Should we know if a photo has been re-touched?

[The Curmudgeon]

I know someone (memory test; Wolfman?) posted images before of photos that had been digitally altered to make the celeb in them "better." Thinner, better skin, no celulite.. you know, stuff that makes them, gasp, human. Imagine that.

Here's an example..

www.hemmy.net/2007/05/25/celebrities-before-and-after-photoshop/

There's been a bit of a movement recently to ban this practise in magazines because of the negative images it gives kids and impressionable people ("she's so thin, I want to be like her, I think I'll take up an eating disorder"). So the proposed idea now is to have a symbol or notice at the bottom of the photo letting the reader KNOW that isn't 100% accurate.

Why fucking have them in the first place?? Anyone who feels the need to alter people like Beyonce and Britney to make them MORE beautiful has got to be out of their minds. And although it creates a more flattering image for the celeb themselves, it's .. well, a LIE. Nothing more than that.

So what would YOU do? Ban the practise altogether, allow as is, or have a small disclaimer at the bottom of the photo?

Discuss.

[trashcanman]

I don't think it's the government's job to dictate photographic practices, but I do believe pages like the one you just posted a link to should be distributed far and wide and sent to the idiots who read these garbage publications until this is common knowledge. A disclaimer at the beginning of the magazine couldn't hurt, though. After all, is photoshopping physical flaws out of a picture really any different than photoshopping something into a picture that wasn't there? Either way, it's fictional and pointless.

[Benjamin Haines]

I think a disclaimer is the best way to go. Don't ban the practice, but don't let publications willingly mislead their moronic readers. Think of it as the photographic equivalent of FDA-required nutritional information on the side of food packaging.