Truth, Beauty, and Retouching

Had a conversation today about beauty and retouching which I'd like

to get more opinions on.

 

Thesis: Retouching is necessary to show the true beauty of the

subject, because a photograph shows only 1/125 of a second, and

cannot depict a subject's vitality, spontaneity, "inner glow", or

other characteristics which come out in real life. Without motion,

speech, and other attributes to focus on, the viewer's eye dwells on

imperfections. Therefore, to be true to the beauty of the subject,

it is necessary to remove the imperfections via retouching.

 

Antithesis #1: This is the refuge of a lazy photographer; a good

photographer (Avedon? Penn?) can show the beauty of a subject without

retouching. The argument of the thesis essentially rests upon

the "obvious" truth that a retouched photo looks better than *the

same* photo unretouched (especially if the initial photo is not

particularly inspired) - but does NOT demonstrate that the retouched

photo looks better than another, better photo which would have been

taken by a better photographer given the same subject.

 

Antithesis #2: If the subject IS beautiful, by definition it is

possible to take a beautiful photo without resorting to retouching.

If it is not possible to take a beautiful photo without retouching,

then any beauty added through retouching is "untrue" and is a

construct imposed by the retoucher upon a subject which is not

beautiful.

 

What y'all think?

And you are sure Penn or Avedons images are unretouched?

Thanks Quiche. Nice to know that discussions on philosophical topics phrased in the actual language of philosophy aren't what you're looking for when you check into the "philosophy of photography" forum.

 

To your specific charge, you could actually check (as I checked the archives before posting - just as the rules request). I've been a member since October 2001, registered under my own real name, with photos posted, and with fairly frequent responses in various forums (which I invite you to look at to see if they live up to your standards).

 

If anyone has anything other than the argument ad hominem to contribute, I'd appreciate reading it.

Gary,

 

Sorry; I didn't mean (and hope I didn't imply) that Avedon & Penn aren't retouched - when they shot for Vogue, for example, I'm confident they were. I'd be surprised if Penn retouched "Earthly Bodies" (other than spotting etc...), and also if Avedon's gritty portraits on white backgrounds were retouched - but I put their names in parentheses with question marks for exactly this reason: to suggest that these guys were good enough to take a beautiful photo which doesn't require retouching, even though I'm not sure if in these specific cases retouching was actually done.

i told you what i think. for someone doing "thesis" and "antithesis" i think you forgot a real biggie.<p>

 

define <b>beauty</b> and define <b>truth</b></p><p>

 

then we can talk</P><p>

 

i think we all know what retouching is</p>

If we can only talk about things which already have settled dictionary definitions, we are not discussing philosophy, we are discussing syntax. Nevertheless, since you insist:

 

beauty: the subject of study of the philosophical discipline of aesthetics

 

truth: the subject of study of the philosophical discipline of logic (with assistance from metaphysics and ontology).

 

Now let's talk.

Thanks for the characteristically civil, helpful, and insightful epigram, Grant.

 

If you like the cover of Maxim every month, I suppose the topic isn't worth discussing. I don't like it, and not because it "objectifies" women, but because it trivializes them - specifically by taking each individual woman and burying any individuality which might make her beautiful under an airbrushed painting of Barbie. I'd like to talk about it.

 

If you don't want to talk about it, I invite you refrain from wasting your and everyone else's time - as Quiche and Grant have just done for reasons which aren't really clear to me.

bob, doesn't it seem silly to use terms like beauty and truth and then somehow link them to retouching?

hello!, this is like asking which eyeshadow most approximates beauty and truth on a woman's face. sorry if i cannot be jazzed about your topic. i shall take my leave.

There is no Truth and Beauty is subjective. I find beauty in

imperfections and perfection is usually false.

Grant, I am consistently intrigued and impressed by your posted photos, but also consistently irritated by your one-line attempts to dismiss and trivialize questions raised by others. What exactly is your problem?

 

I have been recently reading about a successful prosecution for breach of copyright that took place in Venice in the early 1880s. One photographer sued his rivals for 'pirating' his prints - mainly views of Venice, but also 'genre' scenes of picturesque peasants and so on. The guilty rivals either bought the prints in his shop and remounted them, or possibly rephotographed them. The pirated photographer successfully argued that his work was not 'mere' documentation, and should therefore be covered by artistic copyright. An independent investigation by an art expert concluded the following (he refers to prints that reproduce famous paintings):

 

"There is no doubt that, on the negatives examined by me, I recognised that, in addition to the chemical-mechanical photographic product, there was also the intelligent work of the hand of man - which, furthermore, was in some cases very extensive.

