Mirror, mirror on the wall....

... who is the best photographer of them all?

I don’t know about you folks but I go through phases where I get a crush on a particular photographer’s work. I see a certain image and that’s it, I’m off...I saturate myself in that artist’s photography, spend endless hours working out the lighting techniques, read all of his (it's usually a guy, but not always) books/interviews/portfolios, I try and work out the reason WHY he was moved to take the image in the first place. I want to know everything about the artist, the man behind the camera...yup, it’s a full-on crushed-out obsession. I’m sure I would stalk the poor guy if given the remotest chance.

Currently I am infatuated with André Kertész:

other2010 1598

Actually he's dead, so I can't stalk him. But his photography (both his Distorted Nudes and his reportage work) just blows my mind. He was obsessed with capturing “the right moment –the moment when something changes into something else” and the result of this obsession is photography that is original, atmospheric, witty. Every image tells a story, conveys emotion and tells me about the man behind the lens (who is just as fascinating as the images he produces, if not more so.) To me, he is the best at what he does. However, for most of you, his work probably doesn’t rate as particularly significant, which just goes to show how split opinion can be when labelling something “the best.”

As much as everyone would like to believe that pure objectivity can exist when judging photographs, personal preferences always play a part. Art is subjective. It’s that simple. Sure, between most photographers there is a common consensus, a broad recognition of quality (or lack thereof) but comparative selection usually asks us to look deeper into our own view of art, and one person’s opinion is never exactly the same as another’s.

So why look for an answer to “who is the best photographer?” when you know there is no right answer?

Well mostly because it’s fun. Arguing about the pros and cons of our favourite photographers is a pastime that all photographers and models enjoy, so having a debate can only be a good thing. Rich and I spent endless hours over cappuccinos arguing, discussing, reviewing, debating a particular artist's style – our opinions are usually direct opposites and always will be, but it is immense fun trying to change each others’ minds.

But even more than that, making a choice as to your favourite photographer, finding “the one” who influences your work more than any other, is your opportunity to convey something of yourself. If you choose Photographer X or Y as the best photographer since sliced bread then this is a clear way for you to express yourself and your photographic style, taste and vision. It lets me know who you are as an artist and as a person, as well as telling me where you are aiming for in the future. It’s a glimpse of “the real you.”

For example, my choice of André Kertész as my favourite photographer lets you know how much I love witty photographers who create innovative, quirky, intelligent art that makes me think outside the box. It tells you that Kertész’s view on life is mine too. He thinks as I do: "Everybody can look, but they don’t necessarily see."

other2010 1597

So simply by learning about my obsession du jour, my unequivocal opinion that Kertész is the absolute BEST photographer in the world (for this month, anyway) this gives you a glimpse into who I really am as a person. Because yes, I am exactly like that – a slightly distorted, weird kind of girl who thinks rather too deeply about everything and is fascinated with what makes people tick.

So now you’ve heard mine. Let’s hear yours...who is your best photographer, and why?

The Little Finger

“Nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.”
Oscar Wilde

Last week Rich was asked to run a photography course. He gets requests like this from time to time and although he likes being asked (good for the ego and all that) he always politely declines. Much to my dismay, about eighteen months ago he made a conscious decision to stop teaching at the local camera clubs and not to run any more local workshops. I do understand that his refusal is based on principle and as his partner it is important to be supportive of one’s spouse, but the trouble is that I’m a bean-counter by trade and therefore my priorities are somewhat different to those of real (starving) artists. I just see that we have bills to pay....and in such circumstances I think that money should come before principles. Mostly. (No I can't believe I said that either - but I really do have a lot of bills you know.) Needless to say the photographer of the house disagrees - rather strongly, if I'm being honest.

ClayreMcKinnen 614

Now I know a huge number of you folks are accomplished photographers who have received formal training from courses and indeed many of you run your own workshops too, so I definitely don’t want to upset any of you. There are a large number of eager photography students out there who glean a huge amount of knowledge from workshops and courses and I am of the opinion that a good teacher can bring on a student’s photography in leaps and bounds. I’ve discussed all of this with Rich and in fact he went on several workshops himself in the early days of taking up digital photography again. So why is he so vehemently against them now? Why won’t he assist in replenishing our sadly depleted coffers by responding to the demand for his tuition services?

