On Wednesday it was reported that a complaint from UK’s Jo Swinson, Lib Dem MP, to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) had led ruling that an ad for a L’Oréal anti-wrinkle cream featuring actress Rachel Weisz could never again appear in its current form. The ASA decided that although the ad didn’t misrepresent the “luminosity or wrinkling” of Weisz’s face, “the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even”, and concluded it could therefore mislead the public as to the product’s performance. This came after two rulings in Swinson’s favour last year – ads featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington were also deemed to have been digitally enhanced, and potentially misleading – and another in 2009, when an image of Twiggy was pulled.
This leaves me with two questions:
1 – Is this the biggest priority in an era of unprecedented unemployment and economic crisis? Really?!
2 – Should government be the Photoshop police? Is this limited to photos of beautiful women or should it include photoshopped ads for cars, appliances, even lamps?

Hmmm... this is an advert for a 'magic' lamp with no cord. Should this photoshopping be banned by the government for false advertising? People don't like to see cords, just like we don't like to see wrinkles or spots. We like 'aspirational' and glamorous advertising...
Given my work and emphasis on beauty and esteem, I find myself conflicted. On one hand, I do believe unrealistic images of beauty lead to unfair comparisons and lower self image. But, what’s ‘unrealistic’?
If Rachel Weisz’ skin can’t be photoshopped for a beauty shot, do we need to have disclaimers for every actress who has breast implants, Botox, or other interventions? Those are equally unreal and proliferate media. What about makeup and lighting? You can work miracles with the right lighting and a great makeup artist. Are those ‘bannable’ as well?
Half of my body is ‘unreal’ at this point – my teeth are whitened, my lashes enhanced, my haircolour has been unnatural since I was 16, hair extensions, miscellaneous plastic surgeries, Botox (which needs a touch up, actually), assorted laser/chemical peels over the years and, oh yes, Shellac nail polish. Do I need a disclaimer?
Also, don’t you think our government officials have more pressing issues to worry about just now than Rachel Weisz’ crows feet or concealed spots?
So, my solution: educate women on how to spot Photoshop and anything ‘fake’! Then government can get back to finding jobs for people and punishing those responsible for the financial situation by taking away their bonuses and titles.
Herewith: The Telltale Signs of Photoshopping (and, mind you, cosmetic companies spend A LOT of money on perfect photoshopping…good photoshoppers are artists who command hefty fees like a photographer. They are the unsung heroes of the beauty world and every actress/model hopes for the best photoshopper to work on her images.)
IT’S NOT REAL IF:
1 – Things don’t line up or look normal. Look at Demi Moore’s left thigh in this photo below. See above the fabric and below – it doesn’t match up. BAD photoshopping to make thinner thighs. It’s also common practice to minimize upper arms, nip in the waist, and shadow the jaw to make the model ‘lose’ 10 lbs.
2 – You don’t see pores in the skin. I actually defy you to find a cover of any women’s magazine that has a single discernable pore. Here are the ads that have been banned in the UK featuring Weisz, Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington. See, there are no fine lines or imperfections. That’s because they’re selling foundation!
How it works: the photoshopper finds a bit of ‘perfect’ skin on the image and then uses that ‘sample’ to colour in the rest so it’s all even. This can also, obviously be done using the makeup being sold – go figure. (Looking at these, I’m actually just thrilled they’re using models who are over 30. We could have ‘realistic’ ads of 17 year olds showing us foundation… is that better?)
3 – There are shapes that can’t logically exist. This hair advert must be photoshopped because hair can’t do that as we all know from living on Earth and understanding gravity and physics. The shape has been created and those reflective ‘glossies’ are added and of course, hair doesn’t get poured out of a bottle…
4 – It’s too glossy. Anything too glossy, too smooth, too perfect has probably been photoshopped. Look at almost any hair advert that is promoting smooth, glossy hair. The reflection is practically white – no way that happens in real life. The lighting helps, but it must be photoshopped to get that effect. We like glossy things – that’s why we like shiny icons on our screens that have a reflection – it makes us think ‘clean’ and ‘new’ and ‘special’. So advertisers give us extra shine.
So, do your part to save taxpayer money and government time. Spread the word to your friends: Don’t judge yourself by what you see in magazines – they’re not real! Problem solved!
xx C










