By DIEDRE M BASTIAN

It is said that Adobe Photoshop really is the “best thing” since sliced bread. Really? Well, we all use it! We all love it! But is it truly the ‘Tony the tiger’ that has got all designers by the tail? It is great for quick retouching, and the editing of photos, and it is no secret that the publishing and entertainment industries exploit the use of this magical tool.

And, of course, you probably heard the phrases “a picture is worth a thousand words” and “a photo cannot lie”. That used to be the case, but is this really true? It can be difficult to take the ‘perfect’ photo, but nowadays, with the help of Photoshop, you do not have to because you can create it.

Should a photographer spend two hours eliminating the distracting reflection of a flash if the fix takes merely 10 seconds in Photoshop? Most opinions are valid, simply because they are as personal as our individual taste, but this creation of a false reality has a much more significant impact.

I cannot understand why people are startled by what is published on the Internet (especially on Facebook), as it is obvious that any teenager with manipulation software can put together a fake photograph in a couple of minutes. Think about it: Photos no longer live in a dusty box on a shelf, they live online for the public to see.

While some pictures are pretty, you cannot deny the fact that it can become quite scary. Imagine if anyone could cut and paste your face into an offensive photo, creating something that is not true. This raises the question: Is photo shopping ethical? And how much is too much?

When every magazine ad or cover is showing perfection, teenagers and young women of lesser self-esteem begin to ask themselves if they measure up. I’ve seen that look in their eyes over and over again.

Ladies, let’s face it…. most of these images are ‘chopped and cropped’, ‘zapped and zipped’; digitally manipulated to brighten baby blues, not to mention removing unwanted back fat to appear thinner. Erasing some zits from a model’s face is perfectly reasonable, but blowing up boobs, lengthening legs and shrinking waists is a serious illness and a bit over the top. Even hamburger buns have minor imperfections edited out for commercials.

More and more fans are disappointed when they see their favourite celebrities in person, as they are shorter, chubbier, wrinkled and darker than in prior medias. Yep, photographs made it seem as if celebrities were born yesterday with baby smooth skin. And since when were 40, 50 or even 60 year-olds without wrinkles?

Of course, when you make such heavy edits, any mistake can ruin the illusion of reality. For example, models’ skins were lightened to the point of visually changing their race. Perhaps one day magazines and ads will add a label that says: ‘Attention, we have changed this gorgeous woman (or man) to standards that society has accepted’.

Female clients have occasionally asked me to remove little things like ‘freckles’ etc, but personally I feel those are the kinds of details that can make each woman unique and beautiful. In the commercial world, many of these answers are dictated by the people who hold the cheque books. Clients answer with their wallets, and since publishing is big business, businesses try to keep their clients smiling (and paying).

But sometime, as artists, we have to ask ourselves: “What do I want to achieve with my work, and what are my moral obligations?” I’ve overheard a photographer tell a client: “Don’t worry, I can solve your ‘fat issue’ in Photoshop.” Can he still be viewed as a photographer, or just a digital dietician or mortician?

My daughter Cortnee’s class this semester is Photoshop…. I said to myself: “Help us all! Everything in the name of photos will now be ‘Shopped’” Photoshop isn’t always honourable but, I have to admit, it can cure a host of ills. This argument has been replayed an endless number of times throughout history, and I really have to ask: ‘Is photography about capturing what the eye seed any more? Does Art reveal truths that reality obscures?’

I do not know if art cares about which digital processing tools are used any more than it cares about the type of chemicals we use to clean our tiles. I once clarified on another forum that ‘art doesn’t care how long you took to produce the work or how hard you laboured, what matters is the result… the image. To the client, these are their priorities.

By the same token, I believe in moderation. Every day I walk a thin line between my very own visual expectations, commercial reality, client demands and my personal morals and spiritual beliefs.

Frankly, this debate is really an old one, yet I can assure you that editing in Photoshop is a question of our very own paranoia. So rather than bothering ourselves with the question of whether an image is 100 per cent ‘true’ – something that, in my own opinion, will never be , we should ask ourselves if adaptations (not ‘manipulation’) are reasonable, especially if something is removed that is essential to an image.

So is Photoshop a way for below average photographers to add some ‘wow factor’ and improve the aesthetics of a poor image? In my humble opinion, photo perfection has become impossible for a human being to achieve without heavy digital help. Understandably, it is not a sin, but a more serious problem lies in creating false images that reveal untruthful’ representation.

My rule of thumb is if the manipulation does not look natural or is unacceptable, do not do it. Work on duplicate layers, lower the opacity and/or use masking to keep the look natural. We must agree that photography is art, so let’s show our clients in their best light. But, remember, ‘moderation’ is key. Until we meet again, continue to fill your life with memories rather than regrets. Enjoy life and stay on top of your game!

NB: Columnist welcomes feedback at deedee2111@hotmail.com

About the Columnist: Ms Bastian is a trained graphic designer. She has trained at many institutions such as: Miami Lakes Technical Centre, Success Training College, College of the Bahamas, Nova Southeastern University, Learning Tree International, Langevine International and Synergy Bahamas.