The problem is that Rich thinks that after you’ve been taught the basics of how to use a camera, then courses do more harm than good. He tells me “Cartier-Bresson never believed in them, and neither do I.” He refers of course to Cartier-Bresson’s opinion that learning photography is simply “teaching how to use your little finger, that’s all.”

Rich thinks that once you have mastered the basics of photography, then no amount of courses will help. In fact they can do the exact opposite. Some courses waffle on about the history of photography, some (particularly fine-art courses) concentrate on developing style over substance and some teach Photoshop at the expense of shooting the image right in the first place (i.e. on camera.) He believes that a good photographer only becomes such by learning how to “see” the subject, and he says that this type of learning cannot be taught by any course. Seeing comes from within and it only comes with (a lot of) practice. He also thinks that courses take away the fun of discovering how to do it yourself. As he often says to me, “If you want to be a photographer, just pick up a camera and shoot. And keep doing it over and over, forever. It’s that simple.”

Maybe Rich and Cartier-Bresson are right. All these courses can be discouraging; they teach you how to photograph like everyone else rather than developing your own style. Photography should be a burning need from within to shoot, an art of capturing something hitherto unseen and expressing it in the way that you uniquely perceive it. Your images should be inspiring, uplifting, the essence of who you are. No course can teach you that. So why not keep photography simple? Why take overcomplicated historical and technical courses which take you off on tangents and distract you from learning what you really need to know about photography – that which is within yourself?

Perhaps all you really do need is your little finger.

(The problem being, of course, that little fingers don't pay the bills.)

ClayreMcKinnen 621

Our model today is the lovely Clayre McKinnen

Profit from Passion?

"A Ferengi without profit is no Ferengi at all."
Quark, Deep Space Nine, 1997.

Rich has officially given up the idea of ever making any decent money out of nude photography. And by “decent” I mean at least breaking even. With the onset of a major recession, few collectors will have the spare cash to buy prints, and the private portfolio market has dried up too. Yes he still continues to be published here and there but he doesn’t get paid for it. Of course being featured elsewhere on the net or in varying printed works is always a nice ego boost but it usually doesn’t result in financial recompense.

Magazines, blogs and web sites are invariably working on a negative budget so however much they’d like to, there’s no way they can pay the original artist. Indeed if those talented original artists did demand a significant payment then they’d never be published at all. Nowadays there are so many other digital photographers who are dying to show their work for free just for the kudos factor, why do magazines need to pay when it’s easier to pander to the millions of free wannabes out there?

PirateMaiden 541

In the modern digital age, being published is more about ego stroking than money. However mere kudos doesn’t feed your family. Those who are full-time photographic artists will find it nigh on impossible to make any money out of shooting nudes. This is not because they’re bad photographers, far from it, but I would argue that the freelance nude photography market is now pretty much dead, if indeed it was ever alive to start with. Thanks to cheap digital technology, so many folks now do it that the market is saturated, and unfortunately there is only a limited market for selling pictures of naked women to both the general public and to magazines.

If you want to make money from your work then the main thing to ask yourself is “If I were a mainstream magazine editor or gallery owner, would I publish or exhibit these pictures?” If you’re totally honest with yourself, then the answer would mostly be no. Nudes have limited saleability because they usually don’t fit into the editorial policy of various magazines, and most galleries avoid exhibiting nudes because in this overly moralistic modern age, the public often object. Regarding private collectors, the sale possibilities are significantly reduced because it’s difficult to hang nude photos on your wall without the wife getting pretty pissed, oh and BTW, did I mention the recession? As for photographic grants from arts agencies and the like, forget it. You’ll never get sponsorship for shooting nekkid chix. You’re a social outcast for heaven’s sake.

