“If it doesn’t look like we did anything, then we did our job,” Matusik told me, which might seem like an obvious comment about retouching, but which Matusik says is a lesson that many photographers still need to learn. In the article I note that Matusik “believes strongly that any specific techniques are far less important than a retoucher thinking like a photographer and seeing like an artist.”

“Transforming Celebrities” was a great assignment. I had already written an article about Matusik for Rangefinder, and I really digged his work, attitude and perspectives. This piece gave me a chance to meet Price, and to learn about the ins and outs of retouching without getting into the ins and outs of specific techniques. Naively, I hadn’t realized there would be so much meat to the critical subject of retouching, and I appreciated the chance to learn and share.

If you are interested in retouching — for relatively light skin correction the most complex composting, of which Matusik is a unique master — you’ll likely enjoy “Transforming Celebrities.”

Excerpt on the Killing

“We contributed to the death of the supermodel,” says Matusik, referring specifically to DigitalRetouch as well as excellent retouchers throughout the industry. “Fashion magazines would always feature models on their covers. Models are freaks of nature—skinny, perfect skin, unusual symmetry.” He explains that the new possibilities of digital retouching have allowed celebrities to take the place once reserved for models. “Celebrities on the cover of every magazine is very new. It’s hard to remember that six years ago, when we started DigitalRetouch. It just wasn’t being done.” Today, of course, maga- zines put a celebrity on every cover possible, and celebrities are also featured in print ad campaigns like never before. “Think of it this way,” Matusik suggests. “In your Revlon ad, do you want to feature a model that 10 people have heard of, or a celebrity that is known to 99 percent of your global market?”

“Supermodels look really good, and celebrities really don’t,” Price notes of the retouching challenge that has come with the celebrity takeover. “In the photographs we work on, the celebrities have to look like themselves, but they also have to look beautiful. We are really good at making normal-looking people look beautiful and still look like themselves. It’s all about creating symmetry and removing faults. But we do leave in some faults so they still look real.”

“Retouching is really the fine art of knowing what reality is,” says Matusik, who notes that, “Ultimately, all fashion pho- tography is fantasy.” Regarding the interplay of reality, fantasy and retouching, Matusik says, “It’s all kind of relative. If I retouch Halle Berry to appear how she would in nice lighting, am I evil? Am I distorting reality?” He notes that if he were talking to Berry in a candlelit restaurant she’d look a lot better than in bright sunlight. “There’s a reason they invented mood lighting. With candles and a few beers everyone looks attractive.”

While candlelight and beer is a sure recipe for improving looks, Matusik explains that there is no recipe for making a celebrity look more dreadful than plastering an unretouched close-up of his or her face on a magazine cover. “The cover of a magazine is a moment frozen in time with a magnifying glass over it,” Matusik says. “Imagine I’m meeting you for the first time and I grab your hand and stare into your face from two inches away, and then I just keep on look- ing. I can see every single one of your pores, every nose hair, every blemish. Every single little imperfection stands out. That is the reality of a magazine cover.”

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!

Retouched.net features article, columns, and video tutorials. The site also features lots of ads, links and clutter that can make it a bit overwhelming. But if you get past the overwhelm, you’ll find gobs of timely and helpful content about postproduction.

Particularly nice is that Retouched.net features artist profiles, whose insights help us think about retouching more as an art and less a set of Photoshop techniques.

The site is meant as a sales platform and not for education. But you will likely find it educational to check out the four sections named “Beauty/Hair,” “Correction,” “Shaping,” and “Manipulation.” Each image includes a peel-back feature that reveals the “before” image, and comparing what has been done (what is possible) can be enlightening, if not inspiring.

Digital Retouch is owned and run by photographers Andrew Matusik and Stewart Price. Both bring extensive digital expertise and photographic insight to their retouching craft. But they are photographers first and foremost, which is why they work hard to make sure even the most heavily retouched images come out the far end of the workflow looking photographically natural.

Unless you are a professional retoucher, you’re unlikely to ever go as far as Matusik and Price do—especially in “shaping” and “manipulation.” But unless you’re a photojournalist, you’re likely to regularly retouch to some extent. When recently talking to Matusik he told me that, when it comes to retouching, the most important strategy is to not overdo it, keeping the image natural and to think about the art of retouching – no matter how extensive – as an extension of the in-camera process, not as a way to fix photography gone wrong.