2. There is no doubt that the person who did that additional work on the negatives had produced a drawing in the proper sense of the art. In fact he had drawn many heads, and even complete figures, drapery and whatever else had been necessary to obtain, in the positive print, really the picture it represented, and the effect that the original painting has.

3. This further work ... is effectively the work of an artist in the highest sense of the word, and not simply of a retoucher remedying photographic blemishes. This is so in that the artists has effectively created on his negatives the perfection of figures, of heads, of drapery and of extremities, ...

 

In other words, the prints were ONLY considered artistic insofar as they had been altered and manipulated - and this manipulation was in the srvice of fidelity to the original (which was in itself a work of art!). I have seen some of these prints - and a few are so extensively altered as to be almost unrecognizable as photographic images (mainly the genre scenes, where fidelity to an original was less of an issue). The 'retouchers' were a specialized professional group, since studio work was compartmentalized in a pseudo-factory system, with individuals given specific tasks to perform. A lot of them had originally been involved in lithography, a printing process whose fortunes suffered as a result of the increasing popularity of photos.

 

This case will not be surprising to anyone familiar with the history of photography. It illustrates the atttude that underlay the rise of Pictorialism. Nowadays, the introduction of digital has led to a revival of Pictorialist attitudes.

IMO...

The thesis claims retouching is "necessary" which I disagree with.

That is matter of opinion. It also seems silly to say that to show the "inner glow" or the "

true beauty" of a subject we need to revamp the subjects External appearance. I don't t

hink by enhancing the exterior we come any closer to displaying the internal c

haracteristics of a person.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that retouching is "the refuge of a lazy photographer" t

hough. Whether or not a particular photographer can make someone look "

Beautifuller" lol is dependant upon many factors. Lighting, posing, equip etc...

In a limited situation say the client wants a full frontal evenly lit portrait... I wouldn't s

ay Richard Avedon could make her anymore beautiful than any other talented portrait p

hotographer with knowledge could. The subject IS what it IS in that situation.

I do agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and subjective.

Yes in essence rendering anything differently like removing bags under the eyes is f

alse. This doesn't mean I am opposed to its use per se. I guess the question is when y

ou do that sort of thing are you doing it for your personal gratification or to try and m

ake a client or someone else feel better about how they (supposedly) look?

Gotta admit, Grant's one-liners are both amusing and irritating at the same time. I don't think he added anything to the discussion, which makes me wonder why he even bothered to click on the thread.

 

6 months ago, I was 100% anti-retouch for anything except dust and scratches. I didn't want anything getting in the way of the realism, my definition of beauty is realistic beauty, not ABB (Airbrushed Bunny Beauty). However, I do find heavily retouched images quite beautiful. I suppose what I was reacting to is the fact that many women don't see themselves as beautiful because they can't airbrush themselves (errr, clone/dodge/burn themselves) before looking in the mirror in the morning. I wanted to show that beauty occurs as it occurs, complete with scars, moles, and the occasional blemish.

 

I was taken to task by a model, which slowly started changing my views. She said "Fine, next time I'll cancel the shoot until the zit heals." Hmmmm. Hmmmmm. Made me think. What's wrong with taking out temporary blemishes? That was the first step down the slipery slope of retouching. I now oughtta join Retoucher's Anonymous. I still leave most imperfections there, and always ask the question "Where have you seen a perfect body in the wild?" I have seen lotsa bodies, and exactly zero were Madison Avenue perfect. I suppose that I subconciously seek out those imperfections to some extent and shoot them, again asking the question as to why they are considered un-beautiful.

 

It is definitely possible to take a beautiful photo without retouching. It depends on how you define beauty and what you want from the shot. It also happens that many people will not like the shot because it is unretouched, too realistic (maybe photography is like fiction, everyone sees reality day in and day out and wants a dose of seing the world the way they THINK it oughtta be).

 

Did I adress the original post? I dunno...it got me thinking, and that is what I thunked :-).

Admittedly, his rejoinder was funny.

POINT 1) You can't just argue about a vague concept called "retouching". There is a continuum of retouching.

 

-- At one end is cloning good skin over a temporary zit that won't be there next week. In the middle is the digital equivalent of makeup. At the other end is unnaturally smooth Playboy-type plastoskin.

