NewEnglandSong [2011-09-13 23:55:23 +0000 UTC]

Retouching has always made me feel guilty. As if I am in someway lying about the photos I take. But you have given me a whole new perspective.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JRollendz [2011-09-09 16:55:55 +0000 UTC]

Ive considered this for a while now. I agree with you. I personally try not to alter my photos too much, other than color, contrast, or resolution. I can't stand when people alter it so far that it seems more like graphic design than photography. If you can't do it with a camera, I don't believe its photography.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AlexDanni [2011-09-08 17:07:21 +0000 UTC]

I personally don't do heavy retouching on my photos. I only really make the colors more vibrant, sharpen certain things and soften certain things. I think most photographers nowadays over-manipulate their photos which is kind of sad when you think about it. Which film you can't do that so why should we do that with digital photos? I think raw is more beautiful. I don't see the point in changing peoples' faces, making them thinner and making things look unrealisticly beautiful. I think the photos that are heavily manipulated should be in the category of photo manip, not in photography.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Urd-Yggradsil [2011-09-07 17:58:13 +0000 UTC]

I was looking through YouTube, today, and found what lies beyond 'retouching' photos...

I have no idea what the product is for, but the 'Making of' video shows how an image of a girl is made up of compositing several girls features together... Search for "The Making of Japan virtual character AKB48's idol "Aimi Eguchi" " by spiderweb882010 or "Aimi Eguchi: The Perfect AKB Idol" by AxiomJapan.

I think the trem 'unrealistic expectation of beauty' can now be completely redefined.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

madshutterbug [2011-09-06 19:42:28 +0000 UTC]

An unsatisfactory answer is: It depends.

There is an incredible amount of the retouching you discuss above in the media, primarily print, which then comes across as a societal statement about what constitutes desired attributes. This may be (probably is) a less than healthy use/intent of the abilities.

On the other hand, if the purpose is to raise the question(s) in the first place what is reality, what is photography, then the process is probably and more significantly a statement to the good.

I've been studying the work of one photographer, and of some who are inspired by this photographer, for a bit: Jerry Uelsmann. He started manipulating images in the late '50s when the accepted philosophy was that the image needed to be pre-visualised and captured in camera totally, in order to be considered photography. All of Mr. Uelsmann's work is done in a darkroom, none in any digital manipulation software. He coined a term in response to Ansel Adams 'previsualisation', saying 'postvisualisation' is the process of looking at what one has wrought and finding a new image, a new reality out of multiple visions put together into one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Exillior [2011-09-06 19:34:51 +0000 UTC]

Purists are out of touch with the history of photography. They've clearly never developed their own film. Photography has always been not just the capture, but also the post-capture processing that produces the final product. We've conned ourselves into thinking "photos are a frozen frame of how things were at that time" but really... is that ever what photography has claimed to be?

I personally love freckles and acne and bumps and moles and things in photos. It's the imperfections in life that make it perfect. I'm not unrealistic, though, and there are times when something is just distracting to the effect you want to create - so I completely see the place of removing blemishes. But, also, rushing into taking photos and thinking "I'll correct it on Photoshop" is another pitfall I think many photographers wander into.

So, overall... I think there are no hard and fast rules. It really depends on what we want to do with photography - which, in the end, is as versatile a medium as paint.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mintybreeze [2011-09-06 10:07:58 +0000 UTC]

What a conversational topic. I find that is is the same as Art. Photography is a form of Art, correct?(well duh) There is nothing wrong with wanting to make your work more beautiful or appealing is there? Retouching a picture , I find, can highlight certain areas of the photos better to convey your message better as well. If you think a picture looks well raw then so be it. The photographer is the artist and decides.In the end,I think the main point would be to convey a feeling or an emotion and if retouching a picture enhances that , I find that there is nothing wrong.

Humans will always want to seek for perfection no matter how impossible. I think that the most important part is to remember to appreciate what is real as well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KiwiKassa [2011-09-06 02:16:58 +0000 UTC]

This has been a big debate in my head as well. I only do photography as a hobby but I've worried about this a lot. I really love to take photos without re-touching them because I feel like re-touching and photography are two different skills (but both are very valid types of art!). I've seen many great works of art, both re-touched and untouched, so I think it just depends on your style. I believe that now with our current technology though, re-touching is becoming much more common and the things you can do with it is expanding!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Willowmourn [2011-09-05 21:26:07 +0000 UTC]

As stated in the comments above, the art of manipulation and retouching has been around for a very long time; one of the earliest manipulations is also one of the most widely known: The Cottingley Fairies [link] .

