DP Investigates - Digital Retouching

[kirk3d]

As part of DP Investigates in our up coming issue 125, we will be taking a look at digital retouching. Not whether it should be done or not, but how far is too far? Many bridal shots and most magazine covers are heavily retouched. How much retouching is acceptable, at what point does the image no longer reflect the reality of the original photo? Should this be acceptable? or avoided?

We would love to hear your views about acceptable retouching vs excessive (or deceptive) retouching? Where does it cross the line?

Kirk Nelson
Imagine Publishing Freelance Author
kirkthreed@gmail.com
www.thepixelpro.com

[Troy]

It crosses the line when the person no longer resembles their true selves. Personally i retouch a lot of my portrait shots, but to the point where the person is still completely recognisable, it just looks like they have good makeup done. I won't remove prominent moles/marks, and i won't alter the shape of a persons face.

However, i think this sort of retouching is fine for fashion use, but when it comes to weddings it's a different story. A slight tweek yes, but no bride (or groom) will appreciate their face being completely re-done to the point where it doesn't look like them any more. It's not a high end, magazine derived, fashion shoot, it's a wedding. The beauty of the photos lies in what they are capturing, not the perfection of the subjects.

[simon3116]

It crosses the line when the person no longer resembles their true selves. Personally i retouch a lot of my portrait shots, but to the point where the person is still completely recognisable, it just looks like they have good makeup done. I won't remove prominent moles/marks, and i won't alter the shape of a persons face.

Completely agree with this. My daughter has a red mark on her face and so many people say that I should remove it (digitally) to make her look nicer but what does that say to my daughter? If I remove it then it's not my daughters face but someone else's idea about what she should look like.

[ALwin]

Landscapes, product photography, etc. the amount of retouching or enhancing done depends on the best method that would bring about my vision.

But for portraits, the most minimal I can. Might soften some harsh skin texture, or remove some minor blemishes or try to take a couple years off a face, but I'll never go as far as doing 10% of what fashion magazines do. Like Troy and Simon, I feel that if retouching a photo that much would make a completely different person.

[kirk3d]

Interesting responses guys!

So it sounds like the intended final product of the image does give weight to the amount of retouching that is acceptable. Landscapes can be altered to fit a vision, but portraits must remain recognizable to the subject. Can that same idea be focused in even further? If we restrict the context to only bridal/portrait shots, does the end product still determine the level of alteration? So would you expect a fashion mag cover to be more intensely altered than a family portrait? How grey is the line that separates the two?

-kirk

[kirk3d]

To add yet another idea to the conversation,

Have you seen the article the NY Times ran about an emerging software that detects and grades images based on the level of alterations performed?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/technology/software-to-rate-how-drastically-photos-are-retouched.html?_r=4

Would you embrace this type of ideal and brand images with a number that gauges how much it has been retouched? Would this change the way you work? Or is it completely unnecessary?

thanks,

Kirk Nelson
Imagine Publishing Freelance Author
www.thepixelpro.com

[Troy]

That link doesn't seem to work Kirk, you need to log in?

I think for things like bridal shots, where they are going to be for a customer who will treasure them, then minimal retouching is ideal. They want to look their best, but they want to look like themselves.

However, for fashion it's different. I think it's wrong to depict someone as something they are not for the wrong reasons though. Making someone slim to promote a slimming product for example is wrong. But if as a photographer you have a vision of what you want a shot to look like, editing it to that specific isn't beyong the unreasonable, especially when it is purely for the sake of art, which is what a lot of high fashion really is.

[simon3116]

I can't see the point of the software to be honest, what's it going to prove? That fashion magazine's digitally retouch their photo's. That's hardly going to be the shock of the century is it.

I think in the real world no bridal couples are going to want themselves digitally altered beyond recognition, the odd blemish here and there, mud on the wedding dress or group shots when somebody has their eyes closed etc is perfectly acceptable and a wedding album wouldn't be the same without at least one "colour popped" shot would it?

I don't think there is a grey line between fashion mags and somebodies wedding shots, if both clients want the images altered then that's fine but trying to pass something off as real when it's obviously faked is wrong in my opinion.