To Photoshop or not? The U.K. says no

Really, another Photoshop uproar?

First, it was this scary-skinny Ralph Lauren model; she later claimed Ralph Lauren fired her for being too fat.

Then, it was this letter from Self magazine Editor in Chief Lucy Danziger that defended, dubiously, its airbrushed Kelly Clarkson cover.

Now, the U.K. has banned Twiggy’s curiously wrinkle-free Olay advertisements.  The 59-year-old fashion icon looked downright juvenile in a set of photos touting the cosmetic company’s anti-aging cream. After Olay admitted to modest photo alterations, the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) called the images “socially irresponsible” and prohibited the campaign.

I think it’s a smooth move. By now, women know that most glossy images are nipped, tucked, brightened and lightened. But Olay didn’t just smudge a zit or wipe out a bit of frizz.  The images deliberately altered Twiggy’s wrinkles — the very trait, of course, that the product claims to fix.

The disturbing thing about this all is that women do respond to realistic images.  In Glamour, the “Woman on Page 194” spurred an avalanche of reader mail and pushed the magazine to feature more plus-sized models.

That seems to debunk the argument that women respond better to glossed-over, fantastical versions of reality. So where should the regulations end?  Is it ok to smudge out a stray wrinkle? Or should we keep demanding authentic advertisements?