Does Photoshop Retouching Really Deserve Its Bad Image?
Posted by: Bianca Posterli
Filed in:
style
1:50PM, Tuesday November 3rd 2009
Retouching is getting a very bad name in the media these days, and photographer Jean-Baptiste Mondino is fighting back against a possible law in France that would require any Photoshop image to clearly mention its changes via a warning label. While instances of bad airbrushing and tampering have become extremely apparent as of late, he’s out to show that not all alterations are bad. In fact, he wants to prove that they’re more commonplace than anyone realizes. This weekend, he published a photo of a woman Photoshopped in Libération’s Next magazine, but instead of giving her skinnier hips, he enhanced her curves (reminiscent of Beth Dittos’ Love cover).
Mondino also claims image alteration is an old practice. Ever since photography was created, artists have utilized techniques to give women longer limbs and clearer complexions in the name of creating what may be perceived as a more aesthetically pleasing image. “The photos of old Hollywood? Retouched! The iconic image of Che Guevara? Retouched! All the photos taken by Richard Avedon of Marilyn Monroe? Retouched!,” he told the paper. “And all of this before today’s software existed, of course. Legs were lengthened using a wide angle; skins were smoothed through overexposure.” So really, Photoshop is nothing new—just more technologically advanced.
Haven’t you chosen a good angle to feature when you’re the subject of a photograph? I know I’ve certainly read (and use) all the tricks to taking your best picture—put your hand on your hip to make your arm look skinnier, turn sideways and put one foot forwards, push your chin forward and suck in. Do you use tricks to alter your photos? Aren’t we all guilty of a bit of camera magic? [On the other hand, while we can recognize that image alteration is ubiquitous and has been for some time, is moving away from it a positive evolution or does it just make for “ugly” pictures?—Editor] [WWD]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
EastCoastMale
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 02:05 pm: [report]
I think that this is an overblown topic in general because retouching a photograph is simply just presenting it in such a way that the artist thinks it will make for a better piece, either by becoming more eye catching or appealing. This does not have to mean that it automatically would be ugly without having it retouched but rather it simply has more impact or is even more stunning after doing so. If you had multiple blemishes on your wedding day and the photographer offered to professionally shop them out for free, would you decline or even say yes and then preface each time you show the photos by saying ” these were digitally altered just so you know”.
Raugiel
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 02:42 pm: [report]
The real problem is probably not that the photos are retouched but that we have gotten into a mindset as media consumers that some of these physical images are achivable and that we should all look as good as the models and icons in the photos. To that end, a plan like the French plan to constantly remind people that the people in the photos they are seeing get a little extra help from “photo magic” might help remind people that these are not ideals we can expect to live up to in our day to day, but that maybe we could get some very nice pictures if we can pay for the extra magic.
EastCoastMale
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 03:02 pm: [report]
I think that is a bit overboard personally. That is getting into a self esteem and body image issue in my opinion and I would rather see readers or viewers use common sense than have to put a label on all artwork that has been retouched.
retro chic
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 03:04 pm: [report]
Old Hollywood photogs like Hurrells’ rendering of glamour shots with the artistry of large format cameras and slow film and darkroom techniques made it an artform with the intent to optimize. Now, photography is about the image capture, with the notion that all can be created or fixed in PS with a more stilted artificial message ‘cause the technology allows you to. The attitudes have changed behind the camera, not just the retouching.
I think those labels would be fair. Even here. There is still a little thing called “truth in advertising” with photography. What’s unclear is since it’s the clothing, not the model, that’s being advertised and sold.
secretstevie
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 08:19 pm: [report]
i think this is an issue that is punishing the wrong people. people want to blame photographers and models with their kid’s body issues, but those same people have probably never actually had an in-depth conversation with their daughters about how they feel about themselves and why they feel that way.
and if you really think that it is so detrimental to have photoshop then turn off the t.v., cancel the magazine subscriptions and spend some time doing activities that reinforce body-positivity with your kids. go hiking, take some martial arts classes or learn a new sport together. banning something is no substitute for parenting. and i think most parents will find that they can help their kids through these issues without legislation on photoshop.
the same goes for grown adults who feel that their body image is impacted by airbrushed models. if you spent your time jammin away in a hip hop class or climbing a mountain instead of shoving those images down your own throat you’ll end up feeling a lot better. i think the photoshop haters just paint women as weak people. like, “oh i’m so weak minded that pictures of models make me hate my own life”. please.
the industry is going to do what its going to do, its up to us as individuals to control how it makes us feel. no photograph is going to determine how i feel about myself because i am a strong woman and i paint my own destiny.
canadiancutie
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:42 pm: [report]
secretstevie, way to enact tough love. This has been your regularly scheduled “Wake Up Call of the Day.” lol.
Personally, I think the photographs were more visually appealing when the models themselves were beauiful (the 50s) and did not require hours of digital alteration to look not like men or fetus-faced (cough*katemoss*cough).
Ultimately, though, secretstevie is right.