Annals of Airbrushing: How Much is Too Much?

My personal opinion is that almost everyone who looks at a celebrity portrait these days just assumes that it has been digitally retouched. And usually we just don't care. In fact, we actually want a degree of perfection in our celebrities, whether they're appearing in advertising or editorial layouts. I equate it with looking at cars in magazines. Who would want to see my dented Honda Civic (reality) when they could gaze at new Porche or BMW (fantasy)? Working in publishing, I also know just how much work a brilliant digital retoucher can do to a celebrity image. But retouchers (and the editors they work for) have to exhibit some sense of taste--we want our fantasies to be believable at some level. Clearly, the people at Allure went overboard in their new issue, which features a vastly slimmed down and cleaned up Britney Spears. (Go here for more images.) And now I read reports that beautiful actress Keira Knightly is unhappy about how she appears in the new Chanel campaign, in which she appear with ample side-boobage. Where do we draw the line on retouching? Or should we just shut up and accept it?
--David Schonauer

Comments

[Allen]

We are so far past the line that it is not visible any more. At least not any line that I can see. I understand smoothing, removing of some hairs, colorations, etc. but I don't like seeing the shape altering manipulation that we hear about so often. Just my 2 cents.

[David Schonauer]

If the shots of Britney are any indication, we have gone completely past the idea of believability. We're turning celebrities into cartoons...sort of like superheroes. I wonder if it's because the stars are calling the shots and getting the photos retouched the way they want them.

[Paul]

We should respect the talented digital artist who created the illustration. How is this any different than painters who have for centuries portrayed idealized versions of their subject inspired by imagination?

So judge whether you like the specific result in any given case, but the process and freedom to idealize a subject is entirely legitimate and can be done artfully.

[David Schonauer]

I give retouching artists their due. But I still think their work is better when they maintain the idea of reality in their work. I am looking at a photo of Britney, not a painting of her. This picture of her makes me laugh, and I don't think that's what the photographer, the retoucher,or the magazine should be going after.

[softservegirl]

Frankly the Brittany images are simply a comment about digital imaging and the ways in which we view ourselves, the false documentation. That is why so many young women have issues with their bodies and their looks because magazines represent the absurd in the human form. With that said I embrace technology moving forward with artists and photographers doing what they have to do. I do like the surreal aspects of manipulation but at the same time I understand the underpinnings and coding attached to such a false representation. Who is not aware of such false creations are young adults with fragile egos and sensitive self-esteem issues who look to their idols for visual cues. There has to be some responsibility and boundaries for a grossly (and totally obvious) altered photo of Brittany! It's so obvious it's silly.

[nickclick]

As a photographer, I understand that we like to see nice pictures and pretty people. But as a woman (and one of the intended audience of Allure magazine), living in this society that equates physical perfection with some sort of cultural achievement, and women's bodies with sex, I'm so tired of it. And as a feminist, I know the goal of these magazines is to make women feel insecure about our bodies and drop wads of $ to buy the beauty products they shill.

[blzrdphoto]

In my opinion, I say go for it. The digital age has unlocked a whole new realm of art and fasion design. You can take a picture of someone that is not too appealing and make it appealing. Isn't that what art is? Make ordinary extraordinary? Think of the arguments people will have when we can manipulate genes and we can actually make ourselves look exactly as we want to look......

Also I have seen some comments about women being idolized. If you don't want that to happen, then don't buy the magazine. It's as simple as that. It is there if you want it, but noone is making you look at it.

[Neil]

I think there's two sides to this issue: on one side is credibility as artists - do people start to ignore good images because "its all photoshop now." Its actually been quite a while since there wasn't a question about how real a photo. The other side is "how do we separate ourselves from uncle Joe with a D40?" I would generally side with more intense manipulation so that "pro" work does look different from the work of "that town" where Nikon handed out a bunch of cameras (some of the images actually were pretty good.) Not always, but in general.

As well, we can't forget this is about illustrating a product or concept for selling something. This is far removed from photojournalism which should be left pretty untouched (which is a whole other debate.)

[rjptn]

I'm not sure that photography as an art, has ever had a strong link to reality. Photojournalism aside, photography as art has always been more about creating the image in the artists mind rather than a reality based "snapshot" image of a subject. But, now with the advent of more accessible and powerful tools in the digital realm this "digital editing is the devil" debate has cropped up everywhere. Really, I don't get it...have we all forgotten the stuff we used to do or try to do in the darkroom.
When it comes down to it the creative process has remained unchanged...you shoot the picture using the best techniques you have and with your particular vision. Then you take it out of the camera and process (no, not post-process) it with the best tools you have available to complete your vision. Some people will like the result, others not...but to debate how a photographer completes the path to fulfilling his/her vision is a waste of time.

[nickclick]

"Also I have seen some comments about women being idolized. If you don't want that to happen, then don't buy the magazine. It's as simple as that. It is there if you want it, but noone is making you look at it."

Good idea, blzrdphoto. But how do we get that message out to every 12-year old girl with an eating disorder, wanting the fame and money Brittney and others have because of their 'perfect' looks? These fashion magazines certainly aren't printing a disclaimer... Warning: No matter how many crunches you do or how many meals you purge, your body will not look like this woman's, because neither does her's.

[mtm]

minor correction -- it should be "Porsche", not "Porche"