In 2007 a report was published under the title "Fashioning a Healthy Future". I have read its findings and for the majority of its 13 or so recommendations I would be in complete agreement.
The reason it came to my attention in the first place was that a good friend of mine who is the creative director of a major fashion publication, was sent the report requesting that the magazine he works for stopped retouching pictures of the models, as "digitally manipulating body shape can perpetuate an unachievable aesthetic and the industry should give consideration to a voluntary code governing its use."This is part of the belief that an unobtainable image of women and men is responsible for increasing eating disorders and low self esteem in women and men as well.
Well it is hard on the surface to feel anything other than support for this kind of issue and indeed there must be some link between our own self image and the images we see around us otherwise arguably advertising wouldn't work.
Where I have a problem with this approach is it demonstrates the total misconception of how a photograph is created and there for completely addresses the wrong issues all together.
It is true that in Photoshop one can change body shapes , swop one head for another , alter skin tones from light to dark or vise versa, remove wrinkles and many other possibilities all lie at our fingertips.
And in modern image making this is all standard stuff.
However it is not at this stage of the creation of an image that the most important 'manipulation' of reality occurs. The choice of lens i put on the front of my camera is all important; a wide angle will "deform" the bodys' shape enormously, just think about how your own reflection looks in a Christmas ball. The height at which I stand is just as crucial to how we perceive the person in the final picture, for example if I stand above them and look down the body will be changed so that the head is massive and the body tails away compressed underneath. If however I put my camera at knee height and look up then the body becomes elongated , the limbs become longer and the head becomes small, much like a fashion illustration.
This is the first in a series of very fundamental and important steps that change completely how the person in front of the camera will look.
The next is lighting, then movement, , blurring and shutter speed, composition etc, etc .These decisions all take place before or when the the photograph is being taken, not at the retouching stage.
Therefore to continue the argument that peoples' bodies should not be changed in the creation of their image is untenable. Would one extend the ban on retouching to a ban on wide angle lenses, low camera angles , side lighting and so on as these all change the perception of the "reality" of a human figure enormously more than retouching the image in post production?
In my opinion people should look at photography and especially fashion photography not as a recording of reality but as entertainment and skillfully created fantasy.
Trying to ban things is never a good way to change people behavior, however I feel trying to educate people to understand the process of creating an image is far more likely to protect the health of young model.
Finally, although the panel who researched and advised on this report was made up of some great and very well respected figures from the Fashion industry including designers models and editors as well as the medical profession there was one group not represented; photographers.
Nick Knight
Another thing is in jewelry photography, we do tons of retouching, one could argue that that's false advertisement. I think perhaps there's never going to come to a conclusion that would satisfy all sides. Fashion photographers are artists, as artists do, they are after creating a vision, they are not too concern about making something look as in reality. Unless one is a documentary photographer who is aiming at different goals when capturing an image.
"..people should look at photography and especially fashion photography not as a recording of reality but as entertainment and skillfully created fantasy. "
I absolutely agree. But the problem is with the context of fashion photography there is an element of 'this is how you should try and look'. Even if all those involved in the images production have no intention of that being the message, that is how some people will take it.
Since imposing government regulations over artistic expression is a horrible idea, the only solution is for the viewer to think critically about what they're viewing. That's all that can be done. I'd also be skeptical about anything that purports to boost something as vague and arbitrary as 'self-esteem'.
What has always seemed odd to me is that people seem very capable of treating the imagery they see in films as escapism and fantasy , so why can't fashion photography be viewed in the same way?
Is it because that photography came about as the "bringer of truth" as a "witness" to the events such as the Crimean war and has never been able to shed that mantle?
I feel that the more skilled the photographer the more skilled they are at creating their vision and their version of events and that is in fact what we expect and want from them; to see the world through their eyes, we are looking for their opinion and not a mechanical recording of what ever is in front of the lens.
One explanation to that is that I think, in movies, there's some plots and characters have some motives and background, and some facets to their personalities, so the audience could use that to justify their not questioning this fantasy, and just accept it. In fashion, models don't really talk, they don't have personalities, at least not to the audience, they only have to project certain emotions, there might be emotional undertone or some story line to the editorials but how many people actually could pick that up from single images? And models have problems, just like the rest of us, but they are mostly viewed by the public as thin, happy, with money, and don't have to do much-I think it's all sinked into the unconsciousness of the public, all these images of the fashion industry being projected to the public, and perhaps that's a reason why people are more critical to fashion images, trying to sell to the public this idea of ideal beauty.
Another reason why I think people in some ways can't treat fashion photographs as pure escape is that in fashion magazines, underneath all the glamor and beauty, the photographs serve a purpose of selling shoes, clothes, lip gloss and eye shadows, the brand names are mentioned, it's all marketing, fashion magazines are trying to sell products, first and foremost, the fantasy is just packaging to make the hard sell more attractive.
Your statement on why you think people seem incapable of treating fashion photography as escapism hits a nerve on me. I think perhaps people are very aware of the fact that the fashion photographs in magazines are about selling products, and it's about "if you buy this, have this, look like this, you will feel like a million bucks"-there's always a subtext to the purpose of all the setups in fashion photographs, they are not just about fantasy, perhaps people in their minds could clearly distinguish the difference. Many of us who come to Showstudio work in the business of fashion and beauty, and we are all aware that when we do a fashion shoot, very often, no matter what we do, have to remind the model to not cover up the ring, or the handbag-we are in the business of making beautiful images to sell products. Perhaps that's why extreme manipulation done by digital technology used in photos in fashion magazines make people feel uneasy.
For me Photoshop is great as long as it helps to enhance the overall look of the photography; or to add some special effects. The problem is when it is used to transform the normal look of a model into a barbie doll, with that horrible plastic-like skin; and pretending the normal look of the model is like that.
I think often is the total look of the art direction that dictates how photoshop would be used. If a model is turned into a barbie doll, in a successful scenario would be the total look of the editorial has this strange plastic botoxed feel all over that works for the feel of the entire spread.
I mean when the Barbie look is used out of context, as a "normal" way of retouching skin.