 

POINT 2) Each person has to decide for themselves when retouching goes from acceptable, to "too artificial". The decision about what is acceptable will differ -- even for the same person -- depending on whether one is in the role of a photographer, a subject, a viewer or a critic.

 

-- For example, will you be a purist the day you need a self-portrait for that 4-page Photo District News profile, and your nose just broke out with a big pimple?

 

-- Views can also differ depending on the intended use of a photo; for example, retouching in editorial shots vs. retouching for a glamour ad.

 

POINT 3) The analogy with makeup is a good one. No one would argue that people should be photographed the way they look when they wake up -- even though that is "natural".

 

-- For example, a significant number of women feel more comfortable with makeup. For any given woman, she might have daytime makeup and nighttime makeup. The photographic equivalent is subtle retouching and heavier-handed glamour retouching. Which is wrong? Neither, it depends on the subject's preference and the photo's purpose.

 

POINT 4) Like it or not, people look at photos differently than they look at a real-life person. A photo can be examined much more intently. Kind of like when you look in the mirror very close to check your skin, facial hair, etc. This is not how you normally look at others.

 

-- Retouching, therefore, can be a useful tool to let the photographer "back off" and better reproduce the arms-length relationship we normally have with others. Of course, for artistic purposes a photographer may want to get intimate, and show every wrinkle and facial hair -- that's fine. Just be aware that viewers don't normally get so close to people (one reason these are striking photos).

 

-- Note that this point (#4) is essentially equivalent to what Bob is saying in his "Thesis". My only difference in emphasis is that I wouldn't say we are removing imperfections. What is being removed (or toned down) is distractions.

 

POINT 5) There are other things photographers do which are similar to retouching, which somehow seem more acceptable. Is it OK simply because it is an in-camera trick, or a fact of optics? Some examples:

 

-- Using depth of field to emphazize one part of a face (usually eyes) and letting other parts become blurrier and smoother.

 

-- Using soft lenses or filters to give a softer look, as seen in old Hollywood photos of aging stars.

 

-- Using soft lighting to smooth out wrinkles or tone down areas such as big ears.

 

I read an article about a photographer for Playboy. He claimed that no airbrushing was done on his centerfolds. He obtains the uniform golden skin tones via extremely careful placement and balancing of multiple light sources. He can spend hours setting up lights to get "the glow". Is this more or less natural than an equivalent Photoshop retouching?

 

SUMMARY: "Retouching" is not a single process but a continuum. Different people, at different parts of the process -- photographers, subjects, viewers, critics -- will have differing views of how much retouching is acceptable for a particular photographic use. IMHO, retouching is acceptable when it removes or tones down distractions, to help other aspects of the subject come through more like they would in real life.

 

Bob, thanks for a very interesting discussion starter!

The act of tripping the shutter is but a single step in the creation process. The act of viewing the print, is the last step. In-between the thought that originates the process and getting the thought to print, much can happen which will give life to the original thought.

 

The question and answer is a simple one, what's the intent of the image maker and the image being created? Is the image in question an accurate recording of what's before the lense, or is the image maker creating an image which resides only in their mind.

 

What does the image maker have to do to make the image a reality? That's what's important.

To consider that 'retouching' is 'retouching' and is either 100% acceptable or 100% unacceptable over simplifies the issue.

 

There are, as other have said, several degrees and motivations for post-exposure alterations to an image.

 

1) Restorative: To repair damage to an image in order to restore the image to (more or less) original condition. For example, 'spotting' (removing dust specks), removing cracks, creases etc.

 

2) Idealization: To alter the image to remove or minimize physical imperfections in the subject. Paint artists have been doing this for years...making their subjects appear better than they actually were. As mentioned, filters like the Zeiss Softar are often used to soften facial wrinkles just as 'retouching' has been used to remove blemishes, scars, etc. A lot of 'retouching' (digital or analog) is done to 'idealize' a scene rather than a person...removing stray tree branches, trash in the foreground, power lines.

 

3) Deceptive: To alter the content of a 'historical' document to provide fabricated 'evidence' of what happened. For example, removing a person from an image who was actually present when the picture was taken; inserting a person who was not actually present; changing the position of the ball in the big play of the game.

