People should expect it to be retouched. They see other humans every day, and yet they think it's possible to look like that? I question that thinking.
The last thing we need is more laws. People should expect it, they shouldn't have to have it told to them.

See it as an art rather than a retouched photo. It takes great effort to retouch a single picture. It should be up to the model if she wants to be retouched, otherwise, she should be fit and flawless

We don't need more laws.

I think it's stupid personally. There won't be a single image in any magazine that ISN'T touched up! Are they going to require it to have a label on every single add, product image and background of every page design?

If people are too thick to realise what they see isn't how people really look then maybe they should wake up. What's next... labels saying ' this model is actually rough as a badgers arse, but she's had 4 hours in hair and makeup to look like this'?

instead of forcing stupid things in through law, they should educate young girls to stop being so damn vain! There's a lot more to life than looking hot.

Well Whoooops! I definitely read that question wrong. I thought it was asking if it should be law TO retouch model's pictures. My bad. Yes, is what I meant: it should be required for a small caption or label somewhere on the page to say something along the lines of:

"Disclaimer: Women have pores."

or

"Disclaimer: This woman was blessed with genetics and this product did nothing to help her gain that physique."

or maybe

"Disclaimer: She is not you. You are beautiful, so just buy the goddamned dress and get out there and strut yo' stuff!"

Absolutely, falls under false representation in my mind.

Cropping, levels and so forth are legit, but when it actually involves adding or removing elements from the image or other retouching, at that point it needs to be labelled "Artist's illustration" or equivalent, because it isn't a recording of something that exists in the real world anymore.

Retouched by.... would be nice.

That would be pretty much every photo in the world though. It is really rare for photographers to not do any post-processing (like adjusting curves or pushing/pulling the exposure a hair). I think we just need to train society to see photos the same way they do paintings - imagery produced by people that may or may not have a correlation to an event that happened.

From what my photojournalist friend tells me though, if a photographer does any content manipulation before selling an image to a hardcore news source, they soon get blacklisted from the industry. I don't know where they draw the line though, even the way you crop or frame an image can have a big effect on how an event is portrayed.

it depends how retouched. touching up skin is one thing, but like morphing their body is way too ridiculous