In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Q: A new photograph-analyzing tool quantifies changes made by digital airbrushers in the fashion and lifestyle industry, where image alteration has become the psychologically destructive norm. 
  
 "Publishers have legitimate reasons to alter photographs to create fantasy and sell products, but they've gone a little too far," said image forensics specialist Hany Farid of Dartmouth University. "You can't ignore the body of literature showing negative consequences to being inundated with these images." 
  
 In a Nov. 28 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, Farid and doctoral student Eric Kee debut a computational model developed by analyzing 468 sets of original and retouched photographs. From these, Farid and Kee distilled a formal mathematical description of alterations made to models' shapes and features. Their model then scored each altered photograph on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 signifying heavy retouching. 
  
 To validate the scores, Farid and Kee then asked 50 people randomly picked through Amazon's Mechanical Turk task outsourcing service to evaluate the photographs. Computational and human scores matched closely. "Now what we have is a mathematical measure of photo retouching," said Farid. "We can predict what an average observer would say." 
  
 The researchers started developing their model after learning of the British government's plans to label photographic alterations in advertising. Psychologists have become vocally critical of such images: By employing an arsenal of retouching techniques, from unnaturally slimmed limbs to the old standby of cleaned-up skin, retouchers create unattainable standards of both beauty and normalcy, ultimately leading to self-destructive body image disorders. 
  
 In June, the American Medical Association urged advertisers to work with activists in developing alteration standards. Setting limits, however, is easier said than done. 
  
 "One criticism of the British legislation is that they were presenting a blunt instrument. Photographs would be labeled as retouched or not. Anybody knows that there's different types," said Farid. "It's an interesting scientific problem: How much is too much? That got us thinking about whether we could quantify this." 
  
 Farid and Kee's model doesn't precisely determine a numerical boundary between psychologically appropriate and inappropriate; that's a judgement call to be made by society, Farid said. But they do provide an objective metric for evaluating images and trends. 
  
 "You look at what photographs looked like in magazines 10 years ago, and there's a huge difference. And that is escalating," said Farid. 
  
 On the following pages are more images from the study. 
  
 Image Analysis: 
  
 Color-coded overlays show the intensity of alteration at different points on a retouched photograph. ||||| Their work is intended as a technological step to address concerns about the prevalence of highly idealized and digitally edited images in advertising and fashion magazines. Such images, research suggests, contribute to eating disorders and anxiety about body types, especially among young women. 
  
 The Dartmouth research, said Seth Matlins, a former talent agent and marketing executive, could be “hugely important” as a tool for objectively measuring the degree to which photos have been altered. He and his wife, Eva Matlins, the founders of a women’s online magazine, Off Our Chests, are trying to gain support for legislation in America. Their proposal, the Self-Esteem Act, would require photos that have been “meaningfully changed” to be labeled. 
  
 Photo 
  
 “We’re just after truth in advertising and transparency,” Mr. Matlins said. “We’re not trying to demonize Photoshop or prevent creative people from using it. But if a person’s image is drastically altered, there should be a reminder that what you’re seeing is about as true as what you saw in ‘Avatar,’ ” the science-fiction movie with computer-generated actors and visual effects. 
  
 The algorithm developed by Dr. Farid and Mr. Kee statistically measures how much the image of a person’s face and body has been altered. Many of the before-and-after photos for their research were plucked from the Web sites of professional photo retouchers, promoting their skills. 
  
 The algorithm is meant to mimic human perceptions. To do that, hundreds of people were recruited online to compare sets of before-and-after images and to determine the 1-to-5 scale, from minimally altered to starkly changed. The human rankings were used to train the software. 
  
 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
  
 His tool, Dr. Farid said, would ideally be a vehicle for self-regulation. Information and disclosure, he said, should create incentives that reduce retouching. “Models, for example, might well say, ‘I don’t want to be a 5. I want to be a 1,’ ” he said. 
  
 Yet even without the prod of a new software tool, there is a trend toward Photoshop restraint, said Lesley Jane Seymour, editor in chief of More, a magazine for women over 40. 
  
 Women’s magazine surveys, said Ms. Seymour, a former editor of Marie Claire and Redbook, show that their readers want celebrities to “look great but real.” 
  
 “What’s terrific is that we’re having this discussion,” she said. But readers, she added, have become increasingly sophisticated in understanding that photo retouching is widespread, and the overzealous digital transformations become notorious, with the before-and-after images posted online and ridiculed. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 “Readers aren’t fooled if you really sculpt the images,” Ms. Seymour said. “If you’re a good editor, you don’t go too far these days. If you give someone a face-lift,” she said, adding, “you’re a fool.” |||||
A: 
Highly altered images of models and celebrities in fashion magazines have come under increasing scrutiny, with France even proposing that all airbrushed pictures come packaged with a health warning. A new tool could make that easier, as it analyzes photographs to detect digital retouching, Wired reports. Publishers have “gone a little too far,” explains the Dartmouth specialist who helped create the tool, adding that there are “negative consequences” associated with a barrage of such images. The new tool would rank images from 1, or barely altered, to 5. It takes into account geometric adjustments (slimming the hips, widening the eyes) as well as photometric adjustments (removing wrinkles, changing skin tone), Mother Nature Network notes. The creators analyzed 468 sets of photos to develop a computational model, which then scored each photo. They then tested the scores by having people evaluate the pictures, and found that the scores they gave closely matched. “Now what we have is a mathematical measure of photo retouching,” the Dartmouth expert explains. “We can predict what an average observer would say.” Such labeling makes more sense than simply labeling whether a photo has been retouched or not, he adds. “Anybody knows that there's different types,” but this tool will address the question, “How much is too much?” The New York Times has an helpful illustration of images ranked 1 through 5.