A Finer Line

Why is this referred to as "trick photography" and not retouching? 20/20 has spent a good amount of time putting together a report on what is essentially false advertising - an altered (photoshopped, retouched, whatever) picture standing in for a lesser reality. The are calling it trick photography, which implies that we as viewers are being tricked? Why is this language so different than the language they use when reporting on the retouching of female models? Is it somehow offensive to our cultural sensibilities to think that we could be tricked by a fashion photo, but acceptable and understandable that we would be tricked by an architectural one? Does it say something about what we think we want? What are the cultural politics of desire that are at work here that we would differentiate so completely between two acts that are the same: altering a photograph.

The net result is also the same - the alteration is used to enhance and entice, to put forth an ideal version of what really exists, whether that is a fashion model or a Bahamian resort. The closest they come to conflating the argument with the fashion retouching brouhaha is the weight loss advertisements, but with those they focus more on the fact that the images were stolen.

The caption for the video segment reads, "From hotel to weight-loss ads, photos altered for perfect results." 20/20's thesis for this type of photo alteration is "buyer beware", rather than responsible advertising or labeling of altered photos.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/beware-trick-photography-staple-online-ads/story?id=9215461

Share

the Retouching Arts

(photo by Kevin Van Aelst, no permission. Great example of clever and well-done retouching. Filthy filthy lies!)

Communication Arts has an article by Kate Chase, published last December that just came to my attention. Given the generally negative and inflammatory way retouching has been portrayed in the press (OH MY GOD LOOK WHAT THEY DID!!!), it is nice to see a more measured and reflective look at the biz. (photo pilfered from CommArts website)

She talks about the Wild family and their retouching lineage, and how they changed from the late 1800s with the first airbrushes, all the way to the advent and proliferation of Photoshop.

"It’s been debated over the last few years if the term photo-retoucher is still applicable to describe today’s modern digital artist. For me, it’s still the perfect description, because all others ­fall short in comparison to what’s been thrown out as a replacement. ... The dedicated and sophisticated retoucher continually proves that it’s the educated artist in this niche who is sought after and retained to surpass expectations. It seems everyone is still looking for the name of a good 'airbrush' artist."

Glaze

Identity for a possible retouching/imaging company.

Criminalizing Retouching

http://tinyurl.com/bs3ovh
A video op-ed piece appeared on the NYTimes.com (Op-Video: Sex, Lies and Photoshop: Why magazines should let readers know if images have been retouched, March 10, 2009) about whether to legislate or even criminalize retouching of images. Jesse Epstein mentions potential legislation in France where the Department of Health would mandate what images could be published, and how. The piece is voiced in terms of public service and right-to-know, but this is such a dangerous and slippery slope. If, by law, we are not allowed to retouch images for advertising, are we then not allowed to retouch wedding images? What about the kids in high school who had acne whose class pictures always had that dizzy glow to them as a result of the photo company helping them out a bit?

As someone who makes his living as a retoucher, I am in favor of full disclosure of retouching practices, and believe that there should be more public awareness of same. I sympathize with young women and their insecurities, and the need to identify with something, whether positive or negative, for example, and then try to model themselves after it. I have no problem telling anyone I meet that 100% of the images they see in print have been retouched. Sometimes that just means that the levels and colors have been altered and sometimes it is 20-30 rounds result in what I like to call "frankenstein's monster images" like the Lucky cover used as an example in the editorial.

The question Epstein does not ask is this: What would this knowing do for us? If, on the table of contents page, where they credit the clothes, stylist, and photographer of the cover shot, they also showed the four unretouched images, would that solve this problem? Would criminalizing this behavior so that all we would be allowed to publish are photos as-is, solve the problem? Should we mandate that only models who conform to national medians of height, weight, and ethnic makeup be allowed to be photographed? And what about celebrities? On the same day, Kelly Clarkson was on Good Morning America performing to promote her new album, and when they showed the cover she said something along the lines of, "I don't really look that good, they photoshopped me..." Is that enough? If celebrities had to issue disclaimers each time their image was photoshopped...

Retouching is not a new phenomenon. Since images were able to be reproduced with photographic techniques, they have been altered; from hand-tinted daguerrotypes to hand-tinting negatives to the common-until-now 'airbrushing'. Photoshop is now a verb as well as an adjective that refers to manipulation of images. Should the red-eye fixing tools be removed from picasa.com and iphoto?

We should certainly be wary, whenever we manipulate images, of the potential for abuse. There is an excellent case study of this type of excess aiding fascistic tendencies called, "The Commisar Vanishes" by David King. It documents instances in Stalin's Soviet empire where people were systematically removed from official images as they were eliminated, each new image becoming the new true fact. Thus images that are lies can become accepted as facts.

It seems like an oversimplification to conflate these two sets of images and intentions. Epstein seems more intent on discovering true images than exposing false images. My question is this: what is a True image? Is it a court portrait from antiquity, where the artist had to flatter the patron or face the blade? Is it an online-dating profile picture taken from a flattering angle with blemishes removed? Is it an AP news photo where the photographer has artfully composed the image in-camera, to capture a moment, and has edited out unwanted information? There's a big difference between eliminating a zit and eliminating a person, and we should be wary of giving power to others to make such distinctions - and to base laws upon the distinctions they make, and so determine what information is or isn't good for us.

non-post post: portfolio

Just to post something, anything. I have made a new portfolio site for my commercial work, which may eventually become my full-on portfolio site for all my work. Show me the mullet! I mean money. Or the really awesome creative project that pays little or nothing. Collaboration is good. Or just pay me to do my thing. I do it well.
http://www.elineugeboren.com/portfolio

Photo Illustration :: Noise Opener for SPIN 200808

Challenging photo illustration (or digital collage, if you prefer) combining these parts into a final image. Grass was too big and had to be tiled. Lanyard on VIP tag had to be "draped" over the edge of the tray. Tray had to be squeezed to fit the page layout, hands were moved and kept at the same size. Two versions follow, the full-color logo is the one that made the final page layout.

Photo Illustration :: Madden for SPIN 200808

Photo collage for the Games review page in the August issue of SPIN. Art Director: Ian Robinson