Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Just assume it.

Photo retouching is an art not exclusively applied to supermodels. The tools are available to all.

Photo retouching is not a new art. Anyone who has ever spent any time in a dark room has learned how to pass a hand between the negative and the substrate to alter a section of the image. That primitive pass became air-brushing which became Photoshop.

The level of retouching sophistication is what seems to be the issue in France where mandatory disclosure of magazine photo retouching is under consideration.

I cannot believe there is anyone in the western world who does not assume that all the published photos they encounter have been in some way retouched.

I do like the idea that every publication ought to list the names of the retouchers. It is after all an art, not a deception, and its practicioners have various skill levels. Some retouchers have a good eye, while others a high tolerance for the ridiculous. Consider this jennifer Hudson album art.


TED said...

Is this a backhanded acknowledgment that your eyes are perhaps not as blue as we've been led to believe?

I've never understood the fascination with blue eyes, but then I've always believed that the lips are the real window to the soul.

Father Tony of the Farmboyz said...

Dear TED,
The many photos of me made by others (and some by me) ought to answer that question which I assume you make in merriment. I have some blue lenses that I sometimes wear when the mood strikes. In real life, I've been told they make me look rather "children of the corn", so I suspect they are not the best windows to my soul.

BigAssBelle said...

Um . . . so Jennifer Hudson's album cover is retouched? What? Where?

And count me as one who has, in recent years, been absolutely stunned to find out that the images of perfection I see on magazine covers everywhere are fake. Yes, it was a shock. I've known for maybe half a dozen years now. I doubt that the majority of women in this country have any idea.