It's good to...

... airbrush or is it?

I recently had this fine art image judged in a local photographic competition.Only the top slice is shown here. The judge was very complementary about the lighting and pose, but he didn't like an area on the models arm and a shadow that ran across her hand. The shadow I could understand but the area on the models arm, he considered a "bit fat" and should be retouched before I had it printed.

The problem for me was, why should I alter a natural fold in an armpit, (I might also add it wasn't fat) ,should I alter this and for whose benefit is it? Is it acceptable to blatantly change a persons natural body shape and where does it all stop? I am known for taking natural portraits of women, letting their personalities shine through, I believe every wrinkle and line tells a story and adds character to a face. Stretch marks are tiger stripes, lumps and bumps show a life enjoyed and the natural curve and form of women confirms that we are all different shapes and sizes. With good lighting and posing a subject in my opinion should shine brightly in their own natural beauty, so why change that?

So where does this all start and where do we draw the line? It is generally accepted that images on magazines are airbrushed, editorial pieces and advertisements are airbrushed, but why? Is it to project a perfect image, is it to sell a dream or utopian idea? Do publishers and advertisers believe that if we saw curves, wrinkles, natural skin or age that we wouldn't buy a product or read a magazine? Are they actually insulting our intelligence and is is good for our mental state. It has become such the norm, that for some the pressure to look this way is high, especially for young impressionable girls.

Airbrushing projects impossible expectations for women and now men to live up to, especially teenagers. Magazines and social media bombard us with the perfect look and image. Apps provide us with filters to look flawless for the perfect Instagram selfie, and personally I hate it! Sure its fun to have a snap chat tongue or flower garland but what about the girl who doesn't have the confidence to see past the impossibly skinny model with the big eyes and flawless skin? Its become the norm to post countless filtered selfies, but who benefits, their confidence, their likability or is it just harmless fun? Why does the poster need constant affirmation?

So finally, where does it all start? First it was magazines for the grown ups, then the magazines for the teen, and now I see children airbrushed. Why make a child look like a porcelain doll? Why would a parent want there child to look like that? Every child has a perfect imperfection, why change them, why make them look like someone else, odd or a "better" version of themselves. When photographing a child, I capture their spirit, emotion and natural beauty, I see no need, to then alter that. Yes I had to remove nose snot, some sleepy eye, and a couple of stray hairs recently, but I don't smooth out their skin, dodge and burn away poor lighting or ever so slightly increase the size or colour of their eyes. Why seek this impossible perfectionism? What does it say about both the photographer and the parent who accepts this? Again, I don't like it and I think its socially irresponsible.I may be wrong but it says to me I love my child but Id like them better on the wall looking just that little bit more perfect and so the downward spiral begins...