Phaim (fāme) — Larry Becker’s Blog

NOT ‘Photoshopping’ is Unethical

Posted on 27 May 2009

Editor’s Note: I am the Executive Director of NAPP, the National Association of Photoshop Professionals (so I have some expertise in this area) but this is my personal blog where I post personal views, opinions, and reviews (so I’m not stating an official NAPP position).

Retouching is necessary to show reality
Most professional photographers would admit, retouching portraits is always necessary if your goal is to show what someone really looks like. In some circles though, there’s a backlash against any and all digital retouching, as a response to some of the distorted images of “beautiful people” depicted on the covers of popular magazines. I’ve heard more than one celebrity who claims they ‘refuse to allow retouchers to adjust what comes out of the camera.’ They claim to want to show people their “real” self. But if you know a little about the technology of photography and if you understand what the human eye sees and what the visual processing centers of the human brain do in forming the images we see, you’ll realize that un-retouched images are actually less ‘real’ that what comes out of a camera.

Images, especially portraits, simply must be retouched in order to depict reality. And some people who don’t understand this are part of a movement to avoid, limit, or ban retouching. Heck, I even read recently that the French government was considering legislation to regulate the retouching of published photos. (Feel free to insert your own sarcastic comment about legislators here.)

So Larry, are you saying you’re in favor of pictures that inflict unrealistic images of beauty on teenage girls and cause eating disorders?
Nope. Not at all. I personally think that it’s silly to reshape and bend and stretch pictures of magazine cover models to make them unrealistically thin. And based on the real-world effect many of these images have on people (usually young girls) it’s beyond silly. It’s tragic. But I don’t blame the retouchers themselves. They have a job to do and an industry in which they are participating. They’re competing with others doing the same things. Ultimately I blame the fashion and beauty industry as a whole. But until customers stand up in force and demand that designers and magazine publishers stop distorting the human form in unrealistic ways, it’s not going to stop. (On the other hand, I applaud companies like Dove, with their viral video campaign that shows how images of unrealistic beauty are created and why they should be ignored.)

Unfortunately, demanding that photographers and photo editors stop using Photoshop altogether, is like setting the house on fire to make toast.

News photographers get it, but their mission is different
You may have read about any number of “faked” news photos that show missiles firing when they never really did, or the L.A. Times photographer who “recomposed” two photos into one for better impact, or even the Iranian news agency photos that depicted four missiles launching even though one was a dud and never fired. These are examples of photographic fakery which, in most cases, cost the photographer his or her job. Most photographic news organizations now have very strict rules that limit retouching to simple things like modest sharpening and color correction and all changes must be made on the entire image all at once. In other words, you can’t zoom in and over-sharpen just the eyes of the Secretary of State to make her look demonic, as one former photo editor discovered.

But when it comes to portraits, you just have to touch people up a little
The harshness of an image frozen by the camera flash and shutter click, as well as the limitations of camera gear overall, combine to make an image that looks like a course, detailed medical photo on a poster in the dermatologist’s office. Smoothing and evening the tones of the skin, brightening eyes, whitening teeth and eyes, reducing shiny skin, and softening facial wrinkles are all necessary to make a person in a portrait look more like they do in person. The skilled retoucher knows how to make subtle changes to bring out the real characteristics of people and minimize the unrealistic side effects of camera flash.

So what retouching is ethical, and what’s unethical?
As you can start to see, that depends on the purpose of the photo. If it’s a news photo, only global corrections (like fixing a color cast), no “local” (small area) corrections, no adding or removing objects, no combining photos, seems to be the baseline of ethical. For beauty magazine covers, no body or facial feature resizing seems ethical to me (though the industry doesn’t necessarily agree with me yet). For portraits, which are meant to capture a person as you would see them, so they can be displayed on the boardroom wall, skin smoothing, teeth and eye whitening, eye brightening, all seem to be ethical. For wedding albums or mall glamor photography, you darn sure had better pull out the whole bag of tricks to make people look their absolute dreamy, glowy, fantasy best!