 

4) Manipulative: This is more common (and expected) in advertising photography. When it was learned that faces apperared more attractive when the pupils were dilated, photoretouchers in advertising set about to artificially increase pupil size in all their shots. It was hoped that the more 'attractive' model would make the product appear more attractive as well.

 

So there are a lot of levels of retouching and different motivations for doing it.

In photography truth and beauty have different requirements. If you are doing

photojournalism, truth is everything, although that truth is easily corrupted by

the photographer's POV on any topic. Any photography having to do with

legalities, or testimonies or evidence, clearly must be truthful. The best photo

journalists manage to capture the truth, but instill beauty/feeling when

appropriate.

 

In other areas of photography, beauty becomes more of the requirement. To

be honest if you're talking about beauty or fashion that entire world is a

fantasy, little is as it appears. Does it really matter that the zit on the model's

face in the Avedon photo was retouched? Her entire face is merely an

illustration of what the makeup artist did. Believe me when I tell you that a top

notch makeup artist is an artist. In the beauty/fashion world you are already

starting out with a beautiful model, her daily existence is all about making

herself look her best. Then you have incredibly talented make up, hair, and

clothing stylists spend hours on her, their sole purpose, to make her and her

clothing look the best. Then you have a talented photographer, who's

function is also to make her look her best. This is not the real world, this is

fantasy. No truth here.

 

Then you have the "fine arts" as we all learned recently on photoNet, the fine

arts are about making a image purely for beauty and for little utilitarian

reasons. Does a fine art landscape photographer have to capture a scene

exactly as it appears? Do landscape painters have such a requirement? My

own personal view, as a landscape photographer, is that I'm not there to

capture truth, I'm there to make something beautiful. I'll manipulate an image

any way I can to make it appear beautiful to me. I don't want to see all of the

garbage, soda cans, broken bottles, that is strewn about, even in some of the

remotest areas. I'll walk into a scene and collect garbage, and if I can't get to

it, I'll retouch it out.

 

As for retouching being the "lazy photographers tool", sometimes if it's the

only tool you have if something stands in the way of the image you want to

make. However as a former studio photographer, who prided himself on

getting it right in the camera, I feel that in the studio the only justifiable cause

for retouching is to remove imperfections on products or people that can not

be removed for real. Scratches on the surface of the one of a kind prototype

you are shooting, a zit on a models face, etc. However where the

photographer uses retouching to give detail to a reflective surface or needs to

eleimante a hundred reflections because they can't light it properly, that to me

is lazy or is an indicator of the lack of skill of the photographer. As a result of

digital I saw more and more a reliance, and acceptance on the part of clients

and photographers to "fix it in the computer".

Not a good thing for the future of quality photography.

Hmmm. I just realized something. First, I have to tell you that I am a "rose-colored glasses" kind of guy. Not in a perjorative sense, but in the sense that I try to look for the good in people.

 

I personally like moderate retouching to tone down wrinkles, bags, etc. After reading this thread, I now realize my retouching is probably due to a desire to have the world be in a more idealized form. This comes out in what I shoot (pretty subjects, not street gritty) and in how I improve what I shoot (moderate retouching).

 

Thus for me, retouching actually reflects how I view the world. It is the world seen in a positive light.

 

Others who see the world more realistically might want the camera to accurately record every wrinkle. And finally, those who really like the gritty underside of life might prefer hard-edged lights and other techniques that bring out the wear-and-tear of life on a face.

 

So that is one aspect: each of us has a personal preference for idealization vs. reality.

 

I'd like to turn to one other point that is less obvious. Bob and others have already said it well: We look at a photograph differently -- more intently -- than we look at a real-life face. It is much easier to pore over a picture looking at flaws, than to stare at someone while examining them for bags and wrinkles.

 

So to me, it is acceptable to moderately retouch in order to bring the photo back to how we might perceive it in real-life.

 

This has nothing to do with one's personal level of acceptance. It is similar to color-correcting a photo because the film saw a different color than our eyes did, or sharpening a photo because the camera's AA filter was softer than what our eyes saw.

 

(All of the above applies to art, advertising and personal photography as opposed to editorial. I understand that editorial photos get only minimial PhotoShop work like curves -- no cloning out unpleasant elements!)

What is truth? My nickname isn't hawkeye, even with contact lenses. What would somebody who usually keeps his glasses in the drawer call truth? what he sees or what he pictures?

Witnesses are asked to tell the court what they have personally seen.

