Is portrait retouching moral?

[Sidney]

Hi guys,

Trapped in Starbucks and feeling quite bored, fancy a discussion? I'll start.

Over the bank holiday I was editing some images of the family, and I Dropbox-ed them to some relatives. They liked the images, but one relative commented that he looked really old (" I look as if I am about to receive a telegram from the Queen!" Was his words). Although he didn't say it, I sensed that seeing the image had lowered his confidence. I replied that "Ohh.. Erm... Well... Err... You look old because of the way I have edited it." The fact was that all I had done was added a vignette and converted it to monochrome! I continued to say that I would send him "the original, unedited version to make him feel better."

So, I quickly opened up Photoshop and retouched the hell out of it! Just about every retouching tool in the box! I think he may just believe it, but is doing this moral?

I do not want to narrow it down to just this case, but consider in a wider context. If people see retouched images, they can fall into a depression because they can not acquire these unachievable looks. This is particularly the case in magazines.

So, what's your view? It's it right to airbrush? Or is it completely immoral.

Cheers,

Sid.

 

[horrocks]

I think not retouching in the case of snotty-nosed children is immoral.

Remove the snot, people. Its easy.

 

[Sidney]

I think not retouching in the case of snotty-nosed children is immoral.

Haha, I'm trying to think about how I would get rid of it in PS - it's making me feel sick!

Cheers,

 

[wyx087]

Funny one this. I was looking through my girlfriend's past photos the other day, she also likes to take photos, but doesn't like to carry the gear or don't care about the technical aspects. Most of the good shots of herself has had minor retouching (noticed because she kept the originals).

She says my photos are too sharp (!) and retouches most photos of herself that I shot. Retouch like airbrush the skin, make face thinner, eyes bigger, all using some program designed for girls to do retouching (eg. a button to resize the eyes).


Personally, I don't agree with retouching, or even added effects like turning a photo B&W or use silly instagram-y filters. Dodge and burn is the most I'd do, I like to recreate what I saw through the viewfinder.

The source of the problem is generated by the airbrushed models and those unachievable body figures. We are all beautiful in our own way, there is no need to hide it! Be confident.

 

[Sidney]

I like to recreate what I saw through the viewfinder.

The author and photographer Scott Kelby justifies his retouching by saying that 'what [he] sees on the print is not what he sees on the viewfinder, as we don't notice the blemishes when we are concentrating on making a conversation. [He] airbrushes [his] images to recreate what [he] sees when he is with them face to face."

I am not entirely convinced - but he does have a good point!

Thanks for replying.

Sid.

 

[meonshore]

Can. Of. Worms.

But anyway I'll open it. I retouch. In fact I have just spent 2 hours retouching a portrait image for a competition (in which it is permitted).

I regularly retouch my newborn images, removing spots, scratches and dry skin - anyone who photographs toddlers and children probably retouches snot, biscuit crumbs, drink stains on clothes etc...

I don't consider any of that immoral - it is quite often a basic requirement of professional photography to tidy images which are impractical in real life shooting situations to make as perfect as you can in-camera. Much of what I remove are temporary blemishes if it is skin work. I'll also retouch lots of images if I need to ensure the edges of a frame are free of distractions. Quite often a sports image (non-news) will have a finger or part of a trailing foot on the edge of the frame and I don't want to crop it out.

Should you re-touch news images - no. Almost every single newspaper requires news images to be free of retouching. Otherwise it is down to the rules of the competition, or the degree of retouching you are doing, what you are retouching, and who you are presenting the images to.

It isn't always immoral.

In your case it is your recipients discrepancy between how they feel they look compared to how your camera/processing has rendered them - especially if you did a quick monochrome conversion. No moral or immoral wrangle of conscious would have changed that, and unless you knew in advance whether it was hair, wrinkles, bags under eyes etc there would be nothing you could do about it - in fact you could mess with it for days and still not have a representation of themselves that they would be happy about.

 

[Sidney]

Yes Mike, I agree.

It depends on the purpose of the image, if it is to inform (news, documentary, some nature) I would feel unable to justify retouching to alter reality. However, if the purpose is to entertain (Portraits, most Landscapes, most Sports and just about every other genre), it is up to the photographer to make that image as entertaining as possible, and retouching can play a big part in this.

Keep the responses coming in, every interesting discussion.

Sid.

 

[tiler65]

I touch up all my models.

 

[craftysnapper]

I touch up all my models.

Mmmmm.

But seriously I see nothing wrong with it and I do not see why some photographers get bent out of shape about it.

It has been done since portraiture began, take a look at some of Da Vinci's commissioned portrait paintings or most other portrait artists, not a spot or blemish in sight.

Portraiture can either be about flattery or realism, most prefer flattery, especially if they are paying for it or you want them to sit for you again.

 

[Sidney]

It has been done since portraiture began, take a look at some of Da Vinci's commissioned portrait paintings or most other portrait artists, not a spot or blemish in sight.

Good point. Also, if you look at portraits of Queen Elizabeth I you see that she seems to stay the same age (mid 20's) throughout the entirety of her life - I would dread to think what would have happened to an artist who created a realistic depiction!

Cheers,

Sid.

 

[wyx087]

The thing is those are artwork, not photographs. Where do we draw the line between artwork and photography?

It's true we don't notice blemishes when interacting with another people, but without those features, they are no longer themselves.


I don't consider any of retouching immoral, if it's the clients themselves paying, then the customer is always right. I just don't agree with the lack of confidence people feel when looking at their own photos, and I blame that on our excessively airbrushed pop culture.



Have to add though, I'm a landscape shooter. I rarely need post processing beyond colour adjustment to overcome limited dynamic range of unprocessed RAW files.