Fashion, Retouching and Digital Ethics

Retouching and manipulating photographic work has caused a big stir in the media over the years. Plenty of big celebrity names have come across problems where they've been over-edited to fit the magazine/papers expectations. It's quite an interesting subject to cover as it is highly important when working within the industry. Obviously people have different opinions on the topic - whether some editing is too much or too little - which also doesn't help the situation.

Fashion Photographers - Retouching Over Time

Lets start from the early 1900's, as technology and methods were a lot more limited to the ways of today, retouching wasn't doesn't done so much (if at all!). A good example of this within the fashion industry is Cecil Beaton - otherwise known as the 'Original Fashion Photographer' - who's photographs are very bold and in with the style without retouching. As the software we use now would've have been around during the early 1900's, if Cecil Beaton and any other fashion photographer at the time wanted their models looking 'perfect', they had to do it all with make up. It wasn't a case of taking a picture and then using post-production editors to change it because that wasn't available. As he worked with film photography, he had to get his model/set just right so that it would create the effect he hoped for. His photographs are very striking and I personally really admire them (as I'm a big fashion lover!).

The photograph below is an image he took in 1956. The print was bromide on white card mount and is highly appreciated within the industry. The thing which stands out to me is the small imperfections within the skin and even parts of the composure. The small birthmark/beauty mark on her face actually makes you as a viewer admire it more for the fact that it's actually relatively natural. I much rather this approach to the fashion/portrait work than what there is now as you know what you're seeing is real. It can't have been edited in. The tones in this image are very eye-catching as a viewer as there are large dark shadow sections right up against the complete opposite. The highlights within her eyes and background make her stand out and bring in an element of purity which is enough to make the photo pop without retouching.

Moving on now to the 1960's, there were many more fashion photographers about - some who used the newer editorial programs and some who kept up with the natural look - including the very famous Bert Stern and Brian Duffy. Brian Duffy who was named one of the top 3 photographer along with David Bailey and Terrance Donovan in the 60's and also stood by and created work without post-product. Bert Stern was a self-taught American commercial photographer who worked a lot within the fashion industry and the portrait world. He worked a with a variety of brands including Revlon and magazines such as Vogue. One model he did a lot of work with was Twiggy - also known as the first supermodel - who is a very large main feature within his portfolio. He once said 'What makes a great model is her need, her desire; and it’s exciting to photograph desire'. This is just a short statement of his taken from an interview about his fashion/portrait work.

The photograph to the right is one of his many shots from a shoot with Twiggy in the 1960's. He didn't use post-production programs on his work as he felt it was better and raw without it. You can see how natural this photograph is within the skin and body as the skin isn't completely clear and has a range of visible tones throughout the body. If this photo was taken today and used for a magazine now, it would've had a lot of editing done to it in order to make her 'perfect' for the public eye. Her skin would've been airbrushed and made clearer and she probably would've been tones a great deal. The actual image itself definitely a beautiful one. She looks so pure and even vulnerable to an extent which I think really adds a dynamic feel to it. The flowers around her body help to make it look this was as flowers are also pure and natural beauty.

Onto some photographers who use photo manipulation as a way of 'perfecting'/straightening out their images. One I really like is Nick Knight who definitely likes to use technology to enhance his work. One shoot I really admire is the shoot he did with Lady Gaga for Vanity Fair in September 2010. The pieces which were published are phenomenal and truly beautiful as well as the ones which were unpublished but around on the web.

This piece is probably my favourite because it's a very harmonious piece (both colourwise and compostition). I really like how her hair is loose around her neck, shoulders and arms. It joins it all together making it look extremely proffessional and beautiful as it's a major pure part. The colours of her hair against her skin is harmonious and connects well together. Obviously this photo was able to be edited using higher quality technology to the images I have previously discussed which I do I like quite a lot. The skin has quite blatantly be airbrushed and brightened as it's got a very lively, highlighted tone. She looks radiant and glowing which is what people of todays world want to be and see. This type of editing gives us the impression that if we work at it, our skin could look radiant, clear and perfect which in reality is the way celebrities stay famous and the way we are always feel disappointed with oursleves ad our appearance.

Rankin is another very famous portrait/fashion photographer who I really admire as his imagery is edited the way people in today's society want to see people and want to be.

This photograph of Sophie Ellis Bextor is my favourite of his work I've seen as you can see that it's been edited yet people still love it and believe that whatever the product it was trying to sell works. This photograph was created to represent Rimmel on an advertisement campaign. Things which point out it's been highly manipulated are the cheekbones as they're extremely pulled out and defined, the eyes as they're clear with long lsahes and bright colouring and the most obvious being the skin. The skin has been airbrushed so much it looks clear of any sort of mark/wrinkle. By all means she looks lovely but some people will and did question the ethics behind how much of a change this is to her usual skin and face. The question a lot of people ask is, should photographers and editors be allowed to manipulate work to such an extent or is it false advertising? It's the sort of thing which people have their own opinion on but can never make up a set ruling or guidline.

Onto the theme of ethics and morals now, there have been a lot of problems around this and libel is a great word to use surrounding this subject. Kate Winslet (well-known actress/model) was caught up in a scandal where she was edited without her permission and it was published yet again, without her say-so. She managed to get the law involved and ended up sueing for libel. The photographs are obviously still around on the web and go around but the story is always attatched to inform young photographers for the future and people in general to see what the papers/magazines change for their personal gain. The photographs below show the magazine cover which was published and the unedited original photo. You can see a large difference in he body size, colouring and tone. In a way you could say they've tried to sexualize her as they've made her playsuit shorter and higher cut by making her legs that slight bit longer, making her skin look more toned and tanned and making her hair a dirtier blonde instead of a birght/light colour. She has since added a clause into her contracts with anyone she works with stating that they cannot photoshop or edit her in anyway as that's not what shes about.