Food for thought: The spy who sold out
Forgiving a pretty face
Facebook to agencies: how will people share your story?
Is “The Pitch” an accurate reflection of our industry?
Advertising is an industry that is quick to embrace new technology trends and find innovative ways of using them to sell products. So it’s not surprising that ads have made extensive use of digital photography and photo-editing programs for quite a while now.
A good example of how advertising has used this technology is actually an ad itself, Dove’s viral YouTube video “Evolution.” Part of a campaign about embracing real beauty, it raises a question I think is worth asking about photography in advertising: does retouching a photo within an inch of perfection help sell a product?
The immediate and obvious answer would be “yes” since we see it done so often. But I can’t help feeling that using retouching technology in this way is becoming dated. Digitally altered photos are everywhere from ads to magazine covers — it probably doesn’t even register to us that the person we’re looking at isn’t perfect. Or it does, and we just don’t care.
When retouching was introduced it was fresh; it made photos look different and “improved.” But now we are so accustomed to seeing it that the opposite is true, it’s no longer impactful. Worse yet, it’s expected.
Contrast the doctoring of photos that makes people look perfect with ads that use photography that’s made to look as though no retouching has been done. Take, for example, campaigns done using work by photographer Ryan McGinley for Levi’s and Wrangler. I would argue that these photos make the ads stand out, because they help establish a very distinctive mood for the campaigns.
The most noticeable aspect of the photos is that they are the exact opposite of glamorous. They look raw and unedited, which in turn reflects the sense of freedom and discovery that the ads want to convey. Surely this look wouldn’t be right for every brand, but it succeeds in straying from convention and, I think, is more likely to grab the attention of consumers.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see photos that are unaltered (or deliberately made to look that way) become the new trend in commercial photography. But is the fact that such photos stand out more and help an ad get noticed enough to make it successful? Or is this “natural” aesthetic only right for certain brands and campaigns?
As a photography purist/curmudgeon, I hope we see more photos left untouched.
Tweets that mention Photoshop til you drop « Big Orange Slide -- Topsy.com
July 16, 2010 @ 11:45 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Grip Limited, Grip Limited and Nik Reid, hamiltonink1. hamiltonink1 said: Image manipulation. Have we had enough already? http://bit.ly/94PAeS [...]
Terry
July 16, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
There is something attractive about raw and untouched photography that I can’t quite put my finger on. It just feels so genuine and truthful that it makes you want to believe in whatever the message the brand is trying to send. I would definitely like to see more of this especially in the fashion industry. I’ll have to agree with you. Not every brand can pull it off.
Stuart Thursby
July 16, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
What I’d like to see is more raw photography when relevant to the brand and the campaign, and done fittingly and provocatively.
McGinley’s work for Wrangler and Levi’s, to my mind, is done correctly. The steady stream of “party” and “friends” shots, most recently done by Virgin Mobile here in Toronto? Not so much.
Like anything else, it’s just a technique which can be used for something great or something average. I’d want to see more genuine and truthful brands before I’d want to see more genuine and truthful photography *for* brands.
Thought that’s purely within advertising. When it comes to fashion magazines, etc…I 100% agree that there should be more “natural” beauty shown.
(And a tip of the hat to zig/cp+b on their recent “Love your apple bottom” campaign for the Women’s Network)
Pete Aspros
July 16, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
I’m confused. Are you saying that even Ralph Lauren’s natural-looking models have undergone digital enhancements?
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/29/lauren.jpg
c jones
July 16, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
Gabriel Jeffrey’s style is what comes to my mind when you talk about raw photography. Especially the Lifestyle and Burning Man shoots. They feel raw, like the film was not developed correctly.
http://gabrieljeffrey.com/#num=content-2667&id=album-143
Also, Urban Outfitters’ have a raw style in their brochures, not so much on their website.
Warren Haas
July 16, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
@c jones: Thanks for the link to Gabriel Jeffery’s site. It’s great. That’s exactly the kind of work I’m talking about.
Paul Sanduleac
July 16, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
I definitely agree with that: we need more photos left untouched.
Aladdin Mustafa
July 17, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
What an amazing read =)
I guess natural photos are only right for certain brands and campaigns.
dave benton
July 18, 2010 @ 3:40 pm
i agree that this is a look they were going for and not retouched to perfection, but i would wager alot that if you saw the original of bot the levi’s and wrangler ads you could spot a few differences that make the environment or the model look more appealing.
Warren Haas
August 5, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
Never too late to add a comment:
It looks Girl guides in the UK agree with me about photoshop:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10856055