I can also speak from personal experience; in the early 1990s, I spent about a year doing custom black and white printing for a professional processing lab. I frequently did double print exposures, blurring via focus and / or filter at the enlarger (think "Gaussian blur" in Photoshop), tone manipulation via enlarger filter, and extensive dodging and burning - and very often, maybe 30% of the time - when I was done, the prints would be sent to the art department for retouching. Retouching was done with any of a number of brushes and paints, and ranged anywhere from painting out acne to painting in a whole head of hair.

The problem that the "pure photographer" faces today is that even the act of converting a RAW file to a jpg - even before doing any sharpening, noise reduction, or curves correction - is technically a manipulation (typically occurring as reduction in color palette and introduction of minor artifacts) .

The question isn't, "Should I manipulate this image?". The question is, "At what point do I draw the line and refuse to manipulate further?"

That line - that comfort level - will differ from image to image and from photographer to photographer.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

GrumpyDiver [2011-09-05 19:52:30 +0000 UTC]

I suspect questions like this on have been asked since the very beginnings of photography. I have been doing serious photography off and on for decades and am always amused when someone tries to draw a line in the sand as to what is or is not acceptable. While I can understand some of the other comments here, I really think a lot of people are limiting themselves by not using all of the tools that are available to them.

First of all, a response to the people who don’t want to touch their image as it comes out of the camera. If you stick with that, you are really restricting your ability to create a compelling image. I have yet to see an image straight out of the camera (film or digital) that did not need at least a little bit of tweaking. People that say things like that:

1. Don’t fully understand how cameras work and some of the design compromises that were made by the lens designer, sensor designer; camera designer and firmware designer. All of these affect the image that is produced by the camera.

At this point we haven’t even looked at how the image will be displayed and how that will affect some of the post-production decisions;

2. Would rather be out there shooting, rather than working their image to get the best out of it; or

3. Haven’t bothered to learn how to edit an image and don’t want to admit it.
Pretty harsh, I know, but unless you have someone out there to rework what you have taken, you will never get the best image. I look at the famous classical landscape photographer, Ansel Adams who felt that his negatives by themselves were nothing; they only became art when he personally produced prints from them in the darkroom. In the digital world, the equivalent would be retouching them in Photoshop.

I have equally harsh words for the people out there that say, “I’ll just fix that up in Photoshop”. If you take the best image possible, your rework time in Photoshop will be vastly reduced and simplified. Get out there and walk around when you compose. Wait for the right moment, frame the image and then press the shutter release. Chances are you will end up with a superior image if you do your thinking and composing on location, rather than in post-production.

So Jean, based on your comments; you feel it is okay to take a picture with a cake in it, but doing it in post-production is somehow “wrong”. Why is that? Think of this scenario; the art director is hanging over you and telling you that the publisher wants a cake it the scene. You could book studio time and try to get the model; with full makeup back and redo the shot. That would blow the budget and schedule, but 30 minutes in Photoshop and problem solved. Was it right or wrong? I’m more than willing to leave that one to the philosophers. The practical side of me will turn to Photoshop without a moment’s hesitation.

As for how much retouching is too much? That’s kind of like asking how much makeup a model should wear for a shoot. I’ll leave answering both questions to the philosophers again, and when they figure it out over then next few centuries (if they do), I won’t care. A professional photographer that I know teaches a retouching course at the local community college. One of the students in the course was a philosophy professor at one of the local universities who he was totally against retouching any human feature.

In the meantime, I will use all of the tools at my disposal to create images. I'm an engineer, not a philosopher...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sakuranokaori [2011-09-05 14:43:21 +0000 UTC]

I prefer photos that "look real". Myself, almost don't retouch any of my images, maybe just a color/contrast balance but it's only when the picture doesn't look like the real image in that aspect. Also, when I'm takin the picture I try to set the camera to take the photo as "real" as possible.
However, sometimes a retouched photo can be amazingly beautiful. But maybe for a fashion magazine. When it comes to photografs as a whole, I definitely prefer to see the wrinkles, the pores and the hairs; it may not look as beautiful at first but, when you take the time, it is indeed beautiful, it is deep, it is "pure".

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CarolineCherry [2011-09-05 04:07:15 +0000 UTC]

I retouch to fix a photo to match the original vision. That's it, really.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Urd-Yggradsil [2011-09-05 03:03:51 +0000 UTC]

Is the aspiration to be a photographer that captures 'reality' or one that captures the 'vision' of the photographer?

