Make me beautiful: How to retouch photos
Recently we talked about how things are with the concept of beauty in modern society. The logical continuation of this topic is the question of the place of retouching in a photo. The illusiveness of what is happening in the photo industry is obvious to its employees, but not to the majority of consumers of glossy (and not only) magazines. We asked the Bespoke Pixel bureau retouchers to designate what one should know and keep in mind to everyone who opens a fashion magazine or website.
Photo retouching is a craft that we have consciously chosen as a profession and have been developing for the last six years. At some point, we have combined our experience in a modest bureau to develop further together. To understand what we are doing, help education and involvement in photography: Lena Bulygina graduated from several “Photo Department” programs (“Photography as a study”), Lena Spashova took part in the Digital Imaging course at the London College of Communication (University of Arts London), both passed ISSP in Latvia. Our specialization is fashion and beauty editorial, advertising photography and documentary photography projects.
The pursuit of the perfect picture
We put on compression underwear or drape in Rick Owens, increase the chest with push-up, imitate the effect of sun-bleached hair, give the skin a radiance with a reflective tonal cream and put on 14-inch heels (or their personal equivalent). In other words, we transform our appearance to translate into the environment a personal statement, position, views - or lack thereof. Where, in this case, is our individuality more visible: when, having adopted a thousand micro changes from the shape of the nails to the shade of lipstick, we are at a formal party, or the next morning, when we wake up disheveled, without makeup and with traces of a hangover on the face? It would never occur to anyone to reproach a girl for using lengthening mascara and demand to remove her heels so as not to distort growth - this is a game accepted by society, the rules of which are well known to all. And where is the ethical difference, is it smeared with a pimple with a tonal tool or a brush in a graphic editor?
Two adjacent stages can be distinguished in image processing: the first is a production need, often an integral part of creating a digital image, and the second is a delicate area of aesthetic solutions. The fact is that since the days of analog photography, nothing has changed much. The digital image also needs a “development” as well as a film frame. Only the analog photolaboratory with reagents replaced Adobe Photoshop and other graphic editors. At the stage of such a “digital development” (conversion of a RAW file into an image), you can adjust the brightness, contrast, tone, saturation, sharpness and other parameters of the image. It should be understood that in this case the pixels that make up the image remain in place, and only their properties are regulated. This does not affect the content of the image, although the play of light can also visually transform the picture. An eloquent example is a photograph of Paul Hansen, the winner of World Press Photo - 2013, where not a single pixel was shifted, but the dramatic "development" of the image caused heated discussions about its acceptability.
Photo from Elle Ukraine (June 2013), retouched by Bespoke Pixel
The first conclusion: cute children in the advertising of toothpaste, a report from a hot spot, a singer on the cover of the yellow press, a clothing catalog, a no-photoshop celebrity shot — all of the media photos were at least subject to digital development (as part of post-processing). This is normal. How much the image has undergone drastic changes in the future is a private story. But in no case should we confuse the artistic interpretation of light information (“digital development”) with the attempt to mechanically change the piece of reality cast by the camera into digital pixels (photo manipulation). By and large, both processing and retouching photos are a continuation of the transformation history of the original data to form the desired image. The only - but acute - problem lies in the fact that, due to the novelty of retouching tools (of the same Adobe Photoshop), their accessibility and deceptive ease, the limit of permissible improvement has not yet been worked out. The tacit code of ethics is only formed, often through lawsuits, loud statements, small bold revolutions and an endless series of mistakes.
Retouching history
The story of image manipulation is as old as the photo itself. Back in the 1860s (the photographs at that time were about 25 years old), a discussion about retouching and its limits developed between the patriarch of Russian photography Levitsky and the president of the French photo society Davan. Dawann's point of view: a photographer can only “jot down” on a negative the general drawing of the subject, and retoucher artists finish everything else. Levitsky objected, admitting only technical retouching, embedding small dots and spots.
