Our dear friend Iksodas has written a very stimulating post on his blog, about the digital enhancement of photographic images using Photoshop. Please read it
here (his 6th June post)
Iksodas is one of those rare breeds of photographers who is so incredibly talented, that he doesn’t actually need Photoshop. He can make my old Aunty Aggie look good naked, without any Photoshopping whatsoever (and that’s a pretty tall order I can tell you), through talented use of lighting, shadow and posing her in a subtle and seductive manner, so as to show off her genuine beauty, whilst hiding her less flattering features, such as her big hairy moustache (Note: not that Iksodas has not actually photographed my Aunty Aggie, but I’m sure he’d rise to the challenge magnificently, if I asked him).
He argues that extensive photoshopping an image of a model “creates a fiction far divorced from reality” and “Enhancement, and misrepresentation of the female form is a bit of an evil in our culture. One, that affects many women in this world, and not in a good way”.
Good points of course, but I respectively disagree (which is rare for me, because we usually agree on everything).
My view ?
Photoshop can be the modern form of paint. It is as much an art-form, as photography in its own way.
Richard shoots models “as is”, and won’t photoshop them, other than removal of a few wrinkles and the odd bit of cellulite. Like Iksodas, he treats it as a betrayal of learning photographic principles, and believes Photoshop is uneccessary, and can be an an example of poor photographic technique.
Richard, is however, extremely good at Photoshop. He has run classes on the subject. He is, actually (in my opinion) as gifted a Photoshopper as he is a photographer. I have seen him morph multiple images of several landscapes together to make a new landscape together, which is extremely beautiful, but a work of total fiction. There was no such landscape in reality. Does this make it any less "art"?
Way before digital computing was invented, even Ansel Adams modified his images during the printing process to make the image what he wanted it to be, other than what it actually was. The result of this process was fantastic art.
The modern method of doing this technique would be through use of Photoshop. Not that most people who use Photoshop are as good at art as Ansel Adams, but my point is that modification of photographs can be beautiful, even if they are not real. Modification of images of people should not be treated any less as an art-form than modification of landscapes or backgrounds.
I would also argue that good use of subtle lighting (without Photoshop), can make a model look beautiful, but this is just as much a misrepresentation as a photoshopped image. You are still portraying the woman (through the clever use of lighting) as other than she really is, by not displaying her most unflattering bits, or placing certain parts of the body in shadow.
ALL photos displayed over the web are processed to some degree.
There is no such thing as a completely undoctored digital photograph.
All nude photography can be argued to be fiction to a greater or lesser extent.
As to whether or not these images are misrepresentation, all modelling photos portray a fantasy - it’s what they are supposed to do, to stimulate the imagination of the viewer.
Fiction ? Yes, certainly. But is misrepresentation like this a bad thing ?
Like any art form, when done badly, digital enhancement sucks. You can get crappy photoshoppers as well as crappy photographers (and usually both together). But when it’s done well, it can make the woman look like a million dollars, boost her ego and make her feel like the sexiest woman on the planet.
So do I feel bad about my images being enhanced? No.
If my images are photoshopped, it makes me feel better about myself. I’m 40 years old for chrissake. I’m no spring chicken, and the majority of photographers I know are not talented enough (unlike Iksodas) to make me look good naked, without either some form of photoshopping, or shooting me in total darkness. Unless I shoot with an absolutely amazing photographer, I NEED digital modification, otherwise I look like some sort of ancient she-hag. My poor fragile little ego couldn’t take it if there were “real raw” pictures of me all over the internet….part of the reason I shoot so little and post so few images. I’m just not that attractive a model, and I’m extremely insecure about my looks. I model because the images convince me that I am actually beautiful, no matter that I think I look like in reality.
Iksodas observes “So, the next time you open Pshop, are you correcting your Photographic mistakes, or feeding the monster?”
I like my monster, it’s part of who I am.
And if the images of me are part fantasy, part reality, I can live with that.
Sirensong. She loved this image.
I know we have posted this before (sorry folks) but it goes with the post.
Labels: digital, purist, Sirensong