Isn't retouching, at any level (colour correction, toning, cropping, stretching, compressing, smoothing, etc...) just another step in learning to be a photographer? Another skill to know and acquire? If you know that it's 'one more thing' in the life-long trek to being a photographer, then you can't be setting yourself up for a fall as you know it's skill; just like learning about apature setting, ISO, flash curtains, lighting, composition, colour theory...

In art, I have little problem with retouching of images; after all, even the great masters of oil-paintings 'enhanced' their sitters appearances. After all, art is about the ideas behind the creation and not, necessarily, about the created object?

My problem, with retouching, comes when it is applied to selling things; when the intention is to hide blemishes or 'enhance', unrealistically, the look, then it's no better than fraud. I believe that adverts should have warnings like 'image enhanced for...' like SONY's advert for the camcorder with built-in LED projector (UK).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sumshi [2011-09-04 20:22:02 +0000 UTC]

a good photo retouched or not is one that you look at and there's nothing you would change or distracts it from its message; it's art after all, not a truth, the camera always lies about reality whether you retouch or not. Like a painter we never tell the truth, only aim to make beauty.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChrisRDI [2011-09-04 18:17:03 +0000 UTC]

In my opinion I think retouching is perfectly fine as long as one does not go over board with it. I also think the minor imperfections help make a beautiful photo.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

lespoupees [2011-09-04 17:51:23 +0000 UTC]

A perfect photography is, in my opinion, a photography that needs no change and that's were I'm amining at, to be able to take photos without any retouching; I think it's ok to do minor modifications, like the hair you erased from that photo, but I don't agree those totally changing of appearance as in the fashion photos because the people that do such photos don't show any particular talent in the art of photography, maybe just they're skills to work with the mouse, but that's pretty much all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

GreaLauren [2011-09-04 17:39:19 +0000 UTC]

I think that there are photographers, retouch artists, and somewhere in between. As a photographer, I want to people to see the world through my eyes.. however, as a retouch artist, I strive for that 'perfection' in all my photos, and I don't just mean portraits. I do mostly color retouching when it comes to my actual photography (like in my icon), and I think that's okay. Sometimes we want to go that extra step further that our camera can't take us. There are people I've seen that take photographs and make them into photomanipulations like ones you have linked with the green screen. Those to me are the people 'in between' that combine their photography as stock and put it into some kind of manipulated masterpiece.

I've always said there are people who take photos, and then there are people who take PHOTOS. Some people just take a picture to take a picture and remember something.. and others take a photo to cause a reaction. To create a feeling. To tell a story. One day, I hope to be like that. To have my photography, my retouched portraits, and then amazing manipulations like that. I enjoy making photo manipulations, I enjoy retouching, and I definitely enjoy taking photos.

Another thing is, I think retouching is okay for the most part. What I don't like are the photos in magazines that are so clearly retouched and yet people feel the need to look so perfect, a perfect they will never get without the look of photoshop. I like retouching myself mainly to get skin blemishes out of the way, the really bad ones. Sometimes I will actually leave a few on there because.. hey, I'm human. I'm not perfect. But other times, I will go smooth and go over the top a little to create a different kind of image. And also, you're not the only one who has blackheads you try to pass off as freckles or hair on your arms you don't mess with I'm same way. Actually, taking out blackheads is easier than you think on photoshop, it's just a little time consuming depending on how many you have.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Toodleena [2011-09-04 12:17:57 +0000 UTC]

Pure, unadulterated photos definitely have a place in the photography scene, and I hope they don't ever lose it. But personally, I love retouched photos. Of course, sometimes it's a little offputting when you see a photo in which the model has basically dropped four dress-sizes thanks to being overly-edited, but general colour changes, fading, the removal of stray hairs or spots - I think that's totally fine, and beautiful, and above all, I think it shows more of what the scene looked like to somebody who was present. Retouching the colours of a photo can show the atmosphere and the feel of a photo, as opposed to just the basic literal realism.

I always re-touch my photos... it's actually the most fun part, for me. And having looked through your before-and-after photos, I think you've made great, smart and beneficial decisions on your editing. Although it's clear your photography itself is what carries it

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

staffdancer [2011-09-04 12:09:02 +0000 UTC]

Photographers, like all artists, are storytellers. Even before the age of photoshop, it was a false assumption to think that a photographer's work was anything but crafted artwork.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KWLynch [2011-09-04 11:53:46 +0000 UTC]

For me, the key is whether you are presenting the photo as reality or are presenting the image solely as art. I don't subscribe to the notion that photography must equate to what the eye has seen, by default, especially since everyone's perception is different. Though, photojournalism images would require far more emphasis on maintaining the truth of the shot than would conceptual or surrealistic photos, I'd think. The purpose matters. In fact, the purpose is all that matters.

I think trying to define the point at which photos slip away from being truth to something else, something somehow "less", is a task best left for those that aren't interested in the purpose but are more focused on the process. It's certainly not something that concerns me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AnnieGitUrGuns [2011-09-04 09:40:56 +0000 UTC]

Honestly, if you aspire to capture life in it's most raw form, then I'd say to limit the amount of retouching. But, as you stated, there is an undeniable art in altering reality and creating a visual feast. For me, I just want to portray the things that I find beautiful. If it is not beautiful enough to the viewer in as natural a state as possible, then that is their preference. I found it gorgeous and I wanted to share.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vewolff [2011-09-04 08:51:04 +0000 UTC]

Great journal! Retouching is a topic I'm thinking about a lot this time...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Milky-Coco [2011-09-04 07:56:36 +0000 UTC]

I don't know. A photographer takes pictures. they do not change the reality of what they are taking a picture of. I would not call people who do this "Professional photographers." But I would definitely have to think about it more. I feel like we set ourselves up for failure by showing this "perfection" when the only way we can get there is by retouched and altering our photos. I personally find the completely non altered photos the most beautiful and thought provoking. Never have I looked at a "perfect" picture and been drawn to tears or been so touched than with that of a picture that was real. Then again i'm only fifteen. And in our world I'm just a stupid teenager that doesn't know anything.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

imaginary-whisper [2011-09-04 06:41:35 +0000 UTC]

Me as an aspiring fashion and beauty photographer, believe I do have the pressure to adquire a lot of knowledge in the retouch world.
But I do sometimes get disappointed when I see an amazing picture and then find out the original is way too different from the final product. Makes me wonder how good someone has to be in order to be considered a professional photographer rather than a professional editor.
I do sometimes prefer the natural way and remove this or that imperfection, but I respect the photographer and his/her choice of how much post process they will do.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Agent-Angel [2011-09-04 04:45:17 +0000 UTC]

Your photos are always beautifully inspiring and I've never seen a flaw in them. The pieces speak louder than any flaw could shout.

I also kind of wish the was a news article so that I could favorite it and come back to it in the future while I mull it over Thanks for the provocative examples.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

CoreyByas [2011-09-04 04:32:19 +0000 UTC]

The one thing that I have to say is that theres a lot of retouching process that was done when digital wasn't around. By the post work being more achievable now, theres more than one that can be do. I remember when a photog showed me a selective color image and it was done in a traditional darkroom. For me I could it inside 15 minutes but it took him a all day.

Another lady photog took days to develop images for a portfolio, now you could do multiple images in a day. This was in a 3 feet by 4 feet case.

I find theres a lot now that take a shot, convert RAW to jpg and thats it. They still took the shot and developed it in a manner to give it a better result. You can just achieve it much quicker than they use to. Its funny but when someone used camera when it was film based, you would buy film for certain scenarios (sunny, dark etc) and what settings to use for optimum results, pro photog would go beyond that tho.

is pretty popular in the retouch world.

I think about how much I have learned when I start retouching, and I am still far from what needs to be done.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Joellll [2011-09-04 04:29:23 +0000 UTC]

It really depends on how you see yourself. As a photographer who portrays what you saw, or a photographer who deceives the eyes.

I chose to be the latter.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

laurenarchambeault [2011-09-04 04:21:08 +0000 UTC]

Interesting post. You never fail to amaze me with the great combination of artistic, scientific, and intellectual talent you have. I think that retouching is an art in itself and as long as an artist is happy with the final image, I don't think it should matter whether or not they've retouched it. Of course, I think that the public should be aware of this- so many young girls and young women have no idea the amount of post processing the myriad of images they see daily go through and they end up feeling unreasonably inadequate in comparison. That needs to change in my opinion, retouching itself? Nahh.

And for the record, I adore your minor asymmetry, mole, and other details you mentioned.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Just-Something-Else [2011-09-04 03:47:15 +0000 UTC]

One person answered in a remark of how his photos were over-photoshopped with this,

"I am not a photographer. I am an artist."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

patronus-light [2011-09-04 03:27:07 +0000 UTC]

I try to retouch as I remember seeing the scene/person. The camera is not as sophisticated as the eye, it doesn't see the same way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2