The Integrity of Edited Photos — STREET SILHOUETTES

Duckface: a pejorative term - popularized by Kristin Scott Thomas in the film, “Four Weddings and a Funeral” - used to describe one of Hugh Grant’s old girlfriend with especially pouty lips. Anyway, it was almost a lifetime ago when I was tasked as a retoucher to remedy the appearance of an English supermodel with just such an affliction. I know, the fashion industry is horrible. But, it is the objective of any fashion marketing campaign to promote sales with perfectly photographed images of perfect models wearing the offered designs perfectly.

The problem with such an objective is that it is almost never possible. For perfection to happen in front of the camera, the best version of a number of compositional variables must all appear perfectly at the same time at the moment of documentation - like facial expression, bodily gesture and movement, and the flow and drape of the garment. And, that does not even take into account the possibility of photographing more than a single model. Then, the interaction between models come into play along with all the other compositional variables.

It is no wonder why the rule of thumb is to photograph at least ten rolls of 120 film per outfit (or its equivalent in digital capture). With so many shots taken, you think one of them would turn out perfectly. Yet despite our best efforts to minimize imperfections - by shooting in controlled conditions and by employing makeup artists and stylists - something will always be slightly off. And, it kills you when that happens. To be so close to perfection, only to be thwarted by a transition in facial expression, shift in body weight, or a split second sway of fabric.

Fujifilm Superia X-Tra 400 @ 50mm Focal Length

Fujifilm Superia X-Tra 400 @ 50mm Focal Length. Beatrice au naturale.

Fujifilm Superia X-Tra 400 @ 50mm Focal Length. An obstruction on the right bottom corner was edited out.

Given that reality, what reasonable hope do any of us really have in taking that perfect photo? It is not as if we have the time and luxury, like a fashion photographer, to shoot ten rolls of 120 film (or its digital equivalent) per photo opportunity. After all, we all exist in the real world and are subject to its uncontrolled and uncooperative conditions. At best, we only have a few seconds to take a couple of shots before a photo opportunity passes us by. As such, we are stuck taking imperfect photos, which I suppose is still better than taking no photo at all.

At least with an imperfect photo, one still has the opportunity to remedy anything amiss. After all, we are living in a world in which an imperfect photo can have a second life. With editing applications like Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop (being my preferred method), much intervention can be done to improve an imperfect photo where real life interfered at the decisive moment. Wrong exposure can be tweaked. Out of focus details can be revived. Background people can be removed. Faces can be improved. We can do anything in post.

But then, what about photographic integrity? Should not a photo be left as taken, unadulterated, and unedited after the fact? I mean, if one were to take the editing route on each and every photo, what is the point of taking photos properly? And if one were to edit each and every photo, what reason does anyone have to believe that a photo is indeed a photo, and not just a CGI picture? Who is to know that a “photo” is not just a collage of bits and pieces of different photos? A background from one photo, a subject from another, all combined together.

Fujifilm Superia X-Tra 400 @ 50mm Focal Length. In the original photo, the dog’s head was turned away. But being the OCD person that I am, I replaced that instance of uncooperativeness with an instance of documented cooperativeness.

We have seen the uproar when professional photographers were caught editing their photos. Case in point is Steve McCurry, when he was caught in a photo editing scandal. Immediately, the torches and pitchforks were out in full force, questioning his journalistic ethics and photographic authenticity. And despite his explanation that his photo manipulation was innocent and done for the sake of composition - like the removal of a person in the background that was not essential to the reportage or narrative - the angry mob could not be placated.

The route of photo editing can be a slippery slope, regardless of how innocent it seems to be. Fundamentally, any manipulation of an original photo is a manipulation of facts - meaning the truth. And really, what is a photo that is not factual or the photographer that manipulates the facts? In the end, photo editing is a miscarriage of the truth. So no matter how you dice or slice it, photo editing is lying - thus making the editing photographer a liar. That said, I do not subscribe to such an unforgiving viewpoint. It is not like I profit from factual reportage.