Beauty is a feeling / ideal and a subject usually is a automatically optimized trigger or reminder for this. "Art" is something what is a ble to pass as a expression of its creators feelings.

Photography is a mean of communication. If you like to marrywould you tell the girl & world: "I love you besides the wrinkles, the spots, the warts your hair needing recoloring for 3 weeks now..." and on and on, or just "I love you"? - The 1st sentence wasn't retouched. But the 2nd seems better.

The advantage of photography is: It doesn't count to a 3rd person how you got the picture as long as the picture is able to express what you like to tell with it, so for me it doesn't matter if one retouches Erna Smith or hires a topmodel and several make-up artists to express "female beauty".

Retouching becomes critical if we are going to "sell" the subject of the picture and not the picture itself.

But is it our job to tell truth? - I believe this would kill all the art craft and fun in photography, at least when all our former subjects start to run away as soon as they see us again.

As shutterbugs we have the right to produce less than perfect pictures or ruin the whole film. But when we want to become serious and build up a good reputation we should try to deliver what people want to see or haven't seen yet.

Patrick,

 

I'd be interested to know the name of the Playboy photog whose interview you quote. I think essentially that his response essentially indicates that he is a "better photographer" in the sense of antithesis #1 - he can achieve the effect he desires "in camera" without retouching. Probably he has makeup artists, stylists, etc... who contribute substantially to his effect. However, it is at least an effect which is applied to a real person, and you could see that same person walking down the street in the same makeup and styling - which wouldn't be true of a retouched version.

Thomas,

 

It's very true that tripping the shutter is just one point in the image chain - I've argued the same elsewhere against people who think that a photo is "the truth" instead of "a story" (in arguments about journalistic integrity).

 

I really don't believe that "truth" resides in a photograph, except in the eye of the viewer. 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.

Alton,

 

Hmmmm....

 

Essentially your model has convinced you of the thing I don't want to believe, which is why I started the thread. I don't really want to think that I should just relax and retouch - but should I reschedule the session a week until the pimple heals? Maybe so....

As the final image is what we look at, who's to say if it was retouched or not? I believe that it is possible that a retouch could be so skillfully done as to be undetectable. Given this, the argument becomes meaningless doesn't it? An image is an image is an image... how would we ever know whether an image had been retouched, unless it is obvious?? So, forget all this, and take some more photographs...

Meryl,

 

I think the "idealization" is what I object to, partly because I think it is inherently deceptive, and it causes us to aspire to an ideal of beauty which is different (but not better) than what can be achieved in real life. I think idealization is in fact a sub-category of manipulative, as people manipulate images to repulse (or otherwise influence) as well as to attract.

 

B,

 

I think you've hit very close to the mark when you say that "[the model's] face is merely an illustration of what the makeup artist did." It's a mask in exactly the sense that a Noh mask or an ancient Greek theatrical mask is... I guess I have no objection to beautiful masks, as long as we don't delude ourselves that they're *people*.

 

But when you say you're not there to capture truth (in the landscape), you're there to make something beautiful............ I rebel. I think that's a perfectly valid thing to do (including with a camera), but it's not what I'm trying to do. What I'm trying to do is to SHOW others something beautiful which I see. So changing what I see feels like cheating. Though I have no such feeling about selecting, or hiding part of what I see in darkness.... why is this? Your last paragraph gives me hope that I'm not alone in all my feelings, as what I'm primarily talking about here is studio portraiture.

 

Patrick!!!

 

One of the things I love about photography is that it MAKES me look for beauty. This makes me more and more of a "rose-colored-glasses" kind of guy. It also makes me appreciate more and more that Leonardo was not parodying the "grotesque" figures he drew - he REALLY did see them as beautiful.

 

Jochen,

 

Hmmm... I tend to think that maybe we might love someone BECAUSE of the wrinkes, moles, hair that needs to be colored, etc..., rather than "except" or "in spite of". And maybe that's relevant. (But I don't know who Erna Smith is...) And your last sentence restates the whole thing for me: we should try to deliver what people haven't seen yet ----- NOT what people want (but of course that's just me being contrary).

 

Thanks everyone so far.

Bob, someone can try to find beauty or create it, both are equally valid. For

me I desire to do both. And maybe because I am so accustomed to making

photographs, due to my studio background, versus taking photographs, that I

have a need to be able to control the content and mood of an image. I

modestly attempt to make perfect scenes, knowing well that reality is far from

perfect.