Should we allow images used in media to be extensively edited?
From my perspective, absolutely.

Creating a perfect image is a key element to making a product or service desirable.

Can it cause problems in society where being constantly subject to seeing these images can affect our perceptions?
Undoubtedly.
In the same way that a percentage of the population are more susceptible to hypnotism or subliminal messaging, we will all be influenced at some level by what we see every day.

Should we put disclaimers on images that are edited in magazines, billboards etc….?
Yes, I believe that we should have a something on the images so we know they’ve been retouched.

How can we find a middle ground that doesn’t have ugly distracting banners taking a percentage of the image in the same way cigarette packets have the warning labels on them …. which don’t work. I know friends that bought skull&crossbone cigarettes because they were perceived to be more dangerous (go figure)

I thought of a possible solution:
Rather than obscuring a part of the image with a white warning box, why not put small colour (or greyscale) circles/squares subtly in the corner of the image or page which relates to the editing work that was carried out.

It could be ISO standardised so that it’s the same for everyone to use, or alternatively each magazine could have their own key chart shown in the bottom of the MastHead.

For example:
Blue: Colour change (e.g. eyes, clothes, skin)
Red: Blemish Removal
Green: Texture alterations
Yellow: Shape changing (Liquefy/Stretch/Shrink, bigger eyelashes, narrower thighs etc..)
Grey: Added extra elements (CGI, blending other images)

Here’s a rough example of how it could look.

Everyone should be happy 🙂
Advertisers keep their perfect images and consumers subconsciously know it’s been enhanced away from reality.

So, what’s your opinion on how images should be shown in the media? Edited or warts ‘n all? 🙂