Photoshopping

Along with all the possibilities of Photoshop came new questions about what was ethically “right” and “wrong”

Despite my history as an editor (magazines, books, scientific journals) I’ve been using Photoshop for most of its 25-year existence. Having been involved with photography since eighth grade, the evolution of the digital darkroom was a personal journey that ran parallel with my professional one. Later there was also a need to learn to create and work with graphics for building publication web sites (no one else knew how to code web pages). Despite the existence of other graphics programs, Photoshop was and still is the go-to application for raster (pixel)-based images. Photoshop also was and remains the most complete, challenging and expensive of its application category. (The only change is that Adobe switched from selling to renting its entire line of software last year — a controversial decision that eventually resulted in higher revenues.)

With ever-increasing capabilities as part of annual releases of new versions, and with a wide array of third-party plug-ins available, the most daunting task was actually mastering what Photoshop could do. The learning curve for Photoshop has always been steep and long, but as one became more competent, the possibilities seemed (and were) endless. One of the reasons to stick with Photoshop is the vast number of people who use it and know how to do all kinds of things with it. Their instructions in books, newsletters and elsewhere apply directly to the software, making the steps easy to follow.

Along with all the possibilities of Photoshop came new questions about what was ethically “right” and “wrong” as the ability to alter image reality created famous magazine covers with realigned pyramids, changed skin pigmentation and unnatural body contours. That’s what happens when technology pushes boundaries and creative impulses can flourish. It’s now common knowledge that images can be “Photoshopped” to change anything and everything within them.

The skill of how to craft new versions of photos is not common knowledge (and well beyond the simple filters in mobile phone photo apps), but knowledge that images may be very different from what was photographed is now quite common. Early on i only tweaked photos for quality (color fidelity, contrast, digital noise — when digital cameras became available), but eventually I started fixing issues with content, removing what was better left out while adjusting aesthetic shortcomings. Now I replace overcast skies with blue ones and enhance various aspects, improving on reality. I think I really crossed the alteration line when I had to alter a photo by replacing closed eyes with open ones from another photo.

As I’ve made very clear since the very first post in this blog, everything is relative, and thus highly dependent on context and detail. Photoshopping reminds me of the old advertising adage to sell the sizzle, not the steak. In other words, it’s about the experience. Altering photos to more effectively convey the experience of a place or person is part of overcoming the limits of a two-dimensional reality within a four-sided border. Artists have done this with paint for centuries, and digital artists are doing so now with pixels. Photography as art is not the same as documentary photography, and the digital darkroom is no different than a painter’s palette.

The real issue is intent…maybe. Is the purpose to improve or deceive, enhance or manipulate? There might be ethical issues to consider…or not. A photo is still worth a thousand words, but what it says can be changed. The famous women who populate magazine covers invariably prefer appearing as attractive and young as they can. Editors and art directors know their graphics departments will ensure this is done through the use of filters and digital tools in Photoshop. That photos may have been altered digitally is not discussed in these publications. Does it really matter?

Expectations have changed regarding reality in images. The computer graphics that were once confined to select high-budget motion pictures are now common in television programs and ads. Even what seems completely real often has been digitally tweaked to accomplish a variety of visual goals. Look carefully at the credits of films that seem devoid of computer graphic enhancement and you will see the names of digital effects houses and their technicians. The pragmatic reality is we are often completely unaware of how altered reality is in both motion and still images.

Photographs used to be considered proof and verification of people, places and events as they really were. That was perhaps naive, because while it took considerable skill, efforts to alter photographs were with us long before Photoshop. Now it’s much simpler to do and far more difficult to detect, but the same questions, concerns and objections remain…at least for some. For me, finding truth in images is not questions of ethics. The same camera in the hands of professional or skilled amateur photographers will produce superior images than most people can manage. These photos will be more aesthetically pleasing, but does that make them more accurate, more truthful?

From dodging and burning in darkrooms to Ansel Adams’ zone system to Photoshopping, photography has always been about artistic creativity as well as simply recording who, what and where. Lens choice, exposure, focus, cropping and so on all have their effects on images, yet we don’t assume or insist these are falsifications of reality. Photoshop extends the options and choices, but it doesn’t change the integrity of the process despite what might seem occasional questionable choices when using digital graphic technology.

In reality, the issues raised by digital alterations are cultural, not created by those who use Photoshop but by those who make decisions about what to publicize, promote, advertise, market, broadcast and print. For example, I find no pragmatic case for blaming graphic arts for body image issues among females, and particularly young women. If size 12 is now size 8, the real issue isn’t Photoshopped images but the lifestyles of those who want to be thinner because the images in magazines, catalogs and media don’t look like them. Eating too much too often is the problem. Although…Photoshop can fix that.