Without a journalistic interest, I edit my photos out of respect for my subjects. With regards to photo integrity, your subjects really do not care about how authentic a photo of them is - or rather not to the nth degree. I hate to burst your bubble, but most subjects do not need a photo of themselves that is completely factual. As long as the photo is authentic enough - and of course showing the subjects’ best side - any tweak to improve their appearance in presentation will be forgiven (if not welcomed with open arms). I mean, why would it not be?

Fujifilm Superia X-Tra 400 @ 50mm Focal Length. Photobombers edited out from the middle of the image.

Think of photo editing as a white lie. It is harmless, if authenticity is not strictly required. So in the case of Steve McCurry, I can understand the uproar. But for someone like little ol’ me, who is posting photos on this dog and pony show, what is the harm? And I suspect for most of you, what is the harm too? What is the harm in making your subjects feel good about the photos you took of them? It is not as if you are creating a bald-faced lie with intent to deceive. Rather, what you are doing is presenting the best version and composition of your subjects.

So on this photo set, that is exactly what I did. When needed, I intervened. Perhaps if I had the time and luxury to shoot the equivalent ten rolls of 120 film - in controlled conditions and with the assistance of makeup artists and stylists - I would not need to resort to such trickery. But, there were some imperfect photos which I really liked. And although I did photograph versions of those photos unmarred by imperfections, I still preferred the ones where real life interfered. Frankly, those imperfect ones were the best versions of my partner-in-waiting.

Sometimes, an imperfect photo can potentially be better than a perfect photo. But, how can that be? You see, perfection is merely a technical standard. Perfection does not mean that a photo is exceptional. It only means that a photo was taken and composed without fault. Thus, it goes without saying that perfection does not take subjective considerations into account. And therein lies the crux of why I am not against editing photos. There are times when an imperfect photo exhibits a special quality that makes editing it a worthwhile undertaking.

Fujifilm Superia X-Tra 400 @ 50mm Focal Length + Fill Flash

For example, I did have a photo of my partner-in-waiting patting that dog. But then, the dog’s head was facing away from the camera. I also had a photo of the dog facing the camera. Unfortunately, my partner-in-waiting’s head was out of frame. Even so, I still wanted a photo in which my partner-in-waiting’s face and the dog’s face were both facing the camera. The only way to make that happen was to cut out the dog’s face from one photo and then paste it onto the photo where my partner-in-waiting’s face is in-frame. Then voilà, a perfect photo!

In another photo where my partner-in-waiting is climbing up the stairs, I removed an unsightly passersby from the frame. That said, there was no need for me to burden myself with such a laborious undertaking, since I did take a photo unmarred by unwanted passersby. Still, I preferred the imperfect one, given the strut of her climb up the steps. There is an unmistakable croquis-like attitude about her silhouette, which the camera catches at the moment of documentation. For that reason, I went to the trouble of excising the offense from the photo.

In the third last photo of this blog post, in which my partner-in-waiting is standing under a red brick doorway, I also had a photo of her unmarred by imperfection. That said, I still preferred this version because it was better compositionally shot at nine feet away and obstructed by the structural impediment than at five feet away and unobstructed by structural impediment. Being more inclusive in documentation by shooting further away, the composition benefits from a more elegant silhouette and greater color variation with her blue denim shorts.

Fujifilm Superia X-Tra 400 @ 50mm Focal Length. Stair newel has been edited out from the right hand side of the photo. The 50mm focal length was not wide enough to shoot closer in avoiding the obstruction.

In the final analysis, can you really say that those edited photos lost their integrity because of the intervention I made? Personally, I think not. All I have done is made a little white lie. In doing so, I have rescued those photos from their imperfection, thus making them better not only for this dog and pony show, but also for my partner-in-waiting - which really is the point.

That said, I would rather not edit a photo. But at times, real life does get in the way of that perfect photo. When that happens, we could either discard that almost perfect photo in the waste bin or intervene by making them more presentable. I choose the later, and so should you, if such a circumstance ever arises. Just remember to do it properly. For more on that, I will write about it on a later date.

Special thanks to Beatrice for joining me on this photowalk.

Disclaimer

Jun 28 The Integrity of Edited Photos

Disclaimer

Jun 28 The Integrity of Edited Photos

Jul 23 Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH Revisited

Jun 9 Leica 24mm f/3.8 Elmar-M ASPH - The Forgotten Child