Is using photoshop to optimize someone’s physique unfair? Does it present an inaccurate depiction of reality? What is ‘photoshopping’ anyway?
“Photoshop is fake”
Recently, I was asked again, “do you photoshop your photos too?” It was someone who regularly sees me doing photoshoots as a fitness photographer in the gym but apparently hasn’t seen my photos yet. “Of course, I use photoshop,” I said somewhat surprised.
“Isn’t that cheating?” he asked next.
I have to admit, out of annoyance, my response was, “Well, I consider using steroids cheating,” knowing I wasn’t speaking with a ‘natural.’ Now, firstly, that was hitting below the belt. More importantly, I don’t see steroid use as cheating; I’m simply playing a different game. However, I didn’t make the comparison lightly. Users of steroids often experience how their own efforts are sidelined with statements like, “That all comes from a bottle.” I tried to make it clear that I couldn’t produce such photos without the hard work and good physique of my clients.
“Photoshopping”
The problem here primarily lay in a different definition of the word “photoshopping.” I noticed he had a very different definition than I did. “Photoshopping” often has a negative connotation. It’s frequently mentioned in the context of photos where a body is slimmed down, eyes are made bigger, and teeth are whitened, for example. “Photoshopping” is often seen as visual distortion of reality. I understand it as well with examples of people making themselves bigger while forgetting that the sea in the background should normally form a straight horizon instead of bulging.
Last week, I read about a new app aimed at recognizing if photos are edited. To help you ‘arm yourself against a distorted view of reality,’ even in less clear cases like this.
In some cases, this distortion of reality is justified. There are plenty of cases where a model wouldn’t recognize themselves anymore due to significant alterations. However, the photo may have been shot for a client who doesn’t care about that at all but has a specific image in mind.
In most cases, however, photoshop is used very differently. Photoshop is merely a tool that allows me to realize the image I have in mind. Of course, you can go in any direction with it. However, as a fitness photographer, I’m hired to capture someone’s hard work as beautifully as possible. That’s quite a responsibility when you realize that some people have been training and dieting for months or longer specifically for the shoot.
For that, on one hand, I use all means to showcase the client’s physique as best as possible. On the other hand, I have some principles that I strictly adhere to.
- The client must remain recognizable to themselves and others.
- I don’t make anyone thinner or larger; the proportions of the body always remain the same.
After all, my client wants photos of themselves, not of a fantasy character in my head. As a model, you also want to be proud afterward that your hard work has led to that result and that your figure is not determined by photoshop for 80%.
I always say, “I can sharpen a six-pack and enhance muscle definition, but then that six-pack and muscle definition have to be there. In many cases, I make more adjustments to the background than to the model itself.
Photoshop Fitness
Am I enhancing the image or distorting it? I’d like to take you through the steps I take in post-processing photos so you can judge for yourself.
This is the unedited photo from a self-shoot I did last year.
Like many photographers, I work with both Lightroom and Photoshop, both from Adobe (to whom I am in no way affiliated other than as a user). Lightroom is used as a catalog for all my photos and for the initial basic edits regarding exposure. Especially, I examine the contrast between light and dark here. I also start sharpening muscle definition here. I do this by locally increasing the difference between shadow and light tones in the muscles. After all, this contrast determines how deep the lines appear. Of course, I’ve already maximized this contrast with my lighting during the shoot.
Then I bring the photo to photoshop where the major adjustments are made. First, I look at the ‘crop,’ the proportions of the photo. Do I cut off a piece somewhere, or do I add a piece (the latter is, of course, a bit more difficult depending on the background)? To have this last possibility, I do this in photoshop; however, cropping could also have been done in Lightroom. In this case, I used one flash (from above), and the other two flashes were turned off on the side. Of course, I could have just moved them aside, but that would slow down the shoot. You often have the choice between adjusting something during the shoot or afterwards. Puritan photographers will want to do as much as possible during the shoot and as little as possible afterwards. I mainly look at what takes the least time, especially during the shoot (to be able to take as many shots as possible).
My next step is removing everything in the background. In the studio, this is often my own lighting or the edge of a background screen. I must, of course, capture the entire body in the image and shoot quite ‘wide,’ so you quickly get things in the image that you don’t want to see. In this case, my lighting had to be so close, and I already knew I would fix this later. On location, you can think of all kinds of distracting things in the background; an electrical outlet on the wall, someone walking in the background at the gym, a car passing by just as you’ve taken a nice photo, etc.
Only then do I work with the model themselves. Again, I start by removing things you’d rather not see. You can debate to what extent this distorts reality. Sometimes I correct what I’ve caused myself. The high contrast for muscle definition, for example, can also lead to more contrast in wrinkles or bags under the eyes. I can remedy this with an additional flash alongside the two to three flashes I already use, but that takes much more time on location than adjusting afterwards. In other cases, the client may have had an annoying pimple on their face that week; no one would find it strange if you removed that. However, someone with a lot of acne is no longer recognizable if you remove all the acne, so I often remove half and make the rest less visible. Recognizable but further removed from reality.
Furthermore, you can think of anything; stray strands of hair, a protruding label, anything that distracts in an unpleasant way.
Only then do I start with ‘improvements.’ The first step consists of a series of actions to increase muscle definition. A method I developed myself and can execute as a standard action in photoshop. Then I can apply this effect manually to the areas where I want it. Unlike a filter that covers your entire photo, the effects I use are usually applied to specific parts of the photo.
Sometimes I can create a kind of glossy layer for a beautiful appearance after this.
After this, I can look at the overall color distribution and choose, for example, to give the background a different shade than the model.
Finally, I sharpen some aspects for more clarity. For example, the eyes, but not the skin.
These are just the steps I apply quite standard for fitness photography. There are dozens of other adjustments I can use, depending on the photo. You can imagine that after all that customization, I never feel happy when I see someone apply an Instagram filter over it. That feels to me a bit like how a chef in a five-star restaurant must feel when someone pours ketchup over their creation.
I usually make the biggest adjustments in the background. In cases where I replace the entire background, for example, like in the photo below taken on a gray day.
Real or Fake?
So, I hope someone sees that I put quite a lot of time into post-processing. Two to four times as much time as in the shoot itself on average. I see it as an important part of my process as an artist, however pretentious that may sound.
Is this a distorted image? Yes, if it didn’t make a difference, I wouldn’t have done it. Does it make an achievable physique unattainable? I don’t think so. I could take these same steps with the photo of an untrained person and they wouldn’t suddenly become a bodybuilder.
That also doesn’t mean it’s a ‘realistic image.’ The clients I work with are hardly a representation of the average Dutch person in terms of shape. Most of them have to work hard for this, and often it’s literally and figuratively a snapshot. Whether the image I show in my photos is achievable for someone else will be determined much more by the model and by the potential of the viewer than by my post-processing. However, lighting also plays a much larger role in this. However, I have already devoted a separate article to this.
The app Check Mate will be available for download soon and could therefore show whether a photo has been edited by Instagram filters and Photoshop, for example. I hope to have made it clear that there can be quite a difference in that and that the word “editing” is a very broad concept. Edited does not equal fake. I am curious about the insights the app will provide.