I know there are commercial photographers who would read this and scoff, “however it comes from the camera, that’s it! I get paid to capture the best possible image, I’m a great photographer,  and I don’t need Photoshop!!” Trust me, I’ve heard it. — Unfortunately for these folks, not embracing all that technology can offer, only limits you as a photographer. In the end, while you might have your pride, some young kid with some Photoshop skills and an average grasp of photography, will be creating images that your (former) clients will be buying.

I was involved with the printing industry when desktop publishing was in its infancy. I knew plenty of traditional typesetters and local print shops who looked down their noses at desktop publishing. Most of those people and companies are no longer in business. More recently, traditional photographers looked down their noses at digital shooters, saying that film was the only way to shoot quality images. These days though, it’s hard to find a film shooter. — Trying to get things right in the camera is smart. It’s a good goal. Learn good photographic skills and know your camera. That’s smart. But trying to get things perfect in the camera and ignoring the fact that Photoshop can make things better after the shutter clicks, is usually foolish.

Photoshop is the darkroom of the digital age
and you can do just about anything with images these days that you can imagine.  So consider your client. Consider your audience. Consider what you’re trying to accomplish with the photo you’re creating, and then consider the ethics through the proper prism.

Retouching with Photoshop is not a bad thing. Used properly, it’s a good thing. It gets you closer to reality.

If you’re the nerdy type (I’m proud to be a nerd) and you want a little more background on the topic, or if you’re a pro shooter and you disagree with something I’ve said, here’s a little more to tell you where I’m coming from…

Cameras can’t possibly see what people can see
The human visual processing center in the brain does amazing work. Most people know that the human eye sees images upside down, and our brain flips the image right side up for us. What’s less apparent is that, even when you think you’re staring at a motionless scene, your eyes are constantly refocusing and adjusting for minor changes in overall light within the scene, and your brain’s visual center is interpreting and composing all the separate areas of focus from your eyes, and creating a composite scene in your brain. What’s more, human vision has a far greater dynamic range than any camera. This means that, in one scene, the human eye can see subtle detail in shadows, subtle detail in bright highlights, and everything in between. The best camera in the world can’t do that.

Another challenge is in low-light situations. Have you noticed that in dark rooms, cameras can’t capture nearly what you can see with your naked eye? And then the really bad “static” or “digital noise” distorts your camera images to make things look even worse.

Have you ever really considered your camera’s flash?
Everybody knows that cameras have a flash to illuminate medium to low light scenes. But those little flashes tend to distort reality by creating harsh shadows and blasting various things with light that aren’t normally blasted with light. Pros know that a flash can make skin (or anything) turn the wrong color, can make people have the dreaded red-eye, and can just as easily ruin a picture as improve it. Pros also know how to compensate for the shortcomings of flash units by using all kinds of light modifiers (scrims, softboxes, reflectors, etc.) in order to get the best possible picture. Still, artificial light, especially when it’s a flash, will distort reality. And just because somebody is an expert with flashes and has experience with great setups, photography studios, etc., that doesn’t mean that their photography will perfectly capture reality. A brilliant photographer with an awesome camera and incredible lighting setup can come close, but they just can’t capture what you would see if you were there in person.

Don’t get hung up on the exceptions
I’m sure there is more than one pro shooter reading this who thinks, ‘Oh yeah?! Well I’ve seen Scott Kelby or Joe McNally shoot a model and the picture looked great right out of the camera. No retouching necessary. Heck, I’ve eve done it myself! It can be done.’ — True. But those are rare exceptions. That same model with the same photographer in slightly different lighting conditions can result in a less than attractive image. It might even result in a picture that could be called, dare I say it, bad. 

And as I described the concept that humans can see a much wider range of brightness than a camera can, some photography experts were thinking about High Dynamic Range (HDR) photographs which are a combination of a medium exposure, plus an over exposed image, plus an under exposed image, all combined together to create a single image with a much broader dynamic range. Even though HDR proves that cameras can, in fact, see nearly the same dynamic range as people can, it’s nothing more than a post-processing work around. For a truly effective HDR image, you have to snap a bunch of separate photos and then combine them after the fact. That’s because cameras can’t capture the wide range all at once like human vision does.

 

 

*Adobe hates it when people use “Photoshop” as a verb (like Photoshopping) and I know better. But my headline just wouldn’t sound right unless I broke the rules. Adobe, please forgive this infraction.

-