IMHO, no matter how good your photography is, if you primarily shoot nudes as your main discipline, you are highly unlikely to ever make it as a world class master of any type of photography because your reputation will have been permanently tarnished. Yes, I realise that this is a highly controversial thing to say, but the art world is not what it once was. Cheap modern technology and the internet have seen to that, not to mention the new wave of politically correct morality that appears to be sweeping the western world. Would the photographic greats (e.g. Newton, Mapplethorpe, Weston) have achieved fortune and glory nowadays? I seriously doubt it. No matter how good a photographer is, no matter how unique his style (and make no mistake there are those on our blog roll on the right there who are very, very good) then the only chance they would have of “making it” is to abandon the controversial naked stuff, delete it from their ports, and shoot pure fashion and portraits instead, and even then it’s doubtful if they could pay the bills unless they have humungous budgets to support their shoots. Would Mert and Marcus be so successful if they primarily shot nudes? (Yes I know they do feature nude work, but that’s only because they are now so worshipped in the advertising industry and fashion world that they have a certain latitude to experiment with nekkid celebs, who are bound to sell magazines precisely because they’re famous.)

I guess what I’m saying is that a successful career in art isn’t about raw talent or passion. It’s about who you know, how well you network your contacts, whether or not you obsess about selling yourself (forget your work, I’m sure it’s excellent, but really you need to be Mr Schmooze or you stand no hope) and whether or not you are prepared to do what you need to do in order to achieve both photographic glory and most importantly, MONEY.

There is no merit in starving to death or not having enough dosh to pay your bills or buy more paper to print your pictures. You may only want to concentrate on photographing nudes but you can’t let this one style govern your work exclusively unless you’re a dilettante and make your main living elsewhere. It’s all very well if nude photography is your life’s guiding force (join the other millions of digital photographers out there) but nude art photography has now become so commonplace and so associated with tacky porn that its reputation has been seriously degraded. Even if you are as good as Newton (and frankly, many of you are) you are unlikely to find your work supports you financially in this modern internet age. So unless you are prepared to shoot to order, be friends with the right people and produce the type of images that your buddy clients want to purchase (even if that means moving genres) then frankly my dear, you’re not worth a damn.

Passion for nudes doesn’t pay. Adapt or starve. It’s your choice.

PirateMaiden 561

Images are of Pirate Maiden

Experiments In Light

Note to readers: Sincerest apologies but this post is strictly off-limits to anyone called Dave. Go on, shoo! It's for your own good, you know. Please do return to this quality internet publication on Thursday, when the normal Adoradaves Service will be restored. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

Stephen Haynes once asked me why Rich never photographed nudes in our garden. As some of you will already know, we have a woodland garden which has been beautifully landscaped by yours truly and looks pretty bloody marvellous, even if I do say so myself. Photographers who have visited here in the past have often declared they would gladly kill to have such a beautiful natural habitat in which to shoot nudes, and they often try to encourage Rich to go forth into the woods and make art. They’re wasting their time of course. I think he’s only ever photographed me in the garden twice, and even then he took his studio lights. Truth be told, Rich doesn’t do nudes ‘n’ nature. So the question you’re no doubt asking is: why does he limit himself in this way?

AlexisSummers 935

One problem is time. In order to create a natural landscape shot, the natural light is either correct for the best shot (time-of-day and weather permitting) or there’s no point in taking it. However Rich works such long hours that he simply doesn’t have time to wait for the lighting conditions to be right, and so he prefers his studio where the lighting conditions are always perfect because he creates them. This may change with my purchase of an off-camera flash for his birthday, and I may yet be able to drag him outdoors, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. One off-camera flash is no substitute for the vast light show with which he usually operates, and let’s be honest here, for Rich photography really is all about the lighting, so much so that the subject (very nice though she is) is pretty much secondary.

Rich is a control junkie, it’s his nature, and so he maintains strict (almost obsessive) control over all aspects of the shoot. He doesn’t let the model free-form and then run off a series of shots hoping that one of them will be perfect. Rather he shoots carefully, precisely, and thus each shot takes ages to set up. His style is not that dissimilar to Edward Weston in that he photographs by carefully recreating a preconceived image in his head and spends ages moving the model ever-so-slightly in order to get the correct shot, even if this means shooting less photographs per shoot than other photographers seem to. Each shot must be as close to perfect as he can get it before he will press the shutter. Because he originally trained as a physicist, his thought-patterns are very precise and ordered. His photographic style therefore reflects the way he thinks and the way he creates his art. Each shot is a controlled experiment in light, a recreation of the picture in his head.

