Nowadays it seems that everyone is using the generic term “Photoshop” for anything to do with software used to edit photography. Even if it’s really an app with a filter such as instagram and any one of the third party filter plugins. Technology has certainly changed the way we work, live and play when it comes to photography or graphics. And not always for the better.
On the Subject of Technology
I originally wrote a post regarding technology, and the over use of software like Photoshop a few years ago when I seemed to be getting a lot of questions about technology in graphic design and in photography. The telling difference now is, no one is asking me about technology in the sense of how I feel about it. What they are asking me to do is use it more and more, and sometimes in ways I’m not sure I’m happy about.
I started in graphic design when software and computers were new to the industry, and have been in photography from the days of film. I started using Adobe software when it was still on release 1.0 (or “88” as I believe it was labeled). I remember the joy people had for how it revolutionized the industry, and the frustration people in the industry felt at how it was changing people’s expectations. As well as the steep learning curve of how differently you had to do things and come up to speed on the various nuances it imposed. Technology in this industry, like many industries, has been a double edged sword.
On the one hand, it has made my life…..easier….in a way. I despise the word easy, because it implies you no longer require skill to do the job you used to. I find, no matter the technology, in many fields, you still need a great deal of skill to do a job properly. You need to understand the technical aspects of color and photographic resolutions for various printing methods and the internet, and the differences between vector and raster graphic images.
Cost, A Downside
Cost, the first downside of technology. Suddenly everyone thinks it should cost less to do a job because of this word “easier”. People are now used to technology and seeing the results of what Photoshop can do to fix photographs. Because of this, clients sometimes think we have a magic wand at our disposal and can fix things in the blink of an eye. And, if you look at the history of how graphics and photography progressed, I suppose by the standards of 20 years ago, it is easy to think that.
They forget that technology is also expensive to maintain. And it gets more so the greater the advances. The cost of even entering the field of graphic design or photography has increased significantly in the last decade. A graphic designer easily has $5,000 invested in a computer and software just to get started, not to mention training over the years and upgrades to hardware and software every couple of years minimum.
Photography is no less expensive. A modern professional camera costs anywhere from $2,000 to $7,000 just for the body, a lens and a good flash. Some high end Hassleblad cameras cost up to $45,000. The costs are much higher than film cameras ever cost, even with inflation. And unlike film cameras, which would have lasted decades in the days of film, a digital camera has limit to its lifespan.
On the other hand, digital cameras have far outpaced the quality requirements of about 80% of the needs of most people. The photographs we take are more often being used online and we rarely need most of the quality we have at our disposal.
Further, we have such high quality cameras, it can actually make our jobs more difficult. Let me specifically focus on photography in regards to this.
Idealized Perfection
Thanks to digital photography and software, we now live in a world where everyone sees the culturally idealized idea of perfection on the news stand or in the checkout line at the local supermarket, or on their Instagram feed. It no longer takes any skill to make 30 different styles of a single photograph, it takes software. But that is a slippery slope when it comes to quality photography. It has its artistic value, but not always its technical merit.
A few years ago, Glamour magazine ran an article that I feel is very relevant to this highlighting the capabilities of modern software (and yes, I have them too) which I found highly interesting. I so often go to a photo shoot with a portrait client who asks me “Can we get rid of this little bulge here, and this fold in my back…..with Photoshop?”
This usually puts me at an internal conflict. Because, for one, no matter how thin you are, skin folds when you bend. So unless you stand perfectly straight and don’t smile at all, you will always have some level of wrinkle. Period. To remove them all makes you look fake. And yet, I get it. Because I also hate photos of myself that others take because, lets face it, we can’t all walk around looking like the idealized version of perfection we see every day from celebrities that have a full staff of makeup artists and a crew of lighting technicians that their studios pay for.
And, modern cameras are hyper sharp with high resolution. Almost ridiculously sharp for what most people need. I sometimes liken it to taking a photo of the moon with the Hubble which is meant for deep space photography. The pores I can’t even see standing in front of you now look like the Aitken Basin. So, yes, we need some retouching in place of the softer focus lenses and films we used to use. People today don’t like the soft focus look of the days of film, they want their hair to be sharp, their eyes crisp, but their skin to look like they see their skin when they look in the mirror from a distance. The best of both worlds.
When is Technology Overused
The question then is, how much is too much?
My answer is, I try my best to make you look your best, and still have you look like you. And human. Softening skin so it looks natural. Fixing blemishes that aren’t normally there (some moles are part of a person’s look), smoothing out some deeper wrinkles caused by large smiles, fixing glare due to light reflection, are all part of my standard procedure. But, I come in to personal turmoil when people start asking for “perfection” that is not real. Making someone look plastic, or giving them a look that just isn’t them so that everyone who sees the photo knows it was over-processed is just not what I’m in to. My idea is to have people look at your photo and say “Wow, you look amazing” with emphatic meaning and not be thinking “Who is that person?”
And that, I feel, is where the photography industry should strive to be.