” in this media environment. But the company Dove did just that when they started to shun the super skinny airbrushed model pictures and launched bold new advertising featuring real women.

Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty launched just a few years ago. The results of the campaign have been staggering. In  the United Kingdom, sales rose over 150% by many accounts. In the United States, media attention was celebrating the efforts to show real women in unaltered photographs. Sales spiked when Oprah brought the real women, the creatives and executives on her show, then launched a contest with the Dove to search for more “real women” and tell their stories.

That was a coup that could not be expected. Oprah by many is considered the “goldmine” opportunity for products for women. The interesting thing is that she never once raved about the products. It was always about the campaign Dove launched to promote healthy attitudes of women’s bodies.

The video link above showcases the company’s video “onslaught.” A young girl is smiling for the camera before it cuts to all the images she will see of health, beauty & fitness in one day. It includes obsessive working out, fake pitches from products, cosmetic surgery and medical issues including bulimia and anorexia.

The shock value of the video is staggering when you look at the sheer number of images, hence the title “onslaught.”

I have been a fan of this initiative for sometime. But recently, it came into conflict with my day job as a publicist for the fitness industry. How can I be behind a campaign that celebrates women who are out of shape and essentially unhealthy?

I am not a doctor, and we know that women are beautiful in their array of shapes & sizes they come in. But is this depiction healthy? Does it matter if it is not?  

The bulimic, skinny airbrushed models are definitely not an ideal for any young girl to aspire too. But, should they just rest on their laurels if they have that few extra pounds? What about issues associated with extra weight: diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc?

I will always applaud the work Dove has done to promote a broader view of what is beautiful. But I can’t help but wonder if the company has not yet hit on the right image. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But healthy & fit we have standards for. It’s a shame we can’t get the two to meet.