Secondly there is also the matter of personal taste. Rich does love capturing a beautiful landscape, but (and I would like to state categorically that I do not agree with this) he likes the viewer to be able to drink in the beauty of a scene without the distraction of a naked woman in it. He feels that if he photographed a nude in our beautiful woodland, for example, the focus would be on the nude. She would be the focal point of the image and the landscape would be secondary, a background, whereas Rich feels that the scene itself should be primary in a landscape shot. One of his favourite expressions is “Why ruin a perfectly good landscape by sticking a nude in it?” Incidentally, this is also deliberately designed to irritate both me and his favourite nude photographers who shoot outdoors (dry British sense of humour you see) so don’t rise to the bait, folks.

To Rich, nudes and landscapes are two different genres. For him, they don’t mix. The beauty of the nude form, another example of the wondrous talents of Mother Nature, is best reflected under controlled conditions so that the fusion of light and form create an art-piece in itself, without distractions like a background scene. The blank setting of a studio creates a psychological distance and removes the requirement for a background story. The only story which matters is the light itself as it caresses the perfect form. Nothing more is necessary. No emotion, no deep meaning, nothing more complicated than the beauty of light on flesh. Such images seem to resist psychological interpretation and yet the sensuality of the light itself does reflect a certain depth in the same way that Weston’s pepper wasn’t just a pepper because Weston’s use of light transformed it into so much more.

Rich seeks the mastery of light one day, to bend that light to his will and thus create beauty. To him, this is the essence of what his art is about. This may sometimes seem to others to be a rather narrow interpretation of the wonders of Mother Nature, but who are we to argue with a photographer’s creative vision?

AlexisSummers 959

Images are of Alexis Summers, posing very elegantly on our pouffe cushion.

Photoshop and Fantasies

Excruciatingly long post. Get yourself some decent coffee and draw up a comfy chair. We can’t rush this one.

About four months ago, Richard suddenly became allergic to Photoshop. Overnight he just stopped using it. Now this is the dude that is crazy about anything to do with computers, the dude who studies CGI, the dude that teaches Photoshop courses to local camera clubs, this is Mr Fluffy, skilled Photoshopper extraordinaire.

Once upon a time he used to idolise Roge who is a gifted photographic artist who spends hundreds of hours basically re-creating every molecule of skin of each of his models. Rich used to believe in the power of Digital Gem skin smoothing, he thought nothing of spending 15-20 hours after a shoot devotedly Photoshopping the images, so that each model could look perfect, better than her best, she could look at those pictures and think “Wow, I never knew I could look that good!” Indeed, without Rich’s fantastic Photoshop skills, I can guarantee I would not be a model today.

At one point, towards the latter part of 2007, his reputation actually reached the level of “respected photographer” to the extent that models would seek him out, ask him to do their portfolios, and not charge for images. We had (shock, horror) real genuine clients, who wanted the Mr Fluffy treatment. Ordinary women, middle-aged, imperfect just like me, who wanted to look good, feel sexy, and be empowered by the modelling experience. And Rich loved it. He loved the look on their faces, the widening of their eyes when they saw the images, the exclamation of “Damn, I’m hot, and I never knew it.” He really loves making women happy (it’s his biggest weakness, truth be told.)

So what the hell happened to our intrepid hero? Why did he lose his faith? Why did he cancel all the clients, back out of the professional side of things, and cancel all shoots?

Well, as I said before, the disillusionment set in towards the end of last year. He was under huge amounts of day-job pressure, and he simply didn’t have the time to spend 20+ hours post-processing per shoot. Not every shoot would take that much time, of course, but hey, we’re talking Mr Perfectionist here, aspiring to smooth-skin a-la-Roge, every wart and wrinkle removed until the client was happy and felt and looked 20 years younger. He was spending so much time in Photoshop that he had no time left for the family. It stopped being fun, and started feeling like work.

And so he cut back on post-processing. He realised that photography was not about creating an illusion, not about lying to the subject that she really DID look that good at 50, that her spotty skin was really flawless and that those several spare tyres and wrinkles didn’t actually exist. “Photoshop is not a cure for pigging out on chocolate,” he said.

