I have a friend called Chris, who is an amazing watersport photographer. When I met up with him last year in Spain, he insisted that his pictures were promoted as being "non-Photoshopped", a claim that in itself is admirable. Then today, I had a debate with some photographer friends about Photoshop image manipulation techniques in fashion magazines, and it got me thinking. I have had many clients asking whether I can get rid of wrinkles, laughter lines etc from their wedding and portrait photos. The answer is yes I can, but why would I want to? To me the beauty in a face is in the laughter lines, it is that element of your appearance that tells me who you are, and is what I am trying to convey through the photo. If you have a spot on your wedding day that wasn't there last week, and won't be there next week then fine, but I am not going to airbrush your personality away! My whole attitude towards manipulation is I will do what could be done in the darkroom of yore. And, as the first set of images show, that is quite a lot. The first of the 2 is an iconic Vogue cover from the 50's, the second is the original photo from which it was taken. So, manipulation of images has been going on for decades, and is not an evil attributable to Photoshop exclusively. The key is whether the manipulation adds to the image or detracts. Airbrushing your personality out of a portrait defeats the object of what we are trying to achieve. There are many constructive ways to use the technology available to us these days; personally, I don't think a boost in colour saturation, a judicious crop, or a bit of "dodge and burn" are bad things, and as mentioned before have been an integral part of photo development for decades. I just feel that when one gets to the stage where it is acceptable to alter digitally someones complexion, and even body shape, in the name of "beauty", we have to question the value of technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment