Understanding physics certainly would be important for getting all these gadgets to go off just right, so perfectly. Clearly, this is for real, I was thinking. This is really happening in front of me. This is not a product of postproduction wizardry.

Maybe I was wrong about that, I realized. But then, it really didn’t matter.

The mechanical wonders in this video feel and so they are real. I believe in the magic of a magician who performs wonderfully, even though I know he is just performing a “trick.” The real trick, which is the magic, is that I feel and believe what I am seeing, regardless of what I might be thinking.

In relation to image making this relates to a critical concept: Authenticity.

Increasingly I photographers mention the word “authentic” to me in terms of the work they are trying to create, whether they are “straight” documentary photographers or postproduction photo wizards employing scores of layers to composite one image that could never be “real.”

Whether straight document or manipulated fantasy, all successful images present an undeniable authenticity — both visually and in terms of what we think about or sense regarding the photographer’s intent.

To come up with some text for this post, I began to search the Internet for some answers to obvious questions that image makers will ask themselves when watching the “This Too Shall Pass” video. How many takes? How much manipulation? And so on. Luckily I quickly stumbled onto the video below, hilarious and authentic, providing me with satisfying, authentic answers, even if its all a bunch of hogwash.

What I love is that right off we see Damian Kulash “disguised” as a number of famous personalities in a manner that reeks (to say the least) of manipulation. And yet, even as I am not sure if this is really Kulash’s voice or even if his interviewees are real or were actually involved in the music video, I don’t care. That’s because I believe this. It’s authentic. It’s fun. It rings true, even if it’s a sophisticated prank.

Don’t get me wrong. Obviously if I were presenting this information as authoritative investigative journalism, I’d need to look into these questions more fully. But in this case, I’m just out to share a good ride, and so I don’t have to. I can appreciate the power of the authenticity of the original video as well as the documentary about it.

The more that the general public believes that image makers can use Photoshop to easily create fake realities, the more that photographers need to focus on creating authenticity. Regardless of the message we are trying to communicate and regardless of the techniques we use to do so, quality photography must be authentic.

With this sentiment, Lindbergh brings the “too much or too little” arguments about retouching to an important level of social concern relating to one’s sense of identity. This is a lot more interesting than one of my pet peeves.

One of my pet peeves is when non-photographers use “Photoshop” as a verb that has magical powers, as in: “Photoshop me to make me thinner!” or “You can just Photoshop me so I come out better.” Huh? I can?

I mean, I get the sentiment. But every photographer knows that even the most advanced retouching techniques can’t overcome bad lighting, lens choice, posing, exposure and even the “lying” ingredient of pre-capture “makeup” – to name just a few of the photographic factors we have studied and practiced to make two-dimensional representations look more attractive than the living-and-breathing, three-dimensional human beings they are meant to represent.

As Eric Wilson reports in his “Times” article “Smile and Say ‘No Photoshop’” of May 27, 2009, Lindberg has become so concerned about the implications of extreme retouching that has is taking action:

“Last month, Mr. Lindbergh stirred the pot by creating a series of covers for ‘French Elle’ that showed stars like Monica Bellucci, Eva Herzigova and Sophie Marceau without makeup or retouching. The issue struck a nerve with readers in France, where health officials were already campaigning for a measure to force magazines to note when and how images are altered. But editors of American publications, who last year resisted such a proposal within their trade group, the American Society of Magazine Editors, have also noted a backlash against images that appear manipulated to push an idealized standard of beauty.”

This is interesting stuff. Backlash from concerned health officials in France. Backlash from concerned editors in the United States. But above all, Lindberg’s putting attention on the very nature of how retouching affects how we perceive reality (most notably the concept of beauty in women) and how a few clicks of the mouse can actually hurt the nature of human interactions.

OK. “Hurting the nature of human interactions” is my phrase, and it might sound a little grandiose. Also I maintain that it’s nothing new. Photographers have always taken advantage of the ability “to lie in plain sight” (my phrase again), and viewers have always taken advantage of their ability to believe the unbelievable. (“Look how GOOD I look!,” she says to the photograph, ignoring what she sees in the mirror.)

As Wilson opens his article: “Most readers of fashion magazines are aware that all photographs, at least to some degree, lie.” Sure, but the “some degree” is easily, easily stretched, making photographers and viewers culpable in this lie-based dialog, and also making me suspicious about the value of posting any types of Manipulation Warnings with photographs. (Suspicious = “Thinks it’s ridiculous.”)

I suppose much of the “no Photoshop” backlash comes from the confusion and intersection over the “White Lies” and the “Cardinal Sins” of retouching. Do we refuse to remove a few pimples that are biologically temporary anyway (and that bad lighting can amplify in an “unnatural” way)? Or do we happily engage in wholesale retouching that Wilson says becomes “more blatant and bizarre, sometimes resulting in bodies that defy the natural boundaries of human anatomy.”

Wilson’s article is a great read, with some historical background on retouching excesses (or just enough?) as well interesting perspectives from a number of prominent fashion editors. If you photograph and retouch your subjects (even slightly), you’ll enjoy the read.

As Wilson points out about the bizarre role reversal of retouching: “The implication here is that what can be considered a provocative image in a fashion magazine today is one that shows something real.”

This is definitely interesting. But like Lindbergh I question how far such a “gimmick” of capitalizing on showing how celebrities really (“really”?) look can go towards changing the manner in which humans perceive one another – or the role of self deprecating attitudes that many fashion readers are well known to feel.

What do you think? Am I giving too much power to the “power of retouching” to change human perceptions – in a negative manner – or too little. Maybe I’m just a blowhard. Maybe my “Photoshop me!” pet peeve is actually a good sign, showing a cultural literacy on the topic that will make people feel less crappy about themselves when they see the Cover Girl or Cover Boy.

But then, I’m not sure. I’m relatively well educated on matters of retouching yet I always feel a little fatter when I spy the cover of a magazine featuring an Adonis-like hunk with rippling stomach muscles that would put a six-pack to shame. What we know and how we feel are two different things. How do we as photographers take responsibility (or capitalize on?) our subjects lesser extent of knowledge about what it really means to “Photoshop me!”?

Photoshop master Scott Kelby took action (Photoshop action, that is) by writing the White House via his blog, “Scott Kelby’s Photoshop Insider.” Check out his April 30th post here.

Although intended to be humorous, the post actually proves two serious points. One is that the white house REALLY didn’t need to do that. Kelby proves it by saying that “in literally less than two minutes I hacked together” the composite image he posted (see below) stock images. Nice going, Scott! (Imagine what he could do with a day and a budget.)

Drawn in by Air Force One, I poked around Kelby’s blog, which I haven’t checked out for a while. As always I was blown, blown, blown away by how much output—from images to books to magazines to training DVDs—that this one man creates, all while serving as the president of National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP).
I admit that I often frustrated by the tone (the unnecessary, cheesy jokes that don’t make me smile) of some of Kelby’s books. However, I never get frustrated by the man. The tone of other books he pens is just right, and the nature of his information is always right on.

Regarding “Photoshop Insider,” I love the gallery of images at the top of his blog, which is a functionality I’ve just got to figure out. Click, click, click. Very nice. I also liked his gear list (always curious about that) and I was amused to read his favorite movies, some of which are all-time favorites of mine (Stripes), while others top my list for all-time stinkers (Pretty Women). Go figure.

Before I go on about MY thoughts on Kelby, why don’t YOU chime in and share any Kelby Moments you might have – love or hate, inspired or frustrated. I’m curious what you think about the King of Photoshop writing, and how he has helped you master Photoshop, or not.

I said, “Yes” when Eveleigh mentioned Photoshop Disasters, as if EVERYONE knows about it. And according to the site, 30,000 photographers head there each day, indicating that, um, just about everyone on the planet is in the know. But, um, I wasn’t.

If you’re not aware of Photoshop Disasters either, become one of the “all” Eveleigh mentions and check out this rockn’, fun and definitely education site. You’ll be happy you did.

Powered by Blogger, the interface is easy, the content wild. What’s really great is that the community vibe is palpable, with thousands of followers, robust comment threads, and readers encouraged to submit blunders—and then receiving an honorable mention and a link to their own sites. (Although anonymity is certainly possible.) As the PsD says:

“Have you seen a TRULY AWFUL piece of Photoshop work? Clumsy manipulation, senseless comping, lazy cloning and thoughtless retouching are our bread and butter. And yes, deep down, we LOVE Photoshop.”

Check out the horrifying elegance of yesterday’s post. Impressive, but, um, yikes.

Go PsD!

Journalistic photography has never been as so-called “objective” as the general public tends to think. From selective cropping to the so-called “hand of god” burning and dogging techniques used by traditional black and white newspaper shooters, photographers have been employing postproduction techniques to better tell their stories since long before the advent of digital. As photographers, we are well aware of this.

Still, seeing the images of World Press Photo ‘08 in person (which I normally see in book form) drove home for me an obvious point that I hadn’t quite appreciated: In the realm of photojournalism, even top international judges find all manner of postproduction techniques acceptable. Clearly, even in journalism, anything goes in today’s photography.

Seeing the images in large, color-rich (or lacking) prints side-by-side is what did it for me. I realized that normally when reviewing photojournalism I focus on content and aesthetic considerations mostly related to in-camera style—not postproduction techniques.

Again, photographers are no strangers to the power and prevalence of so-called “photographic manipulation,” dating back to the birth of photography itself. But I wonder if most non-journalist photographers are aware of how much postproduction creativity is taking place in the realm of news photography.

More abstractly, I also wonder how acceptance of more diverse aesthetic styles in photojournalism affects both perception of so-called “factuality”—whether in journalism of the commercial realm. But that’s a much larger topic.

What are your thoughts on postproduction techniques in relation to news photography? Do you have any concerns about the lack of so-called “journalistic integrity”? Or, like me, are you convinced that so-called “truth” is a moving target and that journalists should feel free to take advantage of any manner of postproduction techniques to better tell their stories?