People have always wanted to look better than they really are, and there have always been products around to facilitate this desire, like corsets, make-up, botox. I myself spend a ridiculous amount of time and money having my hair made ultra-blonde, my eyebrows plucked and tinted, my nails buffed and polished.

Deborah Luckie, 50, retouched by me

In this digital era people are aware of Photoshop and retouching. In any given social situation when someone finds out I’m a professional in the dark art of retouching the first question is invariably: “Can you retouch my (insert profile pic, wedding photo, family portrait etc here).

When they discover my area of expertise is the fashion and celebrity world, the next question is: “Who is the hardest person to retouch?” (No, I’m not telling.)

As a specialised fashion retoucher, what I’ve done for The Punch in making a woman look much younger isn’t representative of what I do, but it does show what’s possible.

The skill of photo retouching, of manipulating the real, has been going on since the birth of photography. Nowadays almost anyone can open an image in photo editing software and “tweak it”.

Technically, even changing the colour of an image is retouching. It’s not always just “airbrushing” (which I don’t do). Things like traditional darkroom techniques of dodging and burning can be done in Photoshop and can completely change a person’s look.

I have always seen my profession as something that is complementary to photography, that adds value, but lately I think that the role of retoucher is often to fix an image. Anyone that has ever been on the set of a photoshoot will invariably hear the expression “we’ll fix it in post”.

There’s no doubt digital photography has made the industry much more popular and accessible. I suspect I was the last generation to shoot film and spend hours in the darkroom creating images with chemical-soaked hands. Those who have shot with film know the art of perfecting the shot, because film was expensive, and fixing problems afterwards even more so.

It also helped that models were beautiful and looked after themselves.

But I spend a lot of my time as a fashion retoucher fixing things like dark hair re-growth and blistered feet (just quietly, the best models have the ugliest feet!).

I recently had to charge a client almost $300 extra because the clothes that were in the shoot - the product that was being sold - weren’t ironed.

Another client was charged about the same amount because no one on the shoot bothered to sweep up the leaves on the location. So I became a glorified broom.

Then there was the shoot featuring shorts, in which the model hadn’t bothered to shave or wax her legs.

And people can spot a retouched photograph. Look at the recent shoot with Filippa Hamilton for Ralph Lauren in which her waist was adjusted to be impossibly small. The public saw it and said no. No, we don’t accept that. No, we don’t believe that.

And PS, that looks stupid.

I’m very fortunate to work with some of Sydney’s best photographers so the quality of work that I see is very high. These are the images where I feel like I add value, I make things more beautiful, more desirable.

Besides, isn’t everything in the advertising industry an exaggeration of the truth? The person who scripts a TV ad drinking a certain beer will make you more attractive doesn’t believe it, but they have a job. Likewise, I don’t think women need to be perfect but I have a client paying to produce a look and the extent to which this look is changed varies greatly.

I do work for a lot of magazines and the issue of body image is a hot topic at the moment. Earlier this month German magazine Brigitte announced it was switching from using models to “real women”,  and there’s a proposal in France to label all retouched images, like warnings on food. And this week Sarah Murdoch appeared on the front of Australian Women’s Weekly without airbrushing.

But I don’t work on editorial content, and most magazines, art directors and photographers have different expectations of what a retouched image will look like, how “far” the retouching will go.

I agree there should be some kind of disclaimer that informs people when an image has been digitally manipulated, but in my experience of magazines, everything gets digitally enhanced

Besides, an acknowledgement that an image has been retouched would mean I finally get credit for my work. Hair and make-up by X, styling by Y, photography by Z, and retouching by me. Not pre-press, or digital imaging, or post-production. It’s retoucher.

I recently did some “live” retouching where a room of about 100 people could watch me work on a monitor, retouching the lingerie models they could see being photographed. The gasps and general excitement made me realise the general public isn’t aware of scale of digital alteration that takes place.

When people see a retouched image of themselves they don’t realise they are often confirming the truth that people see what they want to see. Recently I took a photo of my aunts together, then gave it a slight sprinkle of magic Abbie retouching dust before sending it to them. One said: “I thought you were going to retouch it.” My response: “I did”.

