Last July, my father's mother died. He and I boarded a plane, and returned to our home state of Washington, to release her ashes into the Columbia River. I documented her burial, and my  sights of the Pacific Northwest with my father in an impromptu art series titled "Coming Home". It was my first independant series after finishing my minor in Photography. It was by the far the worst trip I have ever taken home. My father had to face his childhood, and in some ways I had to face certain realities, that I have probably ignored for quite some time about myself and my life. I don't, at this point, quite think I've accepted them. She wasn't a nice woman. There were 4 of us in attendance at her service. 

Death, and returning home, is never easy, even leaving is harder. My father and I spent 12 hours trapped in PDX, due to flight delays. I enjoyed a lot, and I mean a lot of good local Portland beer. I mean, what else does one do when trapped in an airport? I bought a book at Powells, that I have to yet to finish by a local author: some retro zombie trash novel. Magnets, shirts, my beloved Oregon chocolate covered cherries. 

Did I mention what the Pacific Northwest looks like? It's a joke I make a lot when I'm home: "where is the sun?!? Is there no sun here?!?". I honestly cannot tell you, of one time, that  I recall seeing the sun, without clouds in the Pacific Northwest. I know what it's like to walk down the road with volcanic ash from Mt. St. Helens during her episodes, or be at the beach, standing in water, while it snows and it's 20 degrees outside. I know the value of flannel, cliche as it may be, and a good pair of boots. I know what it's like to runaway to a mountainside and campout, and have your father show up (how he knew where I was I will never know) and hand me firewood, toilet paper, soup, and matches and say "come down off the mountain Heather when you're ready."  What I don't know, is a vibrant blue sky, not like the ones in South Carolina. I know a shade of blue, but it's always grey. Everything there, is always shades of grey.  This makes photography bland and boring for trips like this. 

 Two days after my return to South Carolina, as a wedding gift, I captured the union between two friends who had a "Margaritaville" backyard wedding. It was like experiencing life in full circle - death, then new beginnings. I was tired in truth. Out of 600 photos, most mistakes due to exhaustion, confusion (self wise) and libations, I managed to assemble a solid 100 photos to deliver to the bride. I should note, anyone who does event photography, will share with you, it's a lot of chance. There's always someone doing something unplanned, and always that one person who isn't photogenic. I don't blame my art major brethren for avoiding event shoots. But I will say, in the unplanned environment, when those rare moments happen ...  there is so much raw beauty in life to be found and documented. I hate event photography, but I'm hired most for it. And that's what's special about live photography whether it be documentation, weddings, photojournalism, or events: the results are always unknown. So one must walk in, with one target in mind. Some are about raw history, documenting the moment. Others like to find what's weird or controversial. For me, it's not what's happening, it's the emotion people show.

In photography, there are two processes that occur: production, and post-production. Production is the use, and operation of the camera. The poses, the background, everything that is viewable through the lens. Post-production, is "the magic" afterwards. It's where images are developed, if you use film, or digitally enhanced by means of Photoshop in the digital realm. It's in post-production that the photographer has the most creative abilities. Blemishes can be removed, landscapes can appear more stunning and colorful in contrast to what they were, and history can be altered, by removing people or things that were there. 

Image altering is commonplace and widely used in publishing media including advertisements, news articles, internet memes, and more. Once an art reserved to trained professionals, public acceptance and availability of Photoshop has made digital enhancement  available to anyone with a computer. Hobbyists can now enhance their images without hiring a professional and reach the same level of quality, all without higher education and the use of simple tutorials. Without proper training though, for image viewers, and image producers, some unintended consequences socially have occurred, especially in regards to social media, news and photography circles. 

Photoshop has been used by foreign governments to remove female politicians from historical news photos, most famously Hillary Clinton after the capture and death of Osama Bin Laden as certain newspapers in the Middle East, felt that due to religious standards, women were not to be shown in photographs (Mackey). North Korea has been accused of photoshopping additional tanks (all obviously the same tank over and over again) to make it appear as if the country's military might, is stronger than what it actually is (McElroy).  Despite being historically wrong, these examples show how easy it is for individuals or organizations to alter or change perception. What if, no one had noticed that these images were doctored? How many would believe that women had no involvement in higher executive levels during the Bin Laden raid, or that North Korea, has more than one "shiny ship" Photoshopped over and over again. 

In media art, this process is known as "remixing" - taking what's already available and changing it to your own. The ethics for it artistically are commonly used symbolically,  in satire, or as political pieces. Remixing in a political sense, is nothing more than altering history, facts or attempting to. It can be argued that I'm guilty of altering history myself. During the wedding shoot, I captured what I call, one of those rare moments between people. The bride and groom, while dancing had one of those "Hollywood" moments - with the gaze between two people, the slight smile, the look "rom coms" are famous for, but hardly reflected in real life. I captured it, but in post production I realized the shot was all but lost. Some random old woman was in the background "just hanging out" and the teenage daughter of the bride, had a not so flattering motion blur aesthetic as she passed by the couple. So I, against the groom's request: who wanted 100% documentary style photos - as things happened, good and bad, removed both the lady and the daughter and replaced them with cloned copies of a tree. The bride loved the photo and knew no better. I did however, and in essence I altered the actual events that took place. The moment captured, was taken poolside, with friends and family around. This could have been real, had the couple been dancing closer to the trees. But this wasn't that type of wedding, and they wanted nothing staged. 

This was the first time in portraits, or events that I chose to alter time, and history. In landscapes, I've done it over and over again. During my trip home to Washington, I knew my photos would be altered heavily due to the constant grey tones of the sky, and lighting conditions. I met George on this trip. He smells, has bad teeth, an overbite I winced at, and is taller than me. He's also a llama, and quite proud. When I entered his enclosure, he saw my camera and immediately approached me, and then posed. He stood this way, as I walked up the hill behind him, and then returned and walked out the gate, never once moving. He's quite a character, and nothing like his other llama buddies. If you pay attention to the center field of this photo, you will see the original conditions in contrast to the brightness I added.  

Another example, is at Cape Disappointment. With my father being older, and my absolute reluctance I to redo my last hike a few years back uphill to the lighthouse itself, we visited it from the other side of the bay. This viewpoint, is part beach, part state park with campgrounds and all. I used to play here during outings with the parents and the grandparents in this same puddle of water, that always seems to be there. I wish I could tell you, it's as pictured and maybe we could argue that's how I always pictured it. But don't be deceived, I've altered it and added more green to the foliage, and by surprise, the water took on a shiny blue hue while I played with adjustments. I like my version better than the reality in truth. 

None of this, may seem like a big deal, but altering the reality of people, events and places is a topic amongst artists and photographers. As a Media Arts major with a minor in photography, I get both ends of the spectrum in regards to this debate. I will spare you the theory and technology behind New Media Art, and why artists like myself have pseudo art names and hide behind computers. I will state though, that in media arts, it is acceptable to alter time as long as you can explain your reasoning for doing so. Remixing must have a purpose, and must draw the viewer into your area of reasoning. "I felt like it" or "it just fit" isn't sound reasoning enough. In photography circles, altering can be both good and bad. I will confess that most of my time in photography as "the outsider" in another art major, I questioned whether or not my photos were art as they were digitally enhanced. Some hardcore photographers will respond that it is not, simply because I have altered my entire portfolio of photographic art. To them, it's about what's captured "as is" in the lens, and reproduced as such. In short, art is what happens in the camera, not in post production. In the New Media Arts world, my altered imagery is art. Luckily I've been blessed with photography professors who graduated from the Media Arts program who understood my struggle, and encouraged me to focus on photography as a New Media artist. Those with true art photography backgrounds, sometimes struggled to understand my alterations, but accepted them none the less. 

