How Much Is Too Much Manipulation?
The other day I was reading Rob Haggart’s blog, www.aphotoeditor.com, in particular his post “Is Photo Manipulation Bad For Photography”. In the post, he talks about an essay he wrote for Outside Magazine (here) and discusses photo manipulation and how perhaps the public “still wants to believe in a photograph’s ability to tell the truth”:
And look, I’m not claiming I’m any sort of knight-riding-a-white-stallion either, I’m just saying it’s time to start policing ourselves (starting with magazines) or else we’ll end up like the fashion industry and congress will soon be considering anti-photoshopping laws (I used to wish each month there was such a law when the owners of both magazines I worked at insisted we heinously paint the sky blue on the cover).
When people see an amazing photograph for the first time they usually ask, “is it real?” The answer should be yes.
I thought that this was kind of interesting, as it was really the first time I’ve seen anyone bring up the subject of digital manipulation and its pervasiveness in the industry. I didn’t really think about it too much as I was reading it, until a few days later when I saw a story online from the Telegraph.co.uk, French MP’s want health warnings on airbrushed photographs:
A group of 50 politicians want a new law stating published images must have bold printed notice stating they have been digitally enhanced.
Campaigning MP Valerie Boyer, of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP party, said the wording should read: “Retouched photograph aimed at changing a person’s physical appearance”.
Mrs Boyer, who has also written a government report on anorexia and obesity, added: “We want to combat the stereotypical image that all women are young and slim.”
“These photos can lead people to believe in a reality that does not actually exist, and have a detrimental effect on adolescents. “Many young people, particularly girls, do not know the difference between the virtual and reality, and can develop complexes from a very young age.”
Well, that sure made me sit up and take notice. Not that I use Photoshop a lot (I don’t), but it got me wondering if there’s some sort of zeitgeist going on that people are really getting tired of seeing “perfection” in an image, or if the ease of digital manipulation is getting the public bored with the current state of photography? Without getting too philosophical, does the quest for digital perfection mean we’re losing sight of our imperfect analog world? From Haggert’s essay in Outside Magazine:
What I think is happening-what I hope is happening-is that we’re finally fed up with all the tampering. Too many published photographs unhinged from reality, morphed by a few mouse clicks into slick advertisements for perfect moments in time. Our relationship to photography is clearly changing, as Farid notes, but so is our taste: There’s a growing hunger for truth. We’ll never get all the way there-no camera will ever see as honestly as our eyes-but the idea that photographers set out to pursue truth is about to have its moment. And it’s about time.
I wonder if it’s the fact that the photo is being manipulated, or is that manipulation is overused? I abhor the idea of taking a photograph with the thought “We’ll fix it in Photoshop”. There’s usually always some manipulation of a photograph that goes on, even if it’s an exposure, levels, shadows, contrast or saturation adjustment, and I’m not against that. But where does the need to manipulate end? Does there need to be, as Mr. Haggert posits, fiction and non-fiction photography? Is the idea that photoshopping is bad for our body image going to take hold, and should it?
My modus operandi? I’m a firm believer in doing everything “in camera” as possible. It’s not so much of a philosophical ideal as it is an aesthetic one. I don’t mind retouching blemishes, but personally I don’t agree with changes to body shape, or other forms of over manipulation. If you want to see the results that can happen from that, go to www.photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com. Over smoothed skin, unnatural neck lengths, lack of shadows just look completely awful, amateurish, or laughable at best. Photoshop simply can’t be used to fix bad photography. It’s like the old axiom used when it comes to computing-Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Beck Photographic is the studio of Jackson, MS photographer Thomas Beck. Beck produces concept-driven commercial and editorial photography for clients, agencies, and publications.
601.594.5704