To Photoshop or not to Photoshop, what was the question again? (aka when is photoshop cheating?)

   Photoshop. Pictures altered, sometimes beyond recognition or reality, have become so prevalent that the noun has become a verb. There are some examples of amazing photo editing out there, but far more prevalent are examples of how easy it is for image editing to go hideously wrong. Photoshopped images are becoming controversial in mainstream media, even spawning an anti-photoshop movement. The question of what constitutes an authentic versus a "photoshopped" image has created a controversy in some photo competitions in the photojournalism world. So, is photoshop a useful tool, a necessary evil, the devil, or some combination thereof?

  As a photographer schooled on film and relatively new to the world of serious digital photography, this is an important question for me on many levels. Initially I was very resistant to the concept, holding a somewhat self righteous idea that photoshop was what people did when they couldn't take good pictures. Actually, turns out that after some self reflection, that was just a defense I put up to justify the fact that I was merely too lazy to invest the time, money and energy into learning my way around photoshop.

   There was no one key moment that triggered the introspection leading to that change in perspective, rather it was a slippery slope leading to a final plunge. It started with simple things, easy adjustments in Aperture, my catalogue software of choice. A little tweak to the exposure... then came the plug ins. A little noise reduction to make up for the high ISO I need to shoot most of my subject matter... maybe a quick plug in to smooth skin in portraits.... nothing fancy.... quite often I was left with the feeling that I could almost get the image to where I wanted, but not quite all the way. Then finally I did my first aerial studio shoot last month. It will be a few months yet before I have enough saved up to invest in some portable strobes, so I am shooting only with the two speed lights I have and a couple of umbrellas. So not enough really to light the aerialist and control the background. I was hoping it would be easy enough to fix the neutral grey back wall in aperture. Technically it was, but the only way I could find to do it was to crank the black point way up to make the background black, what you see in the image linked to above. But I had to do some exposure and other compensations to keep the aerialist decently lit after that and in a lot of the images I really didn't feel like I got them where I wanted. I was left finally with the inescapable conclusion that I needed to really learn my way around a digital darkroom.

   Aperture is an amazing and highly capable program. It is capable of far more technical editing than I know how to do right now. I am going to fix that and learn to max out its' abilities. But as I looked into what I wanted to be able to do, it became obvious that I really needed to acquire and learn photoshop. It's a massive investment, both in terms of time and money. Photoshop is neither cheap, nor easy and intuitive to learn. But I decided that once again, I had to go all in and invest in myself and what I want to do. I keep finding that each time I do that, the universe backs me up and rewards me, so what the hell. It was time to invest in photoshop. Creative Cloud is a cheaper option, but it doesn't work for me because a lot of times I am out on a ship with a crappy internet connection and stuck with the work computers to get to that, so I would lose contact with the adobe server and find my programs shut off. So dropped the coin for Photoshop CS6. And some manuals. As I mentioned earlier, it is not an intuitive interface, not easily learned or something to tackle on a weekend. I think most of the books I found were written in some other language or at least assumed a strong familiarity with prior versions of photoshop. But I spend the last two weeks out to sea trying to get my head around the basics. I now possess the rough equivalent of a kindergarten level of photoshop literacy and know enough to get into trouble. Thus, I present you, the faithful reader, with this- my first "photoshop'd" image:

The original image as shot

Aperture edited version

And my first photoshop attempt

    So there you have it. As you can see, I am by no means a photoshop ninja. But I was at least able to make a layer mask of my aerialist and replace the background, which is what I wanted to learn how to do. Now I can adjust her and the background independently without the annoyance of painting on adjustment brushes in Aperture stroke by stroke. This first effort has led me to a couple of quick conclusions- my next big ticket purchases need to be a larger external monitor and a pen tablet. Trying to trace out the layer masks on a 15in laptop monitor with a trackpad definitely left a lot to be desired, even with the fancy magic lasso tools. I have a long way to go. But I am at least off to a start.  Although it isn't a masterpiece, at least it isn't the frankenstein monster of a piece it seems far too tempting and easy to create, judging from the usual suspects on You are NOT a Photographer. I mean, why stop at merely adjusting for proper exposure and fixing a bad background when you can make wonderful photoshop "art" like this:

