Retouching Rant
Ok, I'm back from tracker school and a bit heated about retouching again. It's fricking everywhere. Just before leaving for CA, I was over at a friend's retouching house and was amazed at the level he and his ilk have taken things. A recent issue of People magazine featured Brtiney Spears on the cover and he did the retouching of the photos. Let's just say that a monkey, on a good day, could have taken the photographs and his retouching did the rest. This isn't photography folks. It's photo-illustration. She's a pinup girl. Nothing more. She sells magazines filled with ads. Ads that the 2006 media kit quotes at $228,275 for one full-page ad in a regular national issue.
When I was in my retoucher friend's office, he was busy with a lovely black and white portrait for New York magazine. There he was changing reality for some unknown reason. What in the world is going on? Where is the journalistic integrity of the photo editors? Is New York Magazine (a bargain at just over $30,000 a page) kissing publicist's asses for some reason? Is New York or even celebrity drivel like People not being held to journalistic standards? Are we as a culture so afraid of our imperfections that we can't even see wrinkled faces in the most beautiful medium of all, black and white? It seems black and white is now just a code for authenticity that a good retoucher and editor will exploit.
It gets me wondering. Is my little Coyote Ugly calendar the last hold-out of un-retouched beauty made for the masses? ;-)
Forgive this rant but it bugs me. I just spent a week in the woods and now I come out and end up watching the sycophantic extravaganza that is the Oscar pre-show and it dawned on me that we have some backwards-ass priorities and they have broken down the door of photography and moved my art into some intermediary step of mass consumption. Celebrity trumps photography and retouchers rule. That's no good.
Reality is flawed. Flaws are beautiful. Irregularity is what distinguishes us. Imperfections define us. I dare anyone to prove me wrong. And look, I have seen some flawlessly beautiful people in my day but that's subjective. I like something someone else thinks is too this or too that. For example, I think wrinkles rock.
Even my rep, whom I love bunches (xoxo), tells me to "fix" things in my pictures. I don't have dozens of Coyotes in my portfolio because they aren't retouched and "prety enough." I know what she's getting at and i understand where she's coming from but isn't it a shame that these women who arguably possess twice the femininity of your average supermodel aren't appropriate for Maxim and FHM editors. Why? Because they haven't been retouched! Because they are really truly bad-ass and sometimes that doesn't show up in photographs? Who knows?
So that's that. I'll do my best to hold the line. It'll be me and Tyra Banks.
Take pictures, adjust levels, burn, dodge and be happy.
11 comments:
It seems to me that the issues isn't one of should we retouch or should we not, but one of style.
Photography has always wrestled with the concept of whether or not it is a representation of reality.
Photography versus painting, capturing versus creating, applying makeup versus going natural.
It is curious that you end your post "Take pictures, adjust levels, burn, dodge and be happy." Aren't contrast and color adjustments and local dodging and burning tools that can alter the the interpretation of an image? The issue isn't whether or not we alter an image, but to what degree, for what reason and does the alteration enhance or degrade the nature of the image.
I make portraits, mostly of children, mostly for sale to their parents. I happen to think that portraits made in a studio with umbrellas and soft boxes look too posed and take the humanity out of the image. They make children look like adults. A studio is a controlled environment, constructed, mechanical, cold. Children just don't look right sitting on a stool in front of a painted backdrop wearing fairy wings.
Therefore, I do enverything I can to make my images look natural. I work to create "artifacts of reality" in my images. I let imperfections into the image, especially the background that add texture and an "accidental" essence. The human eye is incredibly good at noticing things like un-natural lighting, the obvious artifice of a painted backdrop, the plasticy look of a softly lit subject and a spot lit background. I work to be true to the representation of naturalness. However, I will dodge, burn, use curves and level, as well as clone, heal, cut, paste and tweak in every which way so long as it enhances rather than detracts from the look of naturalness. That is my asthetic, my style. This isn't just an justification for sloppy photography, I find that my customers are drawn to hire me rather than a studio photographer for these very reasons.
Then again, Britney Spears is a living Barbie Doll. Why not make here look like one. If that is the style People Magazine wants to represent then let it roll. After all, it serves as a great polarizer that drives people to seek artists like you and me who can provide a welcome source of naturalness. I find that more and more of my customers are interested in images that adhere to this natural aesthetic.
Stick to your guns, stay true to your style and make sure you use your adjustments and curves in ways that enhance rather than detract from your style.
"backwards-ass priorities and they have broken down the door of photography and moved my art into some intermediary step of mass consumption"
I can see your point. I think there is a venue for 'real' photos, and perhaps we should take a couple steps back and look at what we are doing before we plunge head first into reconstructing reality with our digital tools.