One last thing. If retouching was banned other forms of manipulation would replace it, like extra thick spray on make-up. Or – and this is increasingly possible – artists could just create whole new perfect beings in virtual 3D. And then yes, maybe she really would come with the car.

16 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Matt Wormald says:

      07:50am | 30/10/09

      Very interesting Abbie, but your photo is at the top of this article - how do we know you don’t really look like a 50 year old as well?

    • Mark Muller says:

      07:59am | 30/10/09

      Fifty ain’t old, darl…

    • Des says:

      08:11am | 30/10/09

      The fundamental issue here is that of truth. Throughout its history photography has been manipulated, enhanced, adapted, adjusted to suit the intention of either the photographer or client. Digital technology is simply a continuation of this tradition but makes much of this post production easier and cheaper.  Truth in photography has always been problematic.  As Abbie has stated perhaps it is time to identify how and where a photograph has been retouched not simply to acknowledge the skills of the retoucher as formidable as they might be but because in the areas of fashion, celebrity and glamour imagery young and vulnerable people are encouraged to see these ‘perfect’ people and aspire to the impossible with all of its psychological and behavioral dilemma linked to low self esteem.  In the modern visual media retouching is the norm. If so, we are all manipulated because of it!  For the vulnerable adolescent coming to terms with the formulation of their own values this manipulation can have damaging consequences for how they feel, think, behave and believe.  Adolescence is difficult enough without a parade of perfection offering a fictional account of a reality that simply does not exist. Citing that images are retouched would go a long way toward maintaining some semblance of truth pointing to the falsity of the values of much of our modern consumer society.  It is always a positive to recognize the extraordinary talents of the Abbie’s of the world. It is that talent we should have young folk aspire to attain rather than the construct of ‘perfection’ in body image their work as a retoucher frequently requires them to portray. Sadly, too few images even acknowledge the photographer let alone the retoucher. Citing their work is a way to value it and would help a young audience to put what they see into a positive perspective. The Abbie’s of the world deal in dreams. A perspective that the writer of this article clearly possesses about her own work. It is a good thing to dream whilst ever you realize it is just that. What a refreshing piece of journalism Abbie has given us.

    • PetarB says:

      10:25am | 30/10/09

      Abbie, this more of an illustration, and not a retouching job. You know that, right? The ‘new’ woman’s nose and cheek structure are dramatically different from the originals, as well as the eyes. Also there is little texture to the skin. As for 3D replacements for models… we’re already there. We have replaced certain parts of models with rendered portions to adjust poses. No big deal. The line between truth in advertising these days is blurring.

    • Sean says:

      10:33am | 30/10/09

      Hogwash.

      The business of digitally altering photos that are not marked as such is a business of deception. I’m glad to see Abbie doesn’t airbrush—or says she doesn’t (but how do we know?)—yet the bad faith involved in the profession rings throughout the article itself. E.g. The weak defence that “In this digital era people are aware of Photoshop and retouching” is undercut by the far more honest and relevant unwitting inconsistency: “The gasps and general excitement made me realise the general public isn’t aware of scale of digital alteration that takes place.”

      To say “These are the images where I feel like I add value, I make things more beautiful, more desirable” shows an unbelievable naivete or simply self-deception. In making things more beautiful than they are, or in some cases than they could possibly be, digital airbrushers/retouchers purvey unrealistic standards of body image that contribute to mental disorders such as anorexia, not to mentioning contributing to unrealistic sexual expectations and desires on the part of males which create all sorts of mischief.

      Give up the self-justifiction I say. Let us have our own bodies back.

    • Chris says:

      10:42am | 30/10/09

      “And people can spot a retouched photograph”

      I put it to you that most of the time, they can’t, they shouldn’t have to, and that is the entire problem.

      Digital retouching in magazines, and I’m talking feature reshaping more than just adjusting levels and brightening up a dull photo, is the equivalent of a band miming a show and trying to make out it’s a live performance.

