Have you noticed any MAJOR differences? Very few companies seem to be on board with this new demand and I'm starting to wonder if "adopting a new policy" will actually make any strides with this issue.
Originally, during AMA discussions, Dr. McAneny explained that "The appearance of advertisements with extremely altered models can create unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image. In one image, a model's waist was slimmed so severely, her head appeared to be wider than her waist. We must stop exposing impressionable children and teenagers to advertisements portraying models with body types only attainable with the help of photo editing software."
With the very few exceptions from companies like Dove (and a couple of great UK companies), I haven't seen much difference in what is being promoted to us. As a budding photographer, I've been learning the ropes on Photoshop and Photo editing software and I must say it's sad how many photographers use extreme measures to make their subjects look socially "desirable."
I do believe in using the software to edit out pesky zits or complexion issues people normally do not have,but I would never go so far as to actually make subjects look thin or unrealistic. What is the point of capturing one's beauty if that person's beauty is manipulated and defined by a bunch of money hungry corporations? I have to say that I love playing around with what I can do on Photoshop to the face (erasing redness, etc), changing backgrounds, etc...but does this in turn contribute to us not loving and accepting what and who we are? I don't know...
This is a tricky topic in the day and age where we can create these digital "miracles." Some photographers believe what they are doing is artistic but where do we draw the line? What do you think?