A Commentary on Photo Legitimacy

OK I have a cynical view of advertising, the modern world's all pervasive evil empire.

Yes, advertising images are usually glamourised to look good. Like one example was hearing some vague insider talk about models, they hated working on images of Elle McPherson (The Body) as she has/had a zillion freckles to clone out. Plus they always cloned out the normal flesh bulge above the bikini on the hip to make her not look like she had any fat layer at all. I guess the same happens for all super models if they want to keep earning the holy $$$.

Not so long back images of cars were stretched in some way to make them look bigger and more wonderful than they are, but that has calmed down somewhat in the last 30 or so years. Now they probably try to make the huge metal hunks look smaller to encourage people to think they can control them. Sorry, cynical again.

Advertising tries to sell stuff and the crazier the image or situation they can provide to shift the product, they will do it.

Such as a friend sent me a pass-around video of a killer whale grabbing a boy off a beach. Amazing if true but it was a Photoshop job for some South American company brand of pencil of all things. The event they made to look real never happened - truth in advertising? Ah, just found it at http://www.hoax-slayer.com/killer-whale-takes-man-video.shtml

As far as photography is concerned I've seen examples in the past of "photo samples" that were impossible for the camera concerned, so it's not only lies in the product image, in that case it was lies about product capability.

Basically I am suspect of everything that any advertising says or shows, I like to check things for myself.

Regards...... Guy