You guys may have read my original post that asked the question; What can be considered “Photoshop Abuse?”. I have found several more advertisements similar to the first one I found on Digg. As I mentioned in my original post, it is my opinion that this could be considered false advertising even though they write “simulated imagery” on the ad (which you can see at the end of the post).
As a designer I realize that viewers will only spend a few seconds looking at the ad and those few seconds will be spent looking at the imagery and most prominent graphics such as the “call to action” buttons. The simulated imagery text in the tiny font size becomes very unnoticeable.
We all know magazines and other publications also “Photoshop” images of people on their covers, but I don’t believe they have to write simulated imagery on there like these advertisements do, even though they are both selling to the consumer. I don’t know the exact laws behind this, so technically they may not even have to write simulated imagery currently and could just be doing it to help prevent any legal issues that might arise.
Once again I will ask:
Do you guys think these ads below are too over the top or do you think writing “simulated imagery” is enough to inform the consumers? Also do you think magazines and other publications that doctor photographs to sell a product or service should have to have some sort of disclaimer or “simulated imagery” text?
