"No Photoshop Please" NY Times article

[twmeyer]

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/fashion/28RETOUCH.html?_r=1</p>

<p>and this is the followup to my posting a couple of months ago about the French considering regulating truth in advertising regarding the retouching of human beings in all published photography.</p>

<p>More backlash from many quarters... t</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I agree with it. It's gone too far.</p>

<p>When people no longer resemble themselves from cover to cover you have to wonder what they are trying to achieve.</p>

<p> </p>

[will_perlis]

<p>It's the fashion industry, it's been dedicated to altering reality forever. I can't see caring about what they do or how they do it as long as I don't have to wear it. If the pendulum is swinging to "natural" now it will swing back to heavily retouched in a few years. </p>

[luis_g]

<p> It's fashion. Give it a year or two, and they'll be championing the opposite point of view with equal vehemence. Photoshop is out of the bag, and it's never going back in. Truth in advertising? LOL!</p>

[markonestudios]

Photoshop? What's <i>that</i>? ;-)

[waltflanagan]

<p>If people stop buying fashion magazines then the problem will solve itself.</p>

[gsphotoguy]

<p>Let's face it, the fashion and gossip magazine industry is pushing an idealized "perfection". As much as might not like it this isn't likely to go away. That said, in my nude photography many photographers do quite a bit of post procesing to perfect the skin of the models. Some do it very well and produce beautiful photographs, others produce images that look unreal. I do no retouching of my B&W film photographs of those same models. Critique comments here sometimes point out these "flaws" and discuss what filter would "fix" them. I also photographed one model covered in freckles and birthmarks who loves my non-photoshopped images of her. They make for nice art images but would likely not fly in the magazines.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>Is there really anything wrong with having an ideal to strive for? What is considered beauty has always been artificial and personal. It has changed over time and will continue to change. Accepting imperfection is always easier than change.</p>

<p>There is truth. Your own truth. As my first portrait photography teacher used to say, and live by (at least in his critiquing of our portraits), "Perfect is good enough."</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I like "objects from Mars."</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I'm working on a series of nudes where I use morphing software to merge 2-6 women for every shot. The end "perfection" is very scary.</p>

<p>Would this be the same French government who attempted to outlaw the word "email", insisting that all official publications must use the term "comminique electronique"?</p>

<p>Do you think they're also going to regulate makeup, hair dye, colored contact lenses, corsets and other "foundation" garments, and padded or push-up bras? Truth, after all, is truth.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Being an old person I like photographing older people. I like character shown in those old faces. BUT, I am not above doing some facial retouching because I do not want my older people to look bad. So I will do what is necessay to preserve aged experience by not eliminating lines but I will sometimes do a little skin softening and blemish removal. I do not, however, want to lose a reflection of experience and wisdom because that's I like about them. Some models look as if someone had blown them up like one of those inflatable sex dolls. No character, no real expression, more like a mannequin to be kinder. </p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>Being an old person, I like photographing young people - females in particular. I like to make them as perfect as I see them in my mind (which I like to think is still mostly intact). As Dick said, I like to see photographs of people who really look like people (not that I have anything against those inflatable sex dolls, but that is for a different thread). I guess my problem is that I want them to look like I think people would look, like if they had more of a choice.</p>

<p>Hello, Photoshop!</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_wang6]

<blockquote>

<p>I want them to look like <strong>I think</strong> people would look, like if <strong>they</strong> had more of a choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there's a contradiction, isn't it? It's not <strong>their</strong> choice. It's <strong>your</strong> imposition of your ideal on their image. On some level, the mere act of setting up and taking a photo--before any retouching takes place--is a deliberate and selective portrayal of reality. It is a distillation of the subject, chosen to emphasize certain attributes and downplay others. But what few people (including photographers) seem to have difficulty admitting is that the art of photography has much to do with walking that fine line between acknowledging that the photographer's aesthetic vision does not and should not be a faithful representation of reality, versus the willful suspension of belief in the objectivity of the work.</p>

<p>What makes photography interesting as an art form is that it has traditionally been regarded as a means to capture something as it actually appears, or for what it truly is. This, however, has been a myth from the very outset, a misconception borne of the historical contrast between painting and photography. Photos have never been, and never will be, an absolute measure of objective truth, despite their use in journalism or our legal system. No makeup, no Photoshop? You still select your lighting, hairstyle, wardrobe, location. Even the choice of optical parameters (focal length, aperture, shutter speed, sensor type, camera body, lens) affects the resulting image.</p>

<p>That said, what it all boils down to is context. It isn't about whether or not the image is "retouched." All images are distortions of reality. That is their very nature. The real issue is the acknowledgement of the inextricable nature of that distortion in any medium. That's why the Photoshop jobs on cover magazine images are problematic--it's not that the manipulation itself is objectionable. It's that such manipulation is presented as the objective truth, whether implicitly or explicitly, that creates a sense that one is being lied to. After all, you can't lie to someone if you tell them that they're being lied to.</p>

<p>So by all means, create your ideal vision. But think twice about ascribing that ideal to those whom you portray. Just because you want them to look that way does not mean it is a correct assumption that they would agree with you, even if they happen to do so nearly all the time.</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>"<em>Photography.. has been... a means... to capture something as it actually appears, or for what it truly is</em> ." And there's another contradiction. Ask any cop about the reliability of eye witness accounts. How something "appears" and "what it truly is" are frequently (usually?) two entirely different things. Especially when more than one person is looking.</p>