This debate has carried over into art competitions, and has forced a number of added rules and documentation forcing photographers to state in detail what changes they made. In 2012, David Byrne was disqualified after winning Landscape Photographer of the Year for his image "Lindisfarne Boats" for Photoshop use (Zhang). It was found that Byrne had altered the clouds and removed a few which deemed his work as dishonest. His title, and award of $16,000 was taken from him. Byrne assures that his alterations were minor, and that if you were to visit the site where the photo was taken, that you would find that everything exists as is (Zhang). 

On the other hand, photographer and blogger Ignacio Palacios, has witnessed nature photographers physically alter  landscapes to get the "perfect picture". Palacios remarked that he had wished that these photographers had used Photoshop, and cloned items into areas of the photograph instead of destroying reefs, or breaking branches off trees (Palacios). Is it right to destroy or alter a natural habitat for the sake of preserving the "art" of photo taking? I would agree that it's not, and it's no different than using Photoshop as a means to  enhance the original picture. Any student who has taken a basic environmental studies class can tell you, that moving a rock can upset the ecosystem of a location. That rock could have been a hiding place, or a birthplace for worms, or bacteria that animals in the area use. 

Outside of the art and photography world, Photoshop has been a topic of debate in advertising and it's impacts on society. A simple Google search for "Photoshop fails" produces a variety of results from corporations and advertisers who are guilty of altering models using extreme methods. Commonly these errors include photoshopping out limbs, or altering facial features to a point where the model appears "alien" like or otherworldly compared to his or her real features. Some argue that this is another type of artform, while others argue that these alterations set unrealistic standards of beauty for men and women. 

I was introduced to the work of Jean Kilbourne while taking my Women and Gender Studies class at the University of South Carolina. Kilbourne has dedicated decades of research to the impacts of advertising and how they socially cast women into set roles. Specifically standards of beauty and misogyny against women visually. In her series "Killing Us Softly" Kilbourne suggests that advertising standards of extreme "waif like" women lead to eating disorders, or the use of over-sexed imagery can reinforce ideals that "no mean yes" and that all women are objects to be sexualized and dominated. In KIlling Us Softly 4 Kilbourne states: 

"We all grow up in a culture in which women's bodies are constantly turned into things and objects... Now of course this affects female self esteem. It also does something even more insidious  --  it creates a climate of widespread violence against women. I'm not at all saying that an ad like this directly causes violence, it's not that simple but turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step towards justifying violence against that person. We see this with racism, we see it with homophobia, we see it with terrorism. It's always the same process. The person is dehumanised and violence becomes inevitable. And that step is already and constantly taken against women" (Kilbourne). 

Standards of beauty are nothing new historically. The Greeks had a concept of beauty known as kaloskagathos, which meant if you were beautiful, you must be a good person. In the famous trial of Phyrne, her lawyer disrobed her, and due to her physical beauty, she was dismissed of her crimes. In Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, it is suggested that humans and other species will select mates based on physical attributes. Beauty in short, is recognized as being healthy for reproduction.  In one study, college students rated President Clinton's face after being altered in Photoshop for trustworthiness, cunning, and other traits. It was found that regardless of political affiliation, students found Clinton to be more trustworthy and honest when his eyes and mouth were digitally enlarged by 15% (Keating, Randall & Kendrick 600). When his eyes and mouth were reduced by 15%, Clinton was perceived as cunning, or dishonest (Keating, Randall & Kendrick 600).  WIth these ideas in mind, it is understandable how attention could be drawn to visual imagery in advertising. We as humans, have some level of interpreting physical attributes as measures of mate selection, or trustworthiness. Whether these abilities are taught to us, or a part of our natural instincts is subject to debate.

