Photoshop Gone Wild
OK, actually the title of this blog entry should have been “Mixed Feelings”. But I decided to be more provocative than that…
I ran across a video on YouTube of Annie Leibovitz photographing Queen Elizabeth in the UK. It was interesting for a variety of reasons, with the biggest reason to me being that it was a fascinating photography assignment (Oh, and the fact that Annie asked the Queen to take off her tiara for the photos). At the end of the video, they show you the photographs Annie captured. You can also see the photos on the BritainUSA.com website here.
OK, so on to my point. In looking at these photos, it became obvious that there was a significant amount of Photoshop work done to them. Granted, they look pretty darn good (at least to my eye), and are certainly compelling images. I would really, really, really love to see the original images that came out of the camera to compare to the final result (can anyone hook me up?). This raises (yet again) the issue of how much Photoshop work is OK. How much can you get away with? In this case I actually like the result, though the images are obviously manipulated. But should Annie disclose that they were manipulated in Photoshop? I think about this issue a great deal, and haven’t come up with an answer yet…
In any event, I think you’ll enjoy the video. You can also see it here.
Explore posts in the same categories: Philosophical, Digital
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
I’d seen photos of this shoot, but not this video, which is absolutely fascinating and hilarious to watch Annie trying to bring the monarch down to size but doesn’t get away with it. I loved being able to watch Annie sweating it out when the Queen walks in. It’s also lots of fun to stop the tape and study the light setup and where/why she put up fill cards. Photoshop or not, Annie’s light and mood is inimitable. Thanks for posting it, Tim!
January 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I have never understood why any photographer would have to state that he or she used Photoshop to finalize a photo. In this digital world, it is all part of the process. It’s OK and probably expected. Do we as observers really need to know what the original was? Perhaps as artists we would like to see how a photographer goes from point A to the final point Z, but the general public really does not care. Remember when airbrushing was an assumed technique on many published photos, especially those in “playboy”? Did the photographers then have to state, “Yes, I airbrushed every skin surface in this picture.” Photoshop is part of the art.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
This is an interesting issue. But at the same time it is one that I think gets over thought on occasion.
I say it depends…
If an image is being used to represent something, say a location or product, for advertising then I believe there needs to be a degree of ‘truthfulness’ to it.
I know that most images used in advertising are really far from where they began. And your question applies, how far is too far?
In an image that represents news or is used in news should be pretty much as shot. Of course you can make some minor adjustments to it as you would if printing in a dark room.
In the case of the images of the Queen I don’t know that it is necessary to put any limitations on what can be done.
If the same scene was to be painted by an artist the resulting portrait would really be a complete manifestation of the artists view of the scene.
So if a photographer is shooting a portrait of a person where is the rule that limits them to a straight from the camera shot.
I don’t think there needs to be one.
Maybe what has happened is that we now have a new category of photographic art.
One has always had the ability to manipulate an image no matter how it was shot. But since the proliferation of digital and related computer software a new level of manipulation has emerged.
The resulting images lie some where between photograph and painting.
Again I see nothing wrong with this. So many beautiful images have been created this way.
My only concern is when a persons perception of something is altered by an image so highly manipulated. And I am talking when an image like that may be used to entice someone to use or purchase a product or service.
That thought does not just apply to photographers but to the advertising industry in general.
This certainly is an interesting topic and I am sure there are many valid opinions one way or another. I guess I am of the opinion that manipulations of photographs is really OK at most levels. We know that the camera and the eye see differently to begin with, so you are not really photographing what you saw anyway. So to manipulate an image to bring it closer to your perception of a scene I don’t think is an issue.
To go beyond that well then you are entering into that new area of photographic art, again I think this is a new in between category where many beautiful images are being created.
As with anything new or different it will take time for it to work it’s self out and develop its own place. And as with anything there will be those who will push its limits such as those who inappropriately manipulate news images.
I look forward to seeing where this goes…
February 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
If one is curious, then they should ask, otherwise it is in fact the license of the photographer which gives him the freedom to utilize whatever means he chooses. The opposite is true if he is being commissioned by a client who has specific requests.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Back in the black & white wet darkroom days, did we have to explain that we had under exposed and over developed the film and then dodged and burned areas of the print? I think traditional manipulation is ok, the Fonda/Kerry type is something else.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:00 am
I really wonder if Annie does the light setup and all the prep work or if her assistants do it. I’ve heard stories that her assistants do all the “heavy lifting” and Annie arrives to talk to the subject and press the shutter button. I wonder?
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I also have wondered about the extensive use or assistants for “the heavy work”, and digital manipulation question.
Here are my thoughts;
While working in Vancouver BC 20 some years ago, I had several occasions to “assist” a couple of the premier photographers. To me this was an awesome opportunity to see first hand how the “Real Pros’” worked. I was allowed to work with them, question why they did certain things, and truly see their creative genius.
One was a wedding shoot at a private members club, “read big bucks” and my favorite was a series of jewelery shots.
The set was completely build by 4 people, we built a forest scene with a creek, to scale in the studio. Took all day to get the pieces, then another to assemble it. After the main shoot we spent the next day subbing in other items to see how they fit for various advertising ideas. I still have my 4X5 negs of the event and have made many prints.
The set could have been layered in Photoshop fairly easily.
The other occasion was for my first “pro” photographic business card. Found a warehouse door I liked and shot it on 4X5 with myself posed in it. Didn’t like the shadows across the door that were a little distracting, but the light was perfect. Printed a 20X24, airbrushed the image for color, shadows, and the huge pimple on my forehead. Airbrushed my name and phone # across the door like graffiti , as I had envisioned it. Re-shot the finished work of “art” and printed the business cards in my color darkroom. Was it awesome… yes and the “print” is on my office wall. Took 2 days at least and an assistant. Could have done that in Photoshop.
In both cases the images are still loved by most viewers, never had a comment about image manipulation. I guess if I had done the work in a digital process some would frown.
In my mind there are many ways to “create” a photograph.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Aside from very obviously altered images (like seven purple moons), I think that , if you had never seen that person or place before, if you can tell that the picture has been “Photoshopped” (as you mention ), then that greatly diminshes the value. How much so is an individual judgment call.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
From my viewpoint, photography is part art (craft?) and part technology — this is true whether we are talking about film or digital work. Would those who object to the use of Photoshop also object to the DSP that goes on when you let your digital camera produce a JPG? Set an auto exposure?
I think the issue comes down to the intended use of the photograph. I think of photography as falling into two realms: documentary and expressive. Manipulation that changes of disguises the factual content of a photograph is unethical (although there is a slippery slope around “change” and “disguise”). In expressive photography post-production is as much a part of the creative process is is composition or exposure.
What is excessive manipulation? Consider cropping: in a documentary photograph, cropping or even composing the photograph may cause relevant information to be omitted. So, is cropping off limits?
Also: consider Ansel Adams, clearly one of the greatest photographers in the history photography. Adams’ photos did not come out of his camera as we see them in print; Adams did expensive manipulation in the darkroom.
His manipulation may change the representational accuracy of his photographs, but is increases their expressive value and reveals something essential about his subject.
Back to documentary vs expressive for a moment: I think both photographer and viewer need to be clear about the intent of a photograph. The photographer should not represent a materially altered photograph as documentary. A viewer should not recklessly assume that whatever they see in print is in fact a representationally accurate rendering.
Finally, regarding Liebowitz. I have not seen the portraits in question, but Liebowitz is a photographer who uses photography to make a statement about her subjects. This is not objective, documentary photography, and so I have no problem with her use of post processing to make her work more clearly express her intention.