<p>My favorite Avedon quote is "all photographs are accurate, none of them are the truth". What we are lacking in the examples with this article is accuracy. Truth is another issue entirely.</p>

<p>So when you see a photograph of a skinny girl and are told all about her clothing, boyfriends, profession, favorite color and food... but you're NOT told she's really a plump girl strapped into a corset under her dress, that's not a shortcoming of photography. It's a deceit of a secondary process by the person who produced the image (editor or photographer) and truth is neglected through silent omission.</p>

<p>The same thing is true of retouching, in that the camera, through it's own syntax, produces an image possessing only the physical nature of what was before it's lens (light and form). Then another process occurs that strips that genuine but perhaps obscure authenticity from the photograph and replaces it with a lie of omission. We aren't told that the nature of a photograph's accuracy has been usurped by a secondary process. And there lies my uneasiness... t</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Mark, there's a special name for your particular dort of "old man"...</p>

<p>Peter, I've done photography where we planned both the shoot and the photoshopping on a detailed description of what my subject said they wanted to look like.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>Tom, if you reread my previous post, you will find that it is consistent with yours. The sentence immediately following the one you quoted begins:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This, however, has been a myth from the very outset....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joseph --<br />As for arranging to have the image retouched according to the model's wishes, that's no more an issue than having it retouched according to one's own wishes. That wasn't the central point--the crux of the matter is the presentation, the offering of one's work as reality when it is not. If people do not understand what they are seeing, they are buying into the illusion that the creator(s) has(have) presented. And from an artistic standpoint, that's fine. From a societal (i.e. advertising/legal/commercial/journalistic) standpoint, it is certainly more problematic, which is why incidents like AP photos being retouched to have extra smoke or missiles is considered repugnant by many. I submit that the same should be true of photoshopped celebrities on the cover of magazines--the kind of unrealistic body image that it promotes in the mind of the young consumer is as much a real problem as the alteration of photojournalism for so-called "increased impact."</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>Peter, we are in agreement. I just used that phrase as a kicking off point for a supporting argument... t</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>All retouching should be done directly on the model. We can call it "makeup" or the French equivalent. The alternative is "reality fashion", which too horrible to contemplate.</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>I shoot product photography, and unrealistic alterations from the descriptive are a no-no...<br>

I remember good photography being done long before photoshop came along. I also remember that much planning and forethought went into the set before the shot was taken.<br>

Regarding today's technology, I also know that tethered digital captures are much faster at achieving shots that don't need photoshop to begin with.<br>

Despite all that, simply dropping photoshop altogether is a little extreme. Like any tool, it can be used for subtle corrections, and more obvious removing of wires, rigging, etc.<br>

A novice just pushes a lot of buttons.<br>

An expert knows what buttons to push.<br>

A master doesn't need the buttons.</p>

[jtk]

<p>The CEOs of Charles Schwab and Shaklee, two examples I know of with certainty, didn't age for decades thanks to air brush work (paint on prints). Photoshop wasn't necessary.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>A novice just pushes a lot of buttons.<br />An expert knows what buttons to push.<br />A master doesn't need the buttons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely...<br /> The "Fakening" in everything associated with the digital and internet age is already getting tired and it is a relief to see people tire of it. <br /> I used to be concerned about it for years, but lately, I am hearing a **much** larger voice from people in general that are getting tired of life being utterly "Photoshopped" out of view.</p>

[fotogen]

<p>I do agree with the article that re-toucing has gone too far but retouching is required for various reasons. Here are two of them:<br>

1. Human eye sees about 20 stops of light, a camera sensor sees at best around 12 stops. So bags under the eyes might show up in a pictures not only due to what I just said, but also the lighting. Human eye might not see or detect that at all. To get the image to what humans see, retouching is requited.<br>

2. Lower cost. Getting a models that is in really good shape, has great skin and works for the best modeling agency is expensive. Why not get a models that in AVERAGE HUMAN eye is not all that thin, and might have not a great skin, photograph her and then retouch her to make her look like she is a top model.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<blockquote>

<p>Why not get a models that in AVERAGE HUMAN eye is not all that thin, and might have not a great skin, photograph her and then retouch her to make her look like she is a top model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>See how ingrained the concept of unrealistic ideals of body image is in society? You don't even bother to question <strong>why</strong> a "top model" <strong>has</strong> to look thin. You just assume that that's how someone has to look in order to sell something or to be considered beautiful. And that's the real problem--not whether there exist legitimate uses for Photoshop or retouching, but rather, overpowering the unrealistic messages advertising and entertainment media sends to society, and getting people to ask to what end such retouching serves.</p>

<p>You should watch this video, "Evolution" by Dove [YouTube.com]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U</p>

<p>And then, for laughs, you should read this blog [blogspot.com]: http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/</p>

<p>In particular, check out May 8, 11, 19, 22, 28, and my favorite, June 1.</p>

[frankie_bellocchio]

<p>photoshop has its uses, but the overly retouched look of some (particulalrly fashion and other commercial) photography now is just downright ugly. i got no problem in people using photoshop as an aid to creating a great image, or removing the odd imperfection/distraction, but creating either a> impossible objects of desire, or (more frequently these days) hideous monstrosities is just silly. everything in moderation.</p>