But what would you say about Michelangelo's David? Would you say that he adequately represented reality with his art? Or is he trying to approach an ideal that lies within all of us?
I think ultimately you could be hinting at the ideal vs. the real. I think that these retouchers are trying to capture a perfect form, which may or may not exist in this reality.
Bravo on the blog, I really enjoy reading about your work.
*claps wildly*
You know, I love finding blogs via tangential routes (in this case, seeing one picture begat your online portfolio, begat finding your blog). And when one of the first posts I read is such a freakin' fantastic rant, well... *claps wildly some more*
My feelings on retouching tend to veer towards the, if it can improve some imperfections without taking away from the essence of the photo and the subject, then why not? In my field, (writing) while there isn't a huge premium placed on appearance, there's no doubt it can assist with marketing and publicity. When I had my author photos taken for my first release, I told my photographer I didn't want the "typical" author photo:arms crossed, finger under chin, hands to the side of the face, Glamour Shots-- you get the idea. So we went out on the street in NYC and we got some great shots, with the city as a backdrop and not a typical author photo in the lot. Did he do some retouching? Yep. Did I mind? Nope. We needed a good looking photo for the book and I was able to get one; remarkable, really, considering my bone deep fear of being photographed, courtesy of a really bad photographer fifteen years ago who made me feel extremely bad and self-conscious about my appearance.
Reality is flawed. Flaws are beautiful. Irregularity is what distinguishes us. Imperfections define us. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
You're absolutely right and I dig that completely-- some of my favorite things on people--the things I consider most endearing and humanizing-- are things that others would consider flaws. However, I stare at a fairly flawed person in the mirror every morning and I'm not so vain that I have to do hair and makeup everyday in order to hide them. For something that lasts as long as a photograph, I'm not averse to having something that looks a little better than the everyday me. Perhaps that's the difference between a celebrity and a garden variety person-- the celebrity has become so accustomed to seeing themselves in a certain "skin," as it were, and having people tell them how fabulous they look, that to be captured in their full, untouched glory would be anathema. Provided they even recognized themselves.
Great blog. :-)
Barb
If photos weren't retouched, how would women be presented with unattainable concepts of beauty? What would sell all those magazines? Think those women in the SI Calendar actually look like that naturally? Think again. Hope I didn't burst any bubbles there.
Just yesterday I was looking at the cover of a fitness magazine and photo was so retouched, the model's skin didn't even look real. Bleeechh!!
all photography is fiction. but i share your ennui, i'd like to at least be the author of the story i want to tell and not let some third rate pixelpusher make cliches out of my work. I have the feeling that things needto get a lot worse before they get any better. cheers.
"All photography is fiction"? That's an interesting school of thought...
Anyway, I agree with Clay - retouching has gotten completely out of hand, and shouldn't supplant taking good pictures in the first place.
Wow. All rambling aside, you bring up valid points.
As a hi-end retoucher in NYC I make my living doing what it seems like a lot of people despise.
But, for me anyway, the biggest offenders have turned out to be the art directors and the photographers who are new to retouching. Art directors do it to justify their jobs. But I have found that the majority of the newer photographers don't know when to stop, even when it is being shown that the image has gone to far.
I am known for my skin retouching and keeping skin texture etc as natural as possible. Because of this I have a lot of photographers search me out to do their beauty work. And even then the photographers will push me well past my preferred stopping point.
Retouchers, as do Photographers, have their own style. It is beneficial for all involved to find people to achieve what they are looking for. Very few retouchers want to go as far as they do, but in the end we have to listen to the art directors and photographers. And it is rarely the photographer who wins out over the art director in the end for editorial work.
Regards
Chris Tarantino
hey man. You know where I stand on this one. Just keep doing what you're doing, and like you're doing it. You know when too much is too much, and maybe YOU are going to be the one to break the disco age and bring us some punk rock. Hold your line, and throttle through the turns. We got your back.
Sounds like your retoucher friend has it going on. But I have to agree with Chris Tarantino on this one. I am a freelance retoucher myself (though I am not the rock star Chris is) and I am always being pushed beyond the call of duty. I hate over retouching images but I do believe that most photos do need a few enhancements to compete in todays market. Especially celebrities, you have stop looking at them as people and realize that they are a product with a dollar value attached to them. It would be no different them putting together an ad for a beverage company and the photo of the bottle being covered in greasy finger prints. It is just the way it is today.
My two cents, -W
You think your calendar isn't overly retouched? Fool.
Fool? Me? Really? I only made the first Coyote Ugly calendar and it was unretouched. Since then they've made a mess of things. IMHO.
regardless, let's not be so brazen in calling me names while cowardly hiding in anonymity.
Post a Comment