Truth, Beauty, and Retouching

Bob wrote<p>

<i>But I *do* think that you can show the beauty of a subject without retouching, in a way which is "more true" than if you had to use retouching.</i><p>

And the reason this should matter to everybody else but you is?<p>

Unless the image is a reflection of reality, it's up to the photographer and what they want the viewer to see. If you don't like touching up an image, then why ask others what they think. There's nothing noble or sacred in the act of not adjusting an image. In fact, I find this sort of thought, ham strung thinking.<p>

One can fix an image anyway they want and again, as long as it's not a representation of the truth, it doesn't matter. Why? All that matters is, does the final print represent the photographer's vision. The final vision is what counts, not how you got there.<p>

I'll give you a clue, it's okay to manipulate an image anyway you want to. Why? It's not a crime to manipulate an image:) In fact I was trained in the darkroom to manipulate light striking the paper. I was taught about gobos, masking, double negative masks, contrast filters, changing chemicals, making your own developers from scratch, processing times, papers, ect., ect., ect. So what's the big deal?<p>

Wishing you the best as you struggle with this silly thought:)<p>

Bob, the name of the photographer is Andrew Goldman. He was profiled in Photo District News, June 2004. The PDN blurb at their website describes the profile: "Whether he's shooting for Playboy or ESPN, this photograper believes capturing skin tone is about lighting, lighting, lighting."

Unfortunately, the article does not appear to be online. I tossed out my issue last week -- sorry, or I'd quote directly from the article. Maybe if anyone has the June 2004 PDN (tattooed person on the cover) they can post the appropriate paragraph(s). I was struck by how Goldman says he doesn't airbrush the models but instead uses lots of precisely positioned lights to get the golden glow.

Patrick said in his first post most of the things I thought.

But let me float another. Artists interpret things. I spent yesterday evening retouching 3 lamp posts out of a Panorama. Had I been an painter I would have painted the sceene without them (i.e. not strictly what was there). Why do some people feel that a picture produced using photography must be made entirely by the reflected light from the subject which passes through the lens (and any uniform treatement to the whole of the resulting image).

In the Original question Antithesis 1&2 are wrong; there are things which can only be resolved with re-touching. Various overhead cables, and lamp posts in landscapes and cityscapes. A zit on model's face.

Beautiful is not an on/off state. Given a choice between a beautiful model with a zit, or without, without is not strictly a "true" representation of what is front of the camera, but is probably more enduringly true in the artistic interpretation sense, and by removing a flaw beauty is enhanced. As for 1. Suppose the mona lisa had a zit on her chin, should Leonardo have pained her in profile (losing the smile and zit) or painted it out. Why shouldn't a photographer do the same ?

>Why shouldn't a photographer do the same ?

Because photography isn't painting. The essence of photography is to capture what is in front of the camera. Manipulations before triggering the shutter are acceptable, and afterwards they aren't.

Mona Lisa may have been a real person -- she probably was -- but da Vinci could have painted her from his imagination. You can't photograph something from your imagination, unless you first create it in the real world.

Richard wrote<p>

<i>The essence of photography is to capture what is in front of the camera. Manipulations before triggering the shutter are acceptable, and afterwards they aren't.</i><p>

Then you better not look at these links:) The essence of photography is to paint with light, as there are no rules when it comes to photographic art.<p>

<a href ="http://starnstudio.com/perspective01.htm">Starn Studio</a><p>

<a href ="http://www.uelsmann.net/flash.html">Jerry Uelsmann</a><p>

Wishing all well with their manipulative photographic efforts:)<p>

<p>A good example for this discussion might be Chuck Close's recent photographs of Kate Moss in W magazine (Sept 2003). He used a daguerreotype (not common in fashion photography). The photos definitely do not look retouched and Close claims that they have not been airbrushed. I think this lends support to antithesis 2, though I agree with the earlier post about this needing a definition of beauty. If beauty is subjective, then retouching can both add beauty and destroy it.

</p>

<p><a href="http://www.artcritical.com/DavidCohen/sun_images_august/close.jpg">Example 1</a> <br> <a href="http://www.style.com/style/view/07/74/100107407.jpg">Example 2</a>

"You can't photograph something from your imagination, unless you first create it in the real world."

Ever notice the difference in the reality depicted in ads vs. the reality you live in even after you've bought the product being flogged?

People have been photographing their imaginations since the very beginning.

>People have been photographing their imaginations since the very beginning.

No, they haven't. Imagination is a thought. Thoughts have no physical existence we can perceive, except by means of techniques such as EEG, which are themselves imperfect and subject to interpretation. Can you really say a photo of a CAT scan is a photo of happiness or anger? A photo of someone else experiencing happiness or anger is a photo of a person, not of a thought.

People can photograph the expression of their thoughts, which is a different thing.

As for the difference between an ad and reality, I think that supports my point. How many advertisements show photographs without any manipulations such as cut-outs, retouching etc.?

It depends on the subject and genre of every particular photography. Personally I prefer beautiful retouched images as long as the main subject it still untouched - i.e. if a photographer hides/removes/replaces the minor unimportant objects that distract the attention (such as scratches, zits, wrinkles, random people on the background, etc), remaining the main subject untouched.

From the other side artificially created pictures (i.e. mainly retouched and highly manipulated in PS) have the rights to exist as well, but rather as digital art, not photography.

Bob true and not true are only depending of what you have in your brain .. on how many kilos of bad (or maybe good) culture are stocked and sorted, organized in a certain way .. there is nowheree a truth

.. when i look at a landscape i allready know it is a landscape ... if i try to get before this knowledge there is no rules anymore ..