Yes, I know this is hideous and horrible- that's the point in this case. But since this model is a Trekkie I am betting it isn't her first time being a sexy green alien ;-)

    So, that version, which I hope that- should I ever lose my head and try to put out something like that as anything other than a horrible example of what NOT to do- my friends and readers would collectively slap me across the head and bring me to my senses. Just because you CAN do something in photoshop, it doesn't necessarily follow that you SHOULD. Which brings me to the next part of my dilemma, photoshop ethics. 

    Being too lazy to really think photoshop ethics through was another factor in my initial anti PS stance. Turns out that in addition to the need to learn all the technical skills necessary to manipulate images and an efficient workflow,  I also need to come up with a set of rules for when to photoshop, how much to photoshop and when not to photoshop. For starters, I will still be doing most of my work in Aperture, simply because it is faster. (yes, I know, I could switch to Lightroom, and I am playing with it to see how I like it's setup, but for now I am happy mostly with the way Aperture not only organizes things, but also how it integrates really well with a lot of external services I use as well as the fact that I would have to re-purchase a lot of plug ins I am used to. )

  So when is photoshop appropriate and to what extent? My initial answer was that photoshop would never be appropriate for a photojournalistic shot, something that is supposed to convey a piece of reality to a viewer. But I am forced to second guess that black and white opinion when I go a a little deeper. The reason for my initial position rests on the idea that a photojournalistic image should represent unedited reality and be a true representation of the fact or scene being portrayed. When I thought about it, I realized that NO photograph truly represents a completely unedited reality. When I choose what to shoot and what not to shoot, I am editing the portion of reality I choose to present. When I frame the shot I am editing that reality further. Adding a flash, or bouncing some light with a reflector- again I am editing reality to convey some message I want to pass on. When I crop, adjust exposure and white balance, and make other adjustments I am editing the boring RAW and making it look the way I think that chunk of reality should. So as an artist or photojournalist, you are always editing. So where is the line? I think any editing, whether it is photoshop or deliberate framing/cropping a shot, that changes  the image from what the subjects would reasonably expect to be a representation of reality is over the line. Thus, removing a fence pole that was badly positioned and appeared to be growing out of your subject's head while he gives a speech in a park- probably ok. But removing the Secretary of State from a picture of the President and his Advisors watching a critical military operation from the While House, just because women in positions of power frighten you- crossing the line, illegal use of photoshop. 

    So, images that are explicitly and obviously supposed to represent reality are in one category. What about images that are not explicitly supposed to be reality, but do play a key role in shaping reality in the minds of the public, both consciously and unconsciously? Yes, I am talking about magazines, advertising, etc. This area has gotten a lot of attention and debate recently, with some stars even going so far as to put out the unretouched versions of images of themselves in order to counter some of the insane body image issues caused by the constant presentation of idealized beauty media puts out by publishing images of men and women photoshopped into something more "perfect" than anyone could achieve in the real, unretouched world. Again, some edits are obviously over the top, but some small retouching is probably ok, so where to draw the line? I guess that has to be between the photographer and client, and will be different in every case. For me, a little skin smoothing is fine, but not to the point of plastic, and I don't see myself puppet warping someone to look 20lbs lighter. I guess my line in the sand is basically- if I could have gotten the same effect using makeup, it is probably ok to do in photoshop. If not, it isn't. And I think in general, most people are on the same page. We know what we look like, what we see in the mirror. If the final image is a very slightly improved but still realistic version of that, it will probably make the client happy. If it's over the top and takes the image into the obviously plastic territory, even if the client professes to like it, on some level I am sure they know it isn't real and feel the falsehood. 

