Before and after shots please!
The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered skincare outfit L’Oreal to lay off the Photoshop, after it ran a magazine ad showing Rachel Weisz in improbably good form as a result of slapping on Revitalist Repair 10. Rachel Weisz as seen in the banned L'Oreal advert The offending advert featured 41-year-old Weisz's radiant …
...don't want before shots. An ex used to take great delight in showing me pictures in her awful z-list tittle-tattle magazines of celebs I once thought "hot". I know that there aren't many people that look great first thing in the morning or when just having a "lazy day" (when most of those types of photos are taken) but some people were almost completely unrecognisable!
Whilst true, there is a big difference though between photoshopping a celeb for an article on them, or changing a models skin when your advertising the clothes they're waering compared to this case.
When you selling a cream which is meant help skin but the only way to show it's effect is to fake it, then that's taking it to far.
@Spandy - So Photoshop is banned only for the face cream ads? Then all the celebs and models in the magazine look young, beautiful and photoshopped, except for the ones in the face cream ads, who all look as old and haggard as they really are. Fine by me, but I can't imagine this is the effect the advertisers are aiming for.
Most sensible adults would probably think it's a little too good to be true even if it doesn't register how it's done, it's the young impressionable girls who are suckered in by the fake media bullshit. I have a 9 year old daughter and the number of times we have to remind her that advertising is made to lure in suckers and make them spend money, doesn't bear thinking about! She's starting to get it but you know how dopey and gullible kids can be, the ad-droids know this and they feed on it like nectar!
I do wish the ASA would stop with this. The fines and/or bans on ads they come out with are meaningless in the terms of the impact on these companies. How about showing some real teeth and banning the company from advertising for a period equal to the length of the campaign involving the offending Ad.
This would actually have a real impact and would stop the companies that use an Ad they know will fail but by the time it reaches the ASA they have stopped using it anyway.
unless the ASA are empowered and resourced to view every advert before it reaches any media, then they can only act retrospectively after a complaint, so the sales over that period have already happened? Unless you mean banning sales of the product *forever*, which might be going a bit overboard?
If the campaign ran for 5 weeks, ban the product for 10 weeks after the complaint is upheld.
As they should have the right to appeal, they get a couple of weeks after the complaint is upheld before the ban goes into force, and if they do appeal then the ban (both of campaign and product) doesn't go into force unless the appeal is unsuccessful.
Obviously if they continue to run the campaign while appealing, then the ban gets longer.
The thing I really don't get is why the ASA don't seem to fine anybody.
Every single complaint gets the same "action", namely "Please don't do it again."
Then when the same advertiser does exactly the same thing again, what happens? The ASA just asks if they could possibly consider maybe not doing it again, again.
It makes me sick, really.
Seeing as it's the third time that L'Oreal have been done by the ASA this way they obviously feel that they can ignore the ASA and produce this sort of rubbish until told not to. By which time the damage is done.
How about the ASA has a sliding scale of punishments which would allow them to force multiple transgressors to remove products from sale not just adverts from showing. Not forever, but for a period equal to that from the first advert being shown to the ASA imposition.
... the sanctions they impose are the ones they've got, surely. And surely it's better that they impose those and make a very public statement to that effect than be as supine and ineffectual as, for instance, Ofcom? Yes, it would be nice if they have more teeth, but I'm not going to knock them for having a nip with the ones they've got.
So, huge profits made by duping consumers, but at least they will be so very inconvenienced by not being able to re-run the now finished ad campaign.
Of course I don't doubt that when they replace it with other misleading ads which also bring in loads of extra money (from consumers that can't understand why they don't get the same results) they will also be told to stop publishing those (long after they have stopped publishing them anyway)
Way to go ASA!
Rather than fining companies or banning adverts the ASA needs to be able to prevent companies from advertising.
1. ASA needs to offer a service funded by the advertiser to get their adverts checked in advance
2. Adverts not checked in advance that are found to be in breach of the code will result in removal of the right to advertise for that company for a period of time.
3. Repeat offences by a company result in longer bans
4. Repeat offences from ad houses result in the ad house being banned.
No fining or retrospective slaps on the wrist required.
On the plus side, it's a nice shot.
All you need is an Android (MS or Apple perhaps?) tablet. Hang it from a hat, with the rear-facing camera pointed at your face, and the screen points outwards.
Run photoshop on it, with airbrushing set to maximum-plasticface. Voila! 'Younger looking' skin.
I have a guaranteed anti-ageing tablet, and that's a scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact.
I believe its misleading even if the picture were natural. Loreal Paris should be required to produce pics of Rachel Weisz suffering these "tens signs of aging" (preferably before being contracted to work for them) and demonstrate quantifiable improvements that they no long exist after using the product. No makeup, vaseline smeared on the camera lens, monochrome or other tricks allowed. If they can't then it's false advertising.
She's 42, no spring chicken but still naturally very beautiful, there's no need for them to photoshop. Something I've learned from my wife, you have to find out what the celebrities themselves use, not what they advertise.