Initially, the photograph was a poor technical relative of painting and all the techniques from there were automatically transferred to the photographs. The first photographers were often artists, and it was common practice to paint necessary details on top of a print with brushes; the pictures were painted by hand and evaluated according to the same criteria as the pictures. When shooting portraits retouching was a prerequisite. In the legendary portrait studio Nadar in Paris employed 26 people, 6 of whom were retouchers. Franz Fidler, a German portraitist and photo theorist, wrote about the end of the 19th century, when the photos were only forty years old: “Preference was given to those photo studios that most diligently resorted to retouching. Wrinkles on their faces were smeared; freckled faces were completely“ cleaned ”by retouching; the grandmothers turned into young girls, the characteristic features of a man were finally erased. The empty, flat mask was regarded as a good portrait. The bad taste knew no bounds, and the trade flourished. " Below is a slideshow of The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
From the staged photographs of Ernest Eugene Apper, with the "shooting of the Parisian Communards" in 1871 to the "Iranian missiles", one and a half intensive years passed, methods of changing images changed, but the desire and the need to manipulate the image remained. One of the most impressive examples is the cover of Grace Jones's album "Island Life" (1985), made by the great Jean-Paul Good. The athletic body of the singer, who admired more than one generation of music lovers, is actually the result of a difficult process of image improvement. What does it demonstrate? A large number of manipulations with photography, retouching and distortion of the image of the female body. It is very important to remember that image processing has always been a routine, and the fact that they have become more open is the results of progress, the onset of the information society and the availability of tools. If we look at old advertising and magazine photographs, it is impossible not to notice how, due to technical means (lighting, cameras, analog tools), images often become similar to illustrations and are clearly not a representation of a real body.
What is the process of processing
Covers L'Officiel Ukraine, Elle Ukraine and Aeroflot Style, retouched in Bespoke Pixel
Just as the construction of the building is carried out by a chain of specialists - from architect to engineer and contractors - a published photo is the result of the work of a team of professionals: art director, stylist, makeup artist, model, photographer and others, where the retoucher is one of the modest functional links. Each specialist has his own competence: the model can not be removed, what it pleases, and the retoucher does not "play" with the picture in its own way. Each shooting has its own style direction, and the post-processing should bring the idea of the team to the maximum ("edits to your taste" or "make us beautiful" are usually the first red flag - most likely, the client does not know what he wants). In fact, the image processing process is an indissoluble union of aesthetic choice and its technical implementation. That is, photoshop is just a tool in the service of photography. Its technical capabilities allow you to make almost unlimited manipulations with the image, changing the shape of objects, texture, color, and so on (there is an opinion that the usual order for retouchers looks like this). But, like any instrument, it can be used both for good and for evil. Therefore, the critical moment here is common sense. It should be understood that if the processing of a photograph is clearly overworking the blanket, this is not a disaster, but then the image is more appropriately attributed to the field of graphic or technical design.
A team of professionals works on fashion or beauty photography before clicking the camera shutter to get closer to the perfect picture in the process of shooting. Therefore, we usually get into the hands of high-quality work, where a well-groomed woman of model appearance with properly applied make-up is taken by an experienced photographer in a favorable light and with good optics. Next, we have to do what we could not (or even impossible) achieve with photography, adjust the image to a certain level, bring it closer to the author’s idea. A retoucher can make a wonderful photo perfect, good - very good, medium - not bad, bad - acceptable. It is unreasonably expensive, unrealistic and simply inefficient to make a qualitative leap in two steps (unless this is a leap in the opposite direction - a talented photo can be killed by incompetent processing). That is, ideally, the work of the retoucher is not aimed at correcting the image, but at improving it.
Of course, each order is individual, but if you try to summarize our usual actions, we remove everything that distracts, prevents, climbs into the eyes. Add the volume at the roots of the hair, if they are dissolved. We extend the neck, we remove some horizontal wrinkles on it, we clean the axillary folds and armpits, we finish the nails, we remove the cuticle, we correct the makeup - the eyes, the line of eyelashes, sometimes we draw them, we smooth the moving eyelid, we add color uniformity. Clean your eyes: remove blood vessels, redness, accentuate the pupil. Adjust the eyebrows, removing excess hair, align the color and density, edit the shape. Naturally, we work with pores, irregularities, spots on the face. Pay attention to the excess hairs in the hair. Correct plastic: body folds, waist delineation, hips and back bends, we remove “goose-skin” on the legs, always clean the heels. The list is impressive, but it is very modular and usually each action takes no more than 15 minutes. Contrast transformations of excess weight in the model parameters and, for example, rejuvenation for twenty years in our case remain one-time exceptions. We do not work as Photoshop Wizards, but we are committed to helping customers bring their images to fit the style, brand, and long-term strategy.
In our opinion, the main task of processing is not “to make a photo and a person better on it” - this phrase due to subjectivity does not mean absolutely nothing. Retouching and post-processing are not elusive things, not Wilde fox hunting, where the unspeakable pursues the inedible, and help in the realization of the artistic intention of the photographer or art director. If the task (to remove a book or an artistic photo session) is flawlessly implemented within the resources allocated for it, we can say that we have a “good” retouch. Unfortunately, there are options when unsuccessful aesthetic decisions are ideally made technically, and vice versa - excellent intentions suffer because of poor implementation. Therefore, when we encounter an unfortunate frame, we are in no hurry to blame the retoucher, perhaps, “it was so conceived” by the art director of the shooting (or the person who bears his duties).
It is worth noting that our personal, as retouchers, aesthetic preferences may not coincide with the idea of the author or the project of the team. Receiving the next iteration with the requirement to “make the legs of the model even thinner”, we feel uncomfortable and always try to reason with the customer, but we understand that this is a situation with a cross and panties. Since, deep down, we are against over-processing and the approach "will come down, we will correct it on post-production," because of the possibilities, we try to dissuade photographers from too unrealistic changes. True, nobody remembers our memory so much that we refused to execute an order for moral reasons (but, maybe, we are just shameless bitches). And here the most interesting begins - what are the standards?
Standards and trends in modern retouching
In short, there are no hard or specific standards, and by definition it cannot be, because aesthetics itself is extremely subjective. However, there is an unspoken level of the industry, processing styles and general trends that are in constant dynamics. Here are five different photos: an advertisement for Lancôme Visionnaire, shot by Mario Testino, Mariaacla Boscono in the lens of Lina Scheinius for AnOther Magazine, "Gloss" by Solvay Sundsbo for Love Magazine, a frame from the series of Jürgen Teller for Love Magazine and again by McMenami in shooting Magazine Antidote. In all the pictures there are top models taken by famous photographers, and, despite the striking stylistic differences, each shooting is an example of a competent post-processing, because it corresponds to its own individual task, and the edits made during retouching correspond in one way or another to the image of a woman in media .
Despite the fact that most of the technical tasks for the retoucher of glossy surveys contain the items “make thinner”, “remove folds” (body or clothing) and “rejuvenate”, we can note the tendency to preserve naturalness, individuality and non-destructive retouching. In our opinion, this process is quite natural. First, with the invention of Adobe Photoshop in the early 90s, a tool came into the hands of humanity, with which it was possible to accomplish in minutes what was done in a photo lab for months. Metaphorically speaking, retouchers behaved like tourists, first came to the buffet and indiscriminately sweeping food. Now post-processing specialists, having “fed on” with the capabilities of graphic editors, blow dust particles from the nasolabial folds instead of smearing them.
Secondly, the attitude towards age is changing: the richest generation in the entire history of the United States will relatively retire soon, and then producers will pay attention to its representatives, and then the media will catch up. The beautiful illustration is the latest ad campaign by Mark Jackoybs with 64-year-old Jessica Lang. Something similar is happening with the technology sector: CEO startups become almost rock stars, and Vogue removes editorials from Google Glass and Nike + FuelBand and welcomes the previously ignored audience, which marks new markets, advertisers, influence and money.
Above: Lily McMenami in Magazine Antidote; Below: Mariacarla Boscono for Another Magazine
Thirdly, people are making more and more attempts to control photoshop’s rampage; even the World Press Photo, as a journalistic contest, has streamlined the processing language since 2009 and managed to remove a couple of winners during this time (although if we are expected to regulate the amount of image processing in the media, we can expect it as some kind of warning caption magazine). The UK, for example, has been doing this for a long time and independently: on the ASA website you can complain about implausible advertising. So far, this has led to strange results: American Apparel is banned from showing, and David Beckham is not in shorts. Prohibited cosmetics advertising viewed more interesting. In 2009, the advertisement of Olay c Tviggi was "removed". In 2012, Dior’s mascara with Natalie Portman, it’s interesting to read the ASA resolution with the company’s statement: “The advertising image didn’t cross the expectations of the potential consumer of the product. It is stylized to emphasize the luxurious image of Diorshow Mascara. Moreover, consumers expect professional styling and photography to be used in beauty products. Digital retouching was resorted to only in the upper row of eyelashes - primarily to increase the length and bend of some cilia and fill the gaps for months e damaged lashes to create a whole image. As for the thickness and volume of natural eyelashes, here resorted to Photoshop only minimally. " Separately, we note that the complaint was filed by the concern L'Oréal, which is the record for banned advertising: 2011 - Maybelline with Christy Turlington (41 years old) Lancôme with Julia Roberts (43), 2012 - L'Oréal cream with Rachel Weiss (41).
More case studies
A separate herald of the improvement of the image of women is the so-called shooting without photoshop and processing. We give the palm for courage here to shooting Vanity Fair, where celebrities took off without makeup and retouching. Although often not without embellishment. In 2011, Make Up For Ever released a notarized advertising campaign without retouching. It turned out interesting, high-quality and unlike competitors (surely, the twin Blake Lively and other heroines were chosen for many hours of casting for perfect skin and suitable features). Если разбирать составляющие снимков, становится понятно, за счет чего это работает и почему от фотошопа так легко отказаться: модели с безупречной кожей, топовый макияж, нет фотографий лица крупным планом, продуманные ракурсы, выигрышная постановка света и общая стилизация под любительскую съемку. Кроме того, все чаще в съемках появляются девушки, отличающиеся от стандартных модельных размеров, - но примечательно, что их обрабатывают по тем же правилам. Лиззи Миллер, собравшая гигантское количество писем после публикации в Glamour в 2009-м и иконическая серия "Curves Ahead" Сольве Сундсбо для V имеют неуловимо общие черты: девушки на фотографиях вроде сохранили свои реальные очертания и выглядят замечательно, но слегка надувными.Let us understand this with understanding, Moscow was not built right away.
If traditional models, as a rule, do not need special corrections, either a figure or a skin (such is their work), then photographs of celebrities are the main stumbling block. Constant rejuvenation and reduction of asses when processing their images usually enhance the effects of plastic surgery and serious cosmetology, feeding the Hollywood cult of eternal youth. But again, the voices of the stars, who publicly state their position on averting cardinal changes, sound ever more boldly. True, we are surprised every time that no one coordinates these changes before publication — such a procedure, in our opinion, should go by default. For example, the scandal with one of the Japanese shopping centers and Ralph Lauren is most likely the result of the stupidity of the RL team, but the stories with the cover of Demi Moore and her advertising campaign Helena Rubinstein are unlikely to come out of such an oversight. Interestingly, in these stories, lawyers' claims included Internet resources that posted the material (in our opinion, absolutely unfair), and not its creators directly. But the British chain of stores Debenhams, on the contrary, issued a statement refusing to process photos of models of underwear.
In 2008, The New Yorker prepared a great material about Pascal Dungeon - the god in the world of post-processing photos. During the interview, we talked about the Dove project about “real beauty”, and he said something like “yes, you know how much you had to work there? It was difficult, but very cool to leave your skin and face so that they“ showed mileage ”, but weren't ugly. " This proposal was picked up by Businessweek and strongly attached the 2004 campaign "Real Beauty", filmed by Annie Leibovitz (from the same place, the video "Evolution" seems to be one of the first to take a live woman and add photoshop). Further, after a few days painful for the employees of the PR departments of Unilever, Dove released a refutation with an emphasis on the lack of processing and on the fact that the interviewer and The New Yorker (the magazine with the legendary department of factcheckers) distorted the story, pulled the quotation out of context, confused advertising campaigns, Pascal generally worked with Leibovitz, not with Dove, but the originals of the photos were not provided and no other comments were given. The magazine also did not refuse its words.
Relatively fresh story - Jezebel offered $ 10,000 for Lena Dunam's original photos for American Vogue. Here we are not surprised by the merging of photos with a pigeon, or the transformation of the heroine into a more perfect version of himself. Vogue always works as a window to another, "better" world, and not to process someone's photos means to provide special preferences, to put in other conditions. Lena herself responded truthfully, gracefully moving a number of her own previous statements: “The glossy magazine is a kind of beautiful fantasy. Vogue is not a place for realistic images of women, but for exquisite clothes, fashionable towns and escapism. Therefore, if the article reflects my essence, but I’m while wearing Prada and surrounded by beautiful men and dogs, what's the problem? If someone wants to see how I look in real life, let him turn on "Girls". "
Ethics, professional deformation and the value of natural beauty
Fragment of the project "Barber Shop"
Do we think that we are setting unrealistic standards and complexes? On the one hand, yes, it is precisely with our hands that the waist is stretched and the eyelashes are lengthened. On the other hand, we cannot but agree with Lena Dunham - the glossy industry gives us a fairy tale, an illusion, a dream, which should be treated accordingly. And if you draw an ideal picture of the world, then we would rather introduce a mandatory course on the nature of digital image in secondary schools - only his understanding will relieve a person from the complexes and make him appreciate his body. Banning Photoshop will not solve the problem - even in real life there will always be someone with longer legs and a wider smile.
If we talk about personal preferences, we do not like photographs honed to perfection and symmetry, although we are able to do so. We love the easy irregularity, the uniqueness of the bends, so we try to leave the hairs, skin, pores, folds on the fingers to the maximum - not to redo the person, but to emphasize his individuality. The fact that we are girls and know how to paint, we are interested in cosmetics and we know how everything works, in turn, helps a lot in work. In most cases, we can distinguish the make-up artist’s intent from the imperfection of the performance and make corrections where necessary without smearing the idea. And even if we don’t know what smoky is trendy this season, dear friends with beauty blogs and awareness in the fashion industry are saving us.
At some point, the accumulated professional experience was visually reflected in the adjacent project of Lena Bulygin. This photo study was conducted in 2012 in preparation for the UPHA "Body Cult" London exhibition and then turned into the first version of the multimedia project "Barber Shop" (Barbershop is the name of the place in World of Warcraft to change the appearance of the character in a few clicks), which eventually won the Grand Prix at the LensCulture festival. In this project, Lena made a series of portraits, where she asked her characters what they would like to change in their own appearance, and retouched as if it were a “work” task. It seems to us that the result clearly demonstrates how subjectively we perceive our own appearance and sharply react to our own "flaws" (and how easily we forgive them for the stars, on whose public image the whole team works). We always want to change something in our guise, and popular culture only stirs this desire. We know that the pictures in magazines are retouched, but despite this, the perfect bodies of models and celebrity images do not seem to us less attractive.
If we talk about the impact of our work personally on us as girls, we can say that long work with the transformation of the human body did not pass without a trace. No, we do not start mentally retouching people when communicating in life, but in manicure salons we see gloss as the results of national economy achievement exhibitions, especially closely linger on advertising pages, which are usually hastily flipped through, and magazines like Love are collected as guidelines. No matter how paradoxical it may sound, the more we are engaged in processing, the more we appreciate the natural naturalness of human traits and the more beauty we see in the fact that modern canons can be recklessly attributed to flaws. Not to say that we had difficulties with self-esteem, but we began to value our own body more, as well as treat ourselves with self-irony. In a sense, we have acquired immunity to the hypnotizing train of a perfect picture, developing the ability to notice details. Does this modest girl in the shuttle bus realize how flawless the line of her chin is? Does that aged woman see how clear the contour of her lips is? Does a friend know that such elegant toes are very rare even among models? Make compliments from the heart has become easier.