The Unforgiving Camera
About two weeks ago I posted an article expressing my opinion on the ethics of retouching. In it I expressly declared that when delivering photos in a news context it’s not right to alter the images. As a daily consumer of news, like most of us, I have to be able to trust what is in these photos IS the real thing, unaltered.
After going live with the post, my in-house photo editor asked me if I was sure about having such a strong opinion on retouching? "Of course", I replied, and she proceeded to remind me of how much "post" imaging work we do at the studio. Believe me it is no small amount.
Being Creative
There is a fine line where image alteration and photography as a medium, blend. Image retouching by definition means either the "correction" or the "enhancement" of a photograph or the subject(s) within. You can call it "manipulation" or just an artist "creating". James Cameron's Avatar was created solely on manipulating photos/videos and it is being heralded as a breakthrough in technology. To me this is artistic creation, not so much when it is shaving off some lbs here or there and hiding less-than-perfect skin.
Retouching is controversial worldwide, even celebrities are coming out saying they are unhappy with how much their images are altered. Lets face it, almost every picture is going to get retouched and it is what my clients expect of my studio and we are happy to do it.... to a degree. The point of contention comes with the amount of image altering that happens.
As a photographer I am out there, taking pictures recording a very real world. Photography in its fundamental nature does that, and the camera can be unforgiving. However before a photo is ever even taken the photographer makes several creative choices and this will likely alter the outcome of the photo. Just properly lighting a shot takes years to master.
For Example:
Where do I point the camera?
Do I walk around the subject to be photographed and change the background and therefore the context entirely?
Do I apply a shallow depth of field, thereby throwing most everything except a choice area out of focus?
Do I use the existing lighting or do I alter it?
The Manipulators
Let's pause for a moment and give applause to a certain trade, the actual retouchers! I know quite a few, they usually operate in relative anonymity only known to a handful of photographers and magazine editors. There are some real artists out there in our particular niche. They provide an incredible service to our community and are the ones that "perfect" the photograph. They are very skilled in their work and deserve some credit.
I watched a short video piece on the NY Times site on retouching it was suggested that magazines should list the retouchers right alongside with the photographers, makeup artists, stylist, and so on. In certain circumstances that might be appropriate, especially most magazine covers.
The question is not, to retouch or not to retouch, but more when and how much is acceptable?