He used Photoshop to smooth out the back-drop, and that was about it. The photos were still stunning of course, the lighting was beautiful, and he is a good enough photographer to position the model so that her less-than-optimal physical attributes were in shadow, or at an angle. And heck, I saw the results. They were really GOOD. The models didn’t look like marble statues - they looked REAL women. Their inner beauty showed. No they didn’t look as young, nor like they came out of a celeb-magazine, but their skin had texture, their wrinkles increased the character and beauty of the shot, not detracted from it. They still looked hot, and best of all, this was REALLY THEM (O.K. and a significant amount of photographic skill I grant you!) I was really much prouder of his new images than the previous heavily post-processed ones. Simply put, he was developing into a better photographer.



But some of the models did not like this. No, they did not like it at all. Some models who came for TFCD shoots were upset. They felt cheated. “Why haven’t you digitally smoothed my skin?” exclaimed one. “Why have I still got rolls of fat on my belly?” complained another. “This isn’t good enough. It’s not what I signed up for. I want 50 perfect photos. Do it again!” Another model even tried to post-process the images herself, by Photoshopping the skin. Of course this not only violated the model agreement, but it made Rich incandescent with rage. “What’s wrong with the images?” he fumed. “She looks gorgeous. Why can’t she see that this is really her, and that she’s beautiful as she is?” But this was not enough. Models wanted the Mr Fluffy treatment. They wanted to look like a T.V. celeb. They wanted to be other than they really were. They wanted the illusion.

And that was the turning point for Rich. He went through a phase where he cancelled everything, all shoots, he stopped looking at nude photographs, he even thought about giving up nude photography. And for a horrible moment, I really thought he was going to. But thank the Gods for this blog, and for you lot. I refused to let him quit, and I talked incessantly about photography and the bloggie community, so that he had no choice but to join in. And he came out of his shell, and started to chat to some of you again. And of course, I’ve been able to shove under his nose some stunning art produced by so many of you, which has re-encouraged him to start shooting again.

He began the same way as he did last time - by shooting me. And now I’m tentatively booking models again! He’s on the road to recovery. And he’s doing it his way. Minimal post-processing, unless HE wants to spend the time modifying the images, unless HE thinks it is necessary to produce better art. He’s not going to use Photoshop to “fix” the less-than perfect, just to make the women happy. He’s not going to lie. He going to do what the hell he wants. It’s his art, after all.

I guess this means that he’s going to produce significantly fewer publishable photos per shoot, and it probably makes him more of a purist. But I reckon it makes him a better photographer too. Certainly he’s a happier one.

Women need to accept themselves as real people, not expect the photographer to transform them into someone they would like to be. This is the difference between feeling empowered by your own real beauty, and not just living in a celebrity-fuelled fantasy.

You are beautiful because of who you are, warts and all.

Trust the photographer to capture that.



Pirate Maiden. Beautiful for both her looks and personality. No Photoshop required.

The Commonality of the Digital Age

One of the most common criticisms of Model Mayhem is its reflection of the rapid growth in digital photography. Half a million members, and growing, and all thanks to the digital age. Millions of people can now buy a camera for under $100 and call themselves “photographer.” This is the new world of photography, a new freedom of expression. Anyone can do it now.

Long standing photographers who were trained before the digital age, the die-hard-dedicated film buffs, often argue that this is a bad thing. That there’s no talent any more, or if there is, it’s swallowed up in such a massive amount of dross, that it’s very difficult to find any new and exceptional photographic talent any more. They argue that it cheapens the art of photography, that the quality of the profession is gone.

To some extent, this is true. It is certainly a lot harder nowadays to make a decent living as a photographer. With major fashion magazines paying less and less for decent fashion spreads, with the ongoing death of photojournalism because the news web sites invite anyone to upload pictures from their mobiles, photography has become free, just another casualty of the insidious growth of the internet age where “free” is expected, taken for granted. Photography is now fast, instant, just another microwave ready-meal. There is no photographic learning process, no years of training, no growth of skill, no learning of exposure or lighting because the cheap automatic camera does it all for you. Where’s the real photography gone?

The sad thing is that this growth has resulted in many a photographer quitting the profession, or going bust. They still love photography with a burning passion, but they simply have been chased away by the digital age, by the growth of “free.”