      It’s a fake. It’s trickery. Picking a flattering photo is one thing, making unrealistic forgeries is something completely different.

      But hey, we’re all doing it, so I guess it’s ok.

    • The Other Martin says:

      11:20am | 30/10/09

      Does the phrase “deceptive conduct” hold any meaning for you? Look it up in the Trade Practices Act . I do not mean to besmearch your personal morality - merely a comment upon the commercial practices that occur in your business. It is tricking the readers of the magazines and is entirely deliberate. Itis a wonde to me that the ACCC has not clamped down on the practice long ago!

    • Craig says:

      11:30am | 30/10/09

      It looks like you have morphed her with Cate Blanchett’s eyes and cheeks

    • Shama says:

      11:59am | 30/10/09

      The picture looks generically attractive - a bit Cateish as someone said - after the retouching.  We see so many of these that dare I say it looks instantly forgettable.

      And when you go back to the original it is ordinary and unremarkable.  But post viewing the retouched version, you begin to appreciate it for its honesty. You then see a life lived in the face and at least to me it turned out to be far more interesting than the retouched one.  The first = glossy magazine.  The second - with a bit more manipulation = potentially art gallery.

      And that is the point: photographs are not “reality”.  You can’t take a photograph as an absolute truth and complain about deception.  Manipulating photographs, even enhancing paintings is nothing new.  But each manipulation outlives its popularity. Once we have seen one too many airbrushed pictures, you will need some other kind of manipulation to stand out and dare I say it will be towards “realistically attractive” portraits?

    • Ben says:

      12:03pm | 30/10/09

      I also recently came across a Program you can download (for $US99),  that enables you to import images and then with a few mouse clicks (identifying where the eyes, nose etc are) it will do everything for you.  You can use sliders to control how much or how little “tweaking” you want and can achieve the sort of results as the example shot that accompanies this article.

    • Sieffe says:

      12:35pm | 30/10/09

      I say that the photos should be marked a bit like food packaging . .
      “This photo contains traces of tweaking”

      hahahaha!
      Cheers, Sieffe who likes the photo of himself he has which is from a safe distance . . .

    • Chris says:

      01:57pm | 30/10/09

      Here’s a question for you Abbie. I really hope it gets published and that you read it. Please don’t read this as an attack either.

      Say you’re working for an “adult entertainment magazine”, one catering for those who have schoolgirl fetishes etc. They then ask you to digitally retouch an 18 year old “model” so she looks like a 14 year old girl - would you do it?

    • stephen says:

      02:34pm | 30/10/09

      Digital photographers do it all the time. Us Luddites stick to film, and peruse the product.

    • Paul Hyland says:

      11:57am | 01/11/09

      I quite like what you have done with that picture, I really do.  However, rules are rules, and there is every possibility that the Rudd Government is passing legislation to outlaw such illegal activity.

    • Brian says:

      05:39pm | 20/11/09

      Some of the critics here seem ignorant of the publishing process, as well as Photoshop. Photos have been taken on glass, film and now circuitry. They are published on paper or screens. ALL published images have to go through a conversion process. There are many steps and many decisions. Some photographers consider using a flash cheating: hands up everyone who hasn’t used a flash. How about posing? Is cropping OK? What about just choosing which photos from a shoot to use? Even photo-journalism struggles with these questions. Fashion photography is pure fantasy, from conception to publication. Focussing on just one aspect of it and labelling it ‘deceptive’ seems absurd.

 

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Moviegoer on mobile in cinema. Is told to shush. Is stabbed in neck. With a meat thermometer. http://bit.ly/cdRWYp

Paul Colgan

@lucethoughts yep going to do AFL too, next week

Paul Colgan

Join The Punch's NRL tipping league - sign up at http://bit.ly/9QY9tA and enter league code 439453 ... should be fun

Paul Colgan

@nolamjames will never happen though. In fact I suspect it could even be some sort of practical joke

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Breaking news: Something is going on

Breaking news: Something is going on

Is this the greatest ever send-up of 24-hour news? Warning: contains strong language and hilarity. From… Read more

5 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter