Ever since I was a child, morning has been my best time of day. One of my earliest memories was waking early one frosty Minnesota morning to help my grandpa milk his cows. It was dark when we started. Walking from the house to the pump house to feed the cats and then onto the barn to milk, the darkness of the morning was strangely comforting. When we finished milking, the sun rising over thee barnyard and we returned to the house where grandma had breakfast waiting for us.
In my teens, when my alarm went off, I was straight out of bed, and after a quick shower, was usually was the first kid at school. It was when I was at university that I really came to terms with being a morning person. If I needed to finish a paper or get to the heart of a difficult assignment, pulling an all-nighter was the worst thing I could do. I consistently lost focus around 6:00 pm and would just get frustrated. I found that putting my crayons away at dinner time and then getting up with the crows the next morning was the key to getting a project done properly.
Over the years, having a productive morning has become an integral part of my life. During my early-twenties, I taught a morning aerobics class three days a week. It was surprisingly fun. There was a core group of students who regularly came to my classes, leaping and jumping until sunup. I still love morning work outs, but mostly just go running now. The fresh air is great in the mornings and it also preempts chance of finding any excuses not to work out.
Since moving to London, part of my morning routine is taking care of the household chores. I’m generally up between 6 and 6:30 and have about an hour of time by myself. I spend the time in our kitchen preparing breakfasts and lunches, feeding Oberon (our cat), tidying up and the general household tasks. The Today Programme on Radio4 provides a running commentary on the news and events of the day (for Americans, it’s similar to Morning Edition on NPR).
One of the things I really enjoy about the Today Programme is that the presenters don’t shy away from controversy and frequently have guests with opposing views on a subject to debate. If two sides are not readily available, the presenters themselves play devil’s advocate. Politicians, activists, business leaders and random newsworthy folks are all subject to varying degrees of scrutiny.
It is this persistence of the British media to get real answers that sets the Today Programme apart from the US’s Morning Edition. In the UK, when a politician or business leader side-steps a reporter’s question, the reporter points out that the question was side-stepped, and the presenter asks the question again until it’s answered, or admonishes their guest for not being straight with the public. The interview style practiced in Britain is markedly different than the more touchy-feely American style. Remember Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin about her choice of reading material. When Palin became elusive and didn’t answer, Couric gently re-posed the question, but when Palin waffled again, Couric let it slide, leaving the Palin interview on ambiguous ground. For Palin supporters, she answered evasively because she was being unfairly questioned; for Palin critics, she just looked like an illiterate idiot. Truly, no offense to Katie Couric or her interviewing style–it’s part of the American system. British presenters, on the other hand, generally call a spade a spade, and are more than willing to press guests to admit the same. Presenters in Britain don’t shy away from offending their guests and don’t appear to kowtow for fear of losing future interview opportunities or corporate sponsorships. The world could be a very different place if the US media actually took off their kid gloves and asked genuine questions,rather than purporting to “keep them honest,” and I would be delighted to hear Mrs. Palin be interviewed by John Humphrys.
Though Radio4 is generally very good about countering each argument presented, the other day, I was sorely let down. Whilst doing my ritual morning chores; making ab pot of coffee, boiling an egg, folding a pair of socks, one of the guests began touting the need for legislation that would require images which have been digitally retouched to be labeled accordingly. The guest’s argument was that today’s media is filled with images of impossibly beautiful people, and that the psychological effects of these images on society, particularly on women and girls, warranted the proposed labeling.
The guest was unchallenged, and as far as I can remember, the presenters adopted a more American-style approach. They listened politely, didn’t present a counter-point, and then moved onto the next topic of the day. Though I have tried repeatedly to find the actual interview on Play it Again, I haven’t been able to hunt it down. That said, I have since found that the guest is not alone in her effort to legislate commercial imagery. Recently in Parliament, a similar debate took place and in France last December, a politician there introduced legislation concerning the disclosure of photo retouching, It appears the anti-Photoshop is alive and well in Europe.
While listening to the guest on Radio4, I couldn’t help but think that though she was raising a genuine concern, what she didn’t acknowledge and what the presenters failed to point out, is that a significant portion of the population want commercial images (and frequently even personal ones) to be digitally enhanced. Having spent years now photographing people for portraits, adverts and magazines, I have a good understanding of people’s expectations for a commercial shot–people want look how they feel they look, and generally speaking, true-to-form reality isn’t important.
People who commission a professional photographer expect beautiful lighting, attentive styling and of equal importance–artful retouching of the final product before it goes public. The resulting image will be used to promote a product or campaign or in the case of portraits, the personal brand of the subject. People want all the bells and whistles of a retouched photo, but they simply do not want others to know the full truth. In fact, I would even put my neck out to say that the subjects themselves don’t want the truth. They want an image that makes them look younger, fresher, and more in command than what they see in the mirror.
I believe I’m safe to say that people’s desire to look better than they really do goes as far back as Egyptian hieroglyphics, Greek Kouros, or Michelangelo paintings. Can you imagine Mona Lisa with a zit on her forehead? True, these examples are works of art, but the argument that photography should always depict reality is complete nonsense. Commercial photography, by its very nature, is the business of creating an image or brand through photography, and tinkering with photos has been part photography since the beginning of the genre itself.
The camera, film or digits, light and shadows create the image foundation. Developing, post-production and printing are instrumental to creating the final image. Manipulating photographic reality has been integral to creating many of the most beautiful photographs. Starting with the right aperture and shutter speed to cropping an image to using the most advanced Photoshop techniques, commercial images are altered.
One of my photography instructors, Karlan Tapp, worked as Ansel Adams’ assistant. Karlan shared with our class that Adam’s development process was like painting a picture. He would spend hours tweaking the process to achieve the precise results he wanted. Perhaps clouds needed to be a bit stronger in a landscape photograph , he would burn in the detail. Maybe the portions of the image needed to be lightened–so a bit of dodging. Each of the final images was carefully crafted to achieve the final, glorious results.
When I first started hand-processing black and white photos in the dark room, I too learned to rely upon these key steps in the printing process. As I’m a people photographer, however, I was intent on learning ways to flatter my subjects. Good lighting and proper positioning may form the foundation of a powerful image, but these are not enough. People demand more from a commercial photographer. Whether it’s smoother skin, getting rid of eye bags or diminishing wrinkles, people want the full treatment from the commerial pro.
I first became aware of photo retouching when I was seventeen. I’d had my senior portrait done and after selecting the final image from the set of proofs, the photographer Phil Revoir asked me if there was anything I wanted done to the final image. Did I want whiter teeth, brighter eyes or better skin? I was dismayed! I had no clue that this was possible. Without hesitation, I asked if he could make the scar that is smack-dab in the middle of my forehead less pronounced. He offered to get rid of it completely, but that was a bit beyond reality for my tastes; lessening it was enough for me. When the final photos were delivered, my scar was less in tact, and I was delighted.
Portrait photography became one of my forte’s during photo school. Using my 4×5 camera, I’d burn through sheets of Polaroids and black and white negatives to get the exact shot. Once taken, I would then set out to create the perfect print. Dodging and burning were of course very handy tricks in the printing process, but advanced retouching techniques to smooth skin or reducing bags under eyes eluded me.
One of the first techniques I tried was using cellophane during the printing process. Typically from a pack of cigarettes and affixed to a long wire, the cellophane helped blur the light hitting the photographic paper when waved under the enlarger. The result was smoother skin in the areas of concern, but it was a very time consuming process, for each print had to be made the same way, each time. I had to write down how many seconds each area needed work on and needed to execute the same precision with for every print made. I found this a time-consuming process, particularly when more than one print was required. I asked one of my teachers, a skilled portrait photographer Gary Jentoft, for his retouching tips. Gary had worked in Seattle and LA for many years, and had even assisted one of my heroes George Hurrell. Hurrell was one of Hollywood’s photographic giants. He was the head photographer at MGM in the 1930′s and remains the father of glamour photography. Hurrel’s techniques both behind the camera and within the darkroom were instrumental in creating the look of many of Hollywood’s most lasting stars.