  For me personally, when I am shooting your portrait, or shooting your performance, no matter who you are, in the moment you are in front of my lens I have to love you and think you are the most beautiful creature that I have ever seen. (ok- maybe third most- my son and his mom are always in the top two spots- that's why I have so many images of them) If I don't, I don't care what I do with it afterwards, the image won't work. If I did manage to get that moment of connection at the precise instant I pressed the shutter, then a little editing to try and make the final image show the same beauty I saw when I lifted the camera, it will be ok. Love implies trust, and taking the post production too far and making something look unreal is a violation of that trust and negates that emotion. I think part of the reason I now feel driven to learn photoshop technique for real is that the plug ins I have been playing with, while good, are blunt instruments. Even if they are able to be much better applied, I won't be able to do so until I understand the mechanics of what they are doing by learning to do it myself the hard way. Once I can do that, then whether I use photoshop or am better able to adjust the plug in function to fine tune it, I will be much better able to show people how they looked to me when I shot them. Whether that will ultimately be good or bad, who knows. But as long as the images feel honest to me when I am done with them, then the editing wasn't too much. 

    But what about images that are have no claim whatsoever to being a representation of reality? Images that are just art of the sake of art? In that case- game on. Since the advent of photography, people have found creative ways to process images and make images that bear little to no relation to reality. There are litanies of darkroom tricks to process images to shift colors, multiple exposures to combine images, I cannot even begin to describe or catalog them all. Black and white images have been hand colorized for ages. Photographers chose specific films and developing processes to capture things in certain ways. All photoshop and various digital darkroom techniques have done is make these methods more readily accessible to a wider public. To do it well still requires the same dedication, study and practice time. Without putting in the time, most likely your result will suck. But when it comes to art, rules are something to deviate from once you have mastered them. Where you can go is limited only by your imagination, budget and skill level. 

   So where does that leave me as I embark on my quest to learn my way around the digital darkroom the same way I once learned my way around the B&W film darkroom? Here are my entering principles:

  1) As much as possible, make my edits in camera, by what I choose to shoot and how I frame the image. 

  2) Get the image as close to perfect in camera as I can, regardless of what I am shooting and how I intend to use the image. 

  3) If I intend an image as a photojournalistic reflection of reality, use the minimal amount of post production necessary to make that image useable. Make sure the 

  4) Unless the image is specifically intended to be over the top and obviously unreal, I will minimize post processing as much as possible.

  5) If it's obviously over the top fake anyway- anything goes as long as it is well done, unlike the images in this post. 

   I am sure as I learn more, shoot more and play with photoshop more, I will adjust and crystalize my principles, but in the mean time, I will keep learning by trying new things and expanding my toolbox. I am sure that I will find 10,000 ways that don't work,  but that is ok, as long as I keep those failures to myself, instead of plaguing the internet with stuff like this:

  

  Ok. Now that I have that all out of my system, please feel free to call me out if I ever, from this moment on, post in an a non-ironic/intentional way, horrible examples of photoshop gone wrong. Please feel free to slap me about the head as required. I will listen and I will get better. As for the initial question of this post: No- photoshop is not the devil. It is a tool, and just like most tools out there, it can be used for creation or destruction, either to varying levels depending on the skill and intent of the craftsman wielding it. All photographs represent the editorial view of the photographer to some extent or another. As long as pictures have been taken, people have sought ways to alter them during the developing and printing process. A lot of the terms used for photoshop tools- burning, dodging, etc, some directly from these chemical darkroom methods. Photoshop is merely the newest and one of the best tools out there. It is up to me to learn how to use it both well and responsibly.

   Finally - to my friend and favorite model whose image I have totally massacred in this post, I hope you can forgive me, this articular shot just happened to be the one that made me realize I needed to take my skills to the next level. I will eventually get this down to an art form and stop the pain. Until then, here is my actual best effort so far with my limited skill set to end the post. You truly are beautiful, my skills don't yet do you justice.