I have no idea what the products are and what their names are but there are these little pots of cream that you can only buy at specialist shops and they cost $100+, not Loreal and not the $20 tub of lard you get when you go to Boots over the counter.
However celebrities also have stylists and dietitians, which in a small way, helps that anti-aging cream to be amazingly effective.
If you've never shot fashion or in a studio, then please refrain from hysteria dear commenters. Let a pro tell you the score.
The lights used for shooting in a studio are extremely bright. When the flash goes off the combined light penetrates the layers of make up on a model's face. This results in a patchy and rough look that does not represent the results the make up would give in normal lighting conditions.
Thus the purpose of retouching is not just to enhance the image but also to bring back the 'look' the make up is supposed to give. If you argue, oh why not use a better lighting set up? The answer is you can't if you want the whole model or scene evenly lit.
The way skin reacts to light is complicated. Things such as sub-surface scattering. And some sorts of make-up change the balance between the surface effects and the sub-surface effects. You then have small-scale surface features, smaller than any wrinkle, which affect the surface reflections, and which are modified by the make-up.
It is the sort of thing which gives that slightly plastic look.
There used to be a lot routinely done in the darkroom, even if only the contrast grade of the printing paper and the exposure time. That has to be done in the computer now.
But, going by what I remember, there's still something that feels wrong about that explanation above.
I didn't say the 'image' became patchy. I said the shooting make up under studio lighting conditions is very difficult and requires retouching afterwards. I can demonstrate more than 5000 images I've retouched over the years for all the top names. It's an unavoidable consequence of shooting in a studio.
As for the image of Weisz, I consider the retoucher to be quite poor anyway because the image looks retouched (a good retoucher's work looks natural or at least attractive). Companies don't always strike gold when it comes to hiring the right talent.
Shooting cosmetics under natural light is an even more complicated experience.
The reason they are shot in studio is to get the hue of the make up in the photo to closely resemble the colour of the actual product. This is especially so when there are multiple colour choices of the same product. It's just colour matching, and it saves production time getting it right on set. The only thing they then have to fix in Photoshop is all the subsurface scattering and cracks that appear when make up is shot under those lights.
Colour matching in natural light is a much harder job to do. First you have to make sure lighting conditions are fine, that they don't change during the shoot, that the weather is clear, that there is sufficient sunlight, etc. Not an easy job already, especially in England. You would also have to shoot ridiculously fast as conditions are always changing, the sun is moving, shadows are falling differently all the time, and then you will find it difficult shooting a model on her back outdoors. Most make up shoots are shot from above with the model laying down, if you've ever noticed the way they like to fan out the model's hair.
Why not some nice CP tungsten halogen? That is after all what "Colour Photography" lamps were made for!
- Or even some of the better LED fixtures. The Royal Wedding Dresses were shot using static full-spectrum LED lighting. (Not "White" or "RGB". Those do have odd colour casts.)
Perhaps I'm biased as I'm a lighting designer (flash kills lighting), but flash photography always looks shit to me.
If you don't flash, then you don't end up with overbright, washed out, high colour temp, patchy odd-looking skin that you have to spend a long time editing out.
If you don't flash, you can actually look at the model and see what they'll look like in the image.
While your eye has a much higher dynamic range than a film or digital camera, it's still easy to see what the camera will.
Modern digital and film simply doesn't need high light levels - in HDTV we dropped the lumens quite a long way, and we actually got better pictures that way.
(For a while the same light levels were kept, and ended up racking the iris almost as tight as it would go.)
full page adverts in the Metro most days. before and afters of some bird with filler and without it.
Who is stupid enough to believe this crap and pay 30 quid for a 30ml tube of goo ?
Unfortunately lots and lots of (female) idiots.
It's basic logic that if you lack any sort of understanding of science, then snake oil pish like this is just as believable as anything else you read.
I reckon probably wimin are a bit worse off than men as regards scientific knowledge (it's just the way we bring em up...).
However, it is simply the mainstream extension of herbal pills, vitamin supplements, 'anti-oxidants' and a whole lot of other useless shite - most of which is bought equally by both sexes.
quote "advertisers were keen to present their products in their most positive light using techniques" but they are not photographing their products and I bet she has not been anywhere near a pot of their product so how can they justify their augment. Ffs stop this patent fraudulent advertising
"Maybe she was born with it....."
All their ads feature women who have earned millions of dollars from looking extremely good on camera. Not only were they born with 'it', many of them subsequently had 'it' upgraded by top plastic surgeons.
The Maybelline has chuff-all to do with it, they'd still look good on camera if they were wearing Lidl or Wal-Mart own-brand face-gunk.
And yet some people see these adverts and thing that coughing up for that brand of face-gunk before their big night out in a Croydon night-club will make them look as good in real life as a Brazilian supermodel does on camera. Truly, the power of self-delusion is amazing.
Probably because I grew up with computers being used more an more, and that the internet has meant I seen a lot more photographs and videos than my grandparents ever have, a photoshopped (or in any way digitally created) image stands out far more than I think the advertisers realise.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019