There is still money to be made for the exceptional photographer, of course, but it is certainly much more difficult nowadays. Most “good-but-not-quite-Avedon” grade photographers, who used to make a perfectly decent living out of all sorts of photography (landscapes, glamour, art, portraits and so forth), have given up long ago and gone to find another day-job that will pay the mortgage. You only have to look in our local town and see how many photographers have gone bust in the last five years. It’s heartbreaking to see. A graveyard of broken dreams and broken livelihoods, because the public don’t use professional photographers any more. They have a cheap camera and a copy of Photoshop at home. What do they need a professional for? And anyone can call themselves a pro nowadays. It’s all too easy.



But there’s the flip side too.

Firstly there’s the feel-good factor.
O.K. so photography done by your average Joe Bloggs isn’t outstanding art. It’s instant rough-and-ready photography, but this is part of its charm. And I’m very sure it has given Joe immense satisfaction. And yes, he may consider himself an amateur photographer and list photography as one of his hobbies. But if it makes him happy, and gives him even a smidgen of appreciation of life behind the lens, who are we to look down on that, or belittle him for trying?

From time spent playing with a cheap instant camera, Joe might decide to study photography in depth a bit more, buy a few photography magazines. He might “get bitten by the photography bug,” scour the internet, study lighting and form, buy every book he can get his hands on, save up for a home studio, hire some nudes, and before you know it, a few years have passed and Joe is photographing private nude portfolios and earning a very tidy second income from it, thank-you very much.

In this way, digital photography has shifted the balance of power from the elite professionally trained photographers over to the common man, and now we are all in control of our own art.

Secondly, the internet presents billions of photographs to people who would otherwise not have seen them. It is an art gallery for the world. Millions of people’s lives are enriched by viewing fantastic images on an instant basis. And this virtual cyber-art gallery is free for all.

I’m going on my own experience here, so bear with me. Before a couple of years ago, I had a very limited understanding of fine-art. It meant nothing to me. I didn’t see it as art. And I want to emphasise that point. I did not really “SEE.”

Rich’s photography has changed the way I see. With just a couple of years of studying images from thousands of different photographers, I don’t just recognise and see a good photograph now, I feel it too. Photography has re-educated me. I see the world in a different light nowadays, and that’s all because of my new digital education. And if digital technology can teach that to the average non-artistic person like me, then surely this new commonality of art can change the world?

The growth of digital photography and the internet presents a new democracy of seeing. And I, for one, have been immeasurably enriched by this freely available art form.



Syd, looking as amazing as always.

"A photograph only has value if it is printed in a darkroom!”

This is a view held by many photographers.

I disagree. A photograph is worth more than the paper it is printed on!

If that’s not the case, then all art is seriously overvalued.

However, there are some photographic elitists who don’t seem to agree with me. They claim that only a photograph which is printed using the wet process in a darkroom has any real value, and those who do not use this process are not “real photographers.”

So if you are one of those photographers who judges other photographers based on whether or not they print in a darkroom, then may I suggest you look at your portfolio and ask yourself, “Is my best photograph only worth the small cost of the paper that it is printed on?”

Do you look at an image on a website and say “Those images are worthless because they are electronic?” or look at an Avedon print book and say “Those are worthless because they are printed using a printers press?” Do you look at an acrylic painting and say “This is worthless because it’s not in oil?”, or look at a pencil drawing and say “This is worthless because it’s not in paint?”

In the realm of the fine arts it would be unthinkable to criticise an artist or to claim that something was worthless because of their chosen medium. So it logically follows that an image should be valued on its extrinsic value and the response it generates in the viewer, rather than the paper it is printed on.

Now I can hear the shout that the value in a darkroom print is in the time and skill of the photographer that created the print in the darkroom. But if this were true then your worst ever print would have the same value as your best ever print, simply because you spent the same time on them. Also it would mean that anyone skilled in chemistry but terrible at photography should receive the same adoration as you.

Clearly, it’s the image that counts. We should all forget about photographic elitism because its just another round of Canon vs Nikon, SLR vs Medium format, and my lens is bigger than yours bravado.

I print digital images on an Epson Pro 4880. It’s an A2+ printer. My prints are bigger than yours,

Nah-Nah Nee-Nah-Nah!

This is Syd, looking to give some attitude to anyone who disagrees with me...

Photoshopping is evil. Discuss.

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.