Hurrell’s retouching skills were far beyond my rudimentary cigarette wrapper. Negatives were frequently painted with lead paint, he had a special machine to pin prick certain areas of negatives, and endless hours were spent to produce the gods and goddesses of Hollywood. I came across this fantastic example of a portrait Hurrell did of Joan Crawford (of course) from the 1930′s. All of this done without the help of Photoshop. Simply amazing.
The concept of creating an image through retouching became a hot topic amongst my photo school classmates. There was one camp that was completely against retouching images. “Keep them natural” was their mantra. Though there is a definite time and place for photos au naturale, I recognized quite quickly that a large segment of the population wanted their photos enhanced, and I became confident with retouching final images. Yes, a commercial image needs a rock solid foundation that should be present at the click of the shutter, but it is post-production work that transforms a viable image into a commercial product meeting the needs of the client and their visual brand.
In the mid-1990′s I worked for Adobe Systems in Seattle, and it was there where I first came across Photoshop. While chatting with Tina Carter, one of Adobe’s tech support specialists, I learned some Photoshop basics and even more importantly, how the tool was used across the globe. Photoshop brought the techniques of Hurrell and Ansel Adams to the masses by way of the personal computer–sort of a great photo equalizer. An expert in digital imagery, Tina had even been called in as an expert witness to testify about the veracity of an image during a court case. Working for Adobe, though I had the opportunity to learn the software, it wasn’t until photo school years later that I really learned how to use it.
Between my first and second year of photo school, I spent a month learning the basics of Photoshop. I picked up a book by Scott Kelby and set to work editing the faces and bodies of my friends and family. It brought me back to my childhood when I saw an episode of Fantasy Island and first learned about plastic surgery. A blind plastic surgeon came to the island to regain his sight in order to see the woman of his dreams once more. The woman, probably played by Barbi Benton or Audrey Landers, had been created by the surgeon to meet his specifications, and for a brief time, I wanted to become a plastic surgeon. That dream became scuppered when I realized I get sick to my stomach at the sight of blood, so becoming skilled in Photoshop was a very viable alternative.
Retouching photos is a regular part of my routine and varies based upon client expectations. Usually it is to reduce bags and wrinkles, remove spots, and whiten teeth. At times I’ve had to remove chins (that’s tough!), shed some weight, enhance boobs and fix hair. I’ve made people younger, older, lighter and darker. At first I thought it might just be a gender thing, but quickly learned that clients–irrespective of gender–want varying degrees of the Hollywood touch, and most importantly, they don’t want to know about it, nor do they want others to know its been done. About two months ago, the Conservative party here in Britain launched a campaign with David Cameron’s face emblazoned across billboards everywhere. In looking at the photograph, it’s fairly clear that it has had some work on it. Cameron received quite a bit of ribbing about the photo, but was perfectly happy to deny any knowledge of image tampering.
So what is the alternative? Clearly I am a proponent of retouching. It is integral to commercially viable photos for adverts and magazines. We are a society that places a great deal of emphasis upon image, but this is not new to our modern society. History is filled with people seeking perfection, we just happen to have more people who have a great deal more access to image-tweaking tools. Photoshop has given image editing capabilities to the masses, and while the proponents of retouching disclaimers do have a genuine concern, is their concern on par with society’s need for a bit of denial. There is a certain comfort in ignoring the cutting truth that none of us is perfect, all of us are flawed and each of us is getting older. A commercial image–whether of a beautiful woman, a sexy man or a great shot of ourselves–that has been retouched well, can inspire and make us smile. Do people really want a disclaimer to burst that bubble?