Julia Bluhm in 2012 started a grassroots campaign against Seventeen Magazine for Photoshopped imagery targeted at young girls. She noticed amongst her friends that they suffered from esteem issues, and felt that magazines like Seventeen encouraged unhealthy attitudes and expectations of women. Julia's campaign was successful, and Seventeen pledged to reduce use of Photoshop and show a variety of body types in future issues.  (Huffington Post). Blogger and photographer William Bleem, in response to Julia Bluhm's campaign, wrote that he felt that a lot of our concerns regarding Photoshop stem from low self esteem not necessarily how people are depicted in advertising. (Bleem). He suggests that Photoshop should be used to enhance features not change them, and that the solution to low self esteem is to accept who and what you are. An easy argument to make, but the question remains, how are so many women impacted by Photoshop use.

Matthew Saville, both wedding photographer and editor at SLR Lounge, suggests that members of the advertising and fashion communities take an active role in promoting healthy body image standards when using models and Photoshop. His argument is that unrealistic alterations force society to attempt to replicate these standards. He does acknowledge however that the fashion industry as whole isn't going to use "bigger" sized models, but should achieve some level of variety. (SLR Lounge). 

Fashion editor Amanda Fortini suggests that Photoshop isn't to blame for society's issues with advertising. She suggests that people have enough common sense to know what a "real" woman looks like, and should view photoshopped imagery as one would view art. (New York Magazine).   Meanwhile, a pending bill has been sitting in Congress, asking for tighter regulations and disclosures by advertisers when they have altered an image. The Truth in Advertising bill (H.R. 4341) asks that the FTC work to reduce the use of imagery that alters faces and bodies of persons used, and to investigate the possible impacts of such imagery on the health of society.  The bill was introduced in 2014, and is still pending today. (Cunningham). 

I am just as guilty as the next photographer of "cleaning up" blemishes, skin tones, and whitening teeth in photographs. I do this without permission, and my clients have never said a word against it. I do not however support the practice of "slimming" or "moving eyebrows" or widening or thinning facial features. I might remove a wrinkle or two. Maybe ...  My landscapes do not care if I alter them, nor do my viewers. I believe the debate in art stems from "is it the artist making the art, or is it the technology that makes the art". I answer that it's the artist, Photoshop and a digital camera are like paintbrushes and paper - tools to utilize. Disclosure is important though, artists should be open about what mediums they use to achieve the end result. The goal of an artist should always be to reflect the human experience, not to focus on how the art is done. 

Like art, Photoshop is another tool to be used in the advertising world. Blaming Photoshop for low self esteem, or body image factors, is but a mere band-aid to the more sinister issue at hand - and that is, is that historically women have been taught to view themselves as an ever changing being that always has to conform to someone's ideal. Will using more realistic models help society - I believe yes, but it doesn't solve the bigger problem at hand. We've been attacking the world's view on women way before Photoshop. Until we stop teaching young girls that they need to be "sweet" and "pure" vestial virgins, god forbid you're the whore, and the happy homemaker who supports the whim of her husband with no expectations or wants of her own, then attacking Photoshop and advertising is all but a distraction. Even literature women are fed, always have some level of "be what (insert whatever or whoever here) wants you to be. Conform and all your dreams will come true, and you'll be taken care of by Prince Charming. Might we mention that Prince Charming realistically has a 30k a year job, a beer belly, and will lose his hair eventually. Sounds fun to be a girl doesn't it? To be fair, advertising has been typecasting men, just not as loudly. It'll be interesting to see how men are impacted esteem wise long term due to this.

Until society's views on raising strong women, and allowing women to accept themselves, (and for others to accept them) I'll continue to do my art. People will continue to debate advertising and self image as a distraction to acknowledging that society has unrealistic views of women to begin with anyway. I refuse to submit to altering my clients in unrealistic reflections of their true selves even though they may ask me to. Every one of my clients is beautiful in their own way. It's not my job to change them into what they think someone wants to see. I'll continue to alter my landscapes, it's my view on how I see them. I am hired as a photographer not based on the gear I own, or the tools I use, but for my view of the world around me. I might just go photoshop myself on the moon riding a pink cow. I bet someone on Facebook will believe the government sent me there. I might even add some spots on that cow, and a silver bell, all photoshopped. 

