[ffking]

Cameras make all sorts of decisions in producing JPEGs some good, some bad, and RAW files are not faithful reproductions of reality, just information dumps - so it's up o the photographer to extract hat he or she saw from that information, and even to add a little of hat he or she felt - that's just straight forward developing of the image. I don't have a problem with anything except dishonest images that claim to be real when they aren't, but I think that PP should aim at saying something about your reaction to a scene and not just be making a silk purse out of a sow's ear or going for spectacle

[Wheatfield]

I'm okay with just looking at the dress!

Check out 2:15.......

[RobA_Oz]

Check out 2:15.......

There to test your basic instinct,

[house]

Here's an example:

I have a current regular client (and crew) who absolutely expects her photos from events and appearances to present her as attractively and positively as is reasonable. That means when she's tired I remove any dark circles and redness in the eyes. If the light is harsh any now-enhanced wrinkles under the chin and around eyes and mouth must be softened, even removed. There's been times I've had to thin out a bulge in an important photo, remove a bruise or blemish. If the night before was long her face might benefit from a little thinning. If the sky behind her group is a bit too hazy and blown out I've sometimes added some subtle blue, even an occasional cloud, so that the presentation looks its best.

Am I unethical?

Only because you work in a false, deceptive and exploitative context 😃 as do we all on this planet. For now at least.

[jatrax]

Am I unethical?

Not in my opinion. Unless you are shooting for a news article.

[AggieDad]

Check out 2:15.......

Oh my!

I am closing in on 79, have 5 stents, and only 1-1/2 lungs. Looking at 2:15 could be dangerous to my health. But as in the old joke, it would take the undertaker 2 days to get the smile off my face.

[Serkevan]

Am I unethical?

Yes, obviously. Please report yourself to the nearest internet armchair expert and flagellate.

Jokes aside, although I typically like a subdued look and really don't pp much (I never even use Gimp or Photoshop - just a raw developer) I've been known to even use presets (the horror) when I intend to give a photo a certain look.

And when my K-1 decides to punch the reds on my friends' faces, making them look bruised, I'm gonna take action to correct that, *obviously*.

I even do B/W conversions and fine-tune the colour channels to enhance what's important in the photo - and that's a fairly extensive processing, one could argue...

[Rondec]

All photos are processed in some way. It maybe by the camera ("Straight Out of Camera" seems to be a mark of glory for some), it may be in Lightroom or more aggressively with things like Nik Effects or Topaz Suite.

For me, if I am documenting my families life experiences, I do try to be more photo journalistic. This isn't to say that I don't clone off blemishes or adjust things, but that I don't anything really aggressive. If I am shooting landscapes, I adjust as much as I think the image needs. I wouldn't say I am shooting art, but if I am happy with an image, that is good enough.

I will say that I think we all go through phases -- times of really aggressive sharpening and bumping of shadows, times of really dark, contrasty black and white photos. Often when several years have passed and we are at a different place in our photographic journey, I won't be happy with those images from an earlier time. Editing moderately is a good recipe to not be upset with editing choices a few years down the road.

The other thing is that post processing is not a substitute for good skill and technique. A poorly shot image with all of the levels bumped to 11 is still a poor image -- just a poor image that now makes your eyes bleed.

[normhead]

"Am I unethical?"

As part of my portrait classes I had to learn to retouch photos with pencils and sometimes spotting inks. You're not unethical, you're lucky it isn't 50 years ago. One of the reasons for 4x5 in portrait studios was it as much easier to retouch 4x5 images as they were much larger. Trying to reotouch 35mm film would have been nightmare. Retuching 4x5 film was still a nightmare, just a not as bad. nightmare. At least for me, some people were really good at it. "This needs some retouching " does not cause anxiety anymore, and isn't skin smoothing a wonderful thing?

One of Tess' most used lines is 'Look at me in that picture? What kind of photographer are you? Delete that one."

[Serkevan]

On e Tess' most used lines is 'Look at me in that picture? What kind of photographer are you? Delete that one.

I was talking about it with one of my friends the other day, he asked why so much editing was needed for fixing skin and such, when cameras are "as good as they are now". My reply was along the lines of "yes, they are incredibly good at making us look detailed. That doesn't mean they make us look good when it's guys like us in front of the camera, we can't pose if our lives depend on it "

Exactly. Don't tell me what to do with my photograph. I'll do what I want. If that means making a perfect representation of a scene, fine. If that means making a garish, over-the-top HDR, that's just as fine.


Don't tell me what I shouldn't do, that makes me want to do it all the more. This thread makes me want to post my most non-conventional post-processing experiments.

You like what you're doing and you're happy with your results, that's all fine with me, 'cause whatever you do, I'm not required to like it. By the way, one of the main reasons I ditched a career as a software engineer and went to law school was because people told me I couldn't do it. I eventually realized that the reason they said that was because THEY couldn't do it. I did just fine with it. Then I spent thirty years doing something I didn't really like, much less love (litigation and dealing with lawyers), in part because of my stupid reaction to other people's stupid opinions. I regret that I was not wiser at the time - I'd have knuckled down and learned about microcomputers, even though they're inherently kludgy and have dumb programming languages - I'd have been happier and made more money. (And I had to learn about them anyway, as it happens.)

[gatorguy]

"Am I unethical?"

One of Tess' most used lines is 'Look at me in that picture? What kind of photographer are you? Delete that one."

One of my most valued photography mentors asked if would to do some portraits of her. Most every photo she displayed showed her in younger days, and of course like all of us she aged. She didn't tend to trust cameras capturing her today so I was flattered that she was trusting mine. She regularly promoted my photos to other group members and students as examples of very good skills. Yup, I was developing a pretty high opinion of myself.

I took a couple of days to study artificial lighting setups on YouTube. Considered the differences in fabrics and reflections and how they altered light. Lots of technical considerations around mixing ambient with artificial. The clothing we agreed on for her was perfect, some meant to be sensuous and some fun.

Once there I spent a couple of hours on different poses and props and lighting setups. I think there were three complete wardrobe changes, and a few where jewelry and hairpieces were either added or removed. It was the most involved portrait shoot I had ever done. Probably took 200-300 shots, maybe even more. Knowing that she had spent years as a college art professor teaching photography skills and processing, and her propensity for criticism when deserved, I was exceptionally careful in the images I chose to show her. I think I might have settled on as few as perhaps 2 dozen at most but gosh I was proud of them. The lighting was as perfect as I had done up until then. Poses and props were well-thought-out for the subject and intent. I made sure there were no extraneous distractions, no errant specks of lint, flyaway bits of hair. Color balance and contrast was done to the best of my abilities. I was so proud when I presented them to her and delighted in anticipation of her reaction.

SHE HATED EVERY ONE OF THEM and did not hesitate to tell me why in very expressive terms. Yes I was hurt.

She looked her age, now in her 60's and what I saw thru my lens. I thought she looked great and cameras don't lie, right? Wrong.

There were wrinkles she didn't notice when seeing herself in the mirror. A bit of skin sagging on her neck that the lights only enhanced. Creases on her upper chest from the years of gravity pulling on her breasts that now weren't quite as perky as even a decade earlier. Age spots on her arms and hands, and noticeable wrinkles around her lips. A couple of too obvious bulges. Her hair wasn't as thick and vibrant as when she was a college professor (and erstwhile exotic dancer but that's for a different discussion) and a few pounds had found their way to her since.

And that's when I got my first invaluable lesson from her in dodging, burning, and more than that: meeting expectations.

After another few days of reevaluation, hours of learning techniques I hadn't given any importance to, and several more hours of putting them to effect, I took those same photos back to her. Most now passed muster, and she told me two in particular were the finest images of her taken in a couple of decades, and could she make them her professional and social profile images.

Few women want to look their age. Young wants to look older, older wants to look younger, mothers want to appear vibrant and youthful and energetic if not athletic, and grandmothers want their images to be what they are remembered as. To be fair most men I've photographed are like that too, but as a rule avoid a camera far more aggressively, much more difficult to get cooperation from when they get older (aka over 50). When they find they can't toss a football around with the guys anymore or hike 20 miles into the wilderness to build a cabin the photos stop. Hey, I'm one of 'em.

So saying all that in far fewer words, I don't want to be that guy who doesn't at least try to present the person as they see themselves because "ethics". Yeah, a camera can lie.

[normhead]

One of my most valued photography mentors flattered me with a request to do some portraits of her. Most every photo she displayed showed her in younger days, and of course like all of us she aged.

I spent a couple of hours with different poses and props and lighting setups. Probably took 200-300 shots. Knowing that she had spent years as a college art professor teaching photography and her propensity for criticism when deserved, I was exceptionally careful in the images I chose to show her. I think I might have settled on as few as perhaps 2 dozen at most and gosh I was proud of them. The lighting was as perfect as I had done up until then. Poses and props were ideal for the subject and intent. I made sure there were no extraneous distractions, no errant specks of lint, flyaway bits of hair. I was so proud when I presented them to her.

SHE HATED EVERY ONE OF THEM and did not hesitate to tell me why. Yes I was hurt.

She looked her age, now in her 60's and what I saw thru my lens. Cameras don't lie, right?

There were wrinkles she didn't notice when seeing herself in the mirror. Skin sags on her neck that the lights only enhanced. Creases on her upper chest from the years of gravity pulling on her breasts that now weren't quite as uplifting. Age spots on her arms, and noticeable wrinkles around her lips. A couple of too obvious bulges. Her hair wasn't as thick and vibrant as when she was a college professor (and erstwhile exotic dancer but that's another story altogether)

That's when I got my first invaluable lesson from her in dodging, burning, and more than that: meeting expectations.

After another few days of reevaluation, hours of learning techniques I hadn't given any importance to, and several more hours of putting them to effect, I took those same photos back to her. Most now passed muster, and she told me two in particular were the finest images of her taken in a couple of decades, now her professional and social profile images.

Few women want to look their age. Young wants to look older, older wants to look younger, mothers want to appear vibrant and youthful and energetic if not athletic, and grandmothers want their images to be what they are remembered as. To be fair most men I've photographed are like that too, but avoid a camera far more aggressively and much difficult to get cooperation from when they get older (aka over 50)

I don't want to be that guy who doesn't at least try to present the person as they see themselves. Yeah, a camera can lie.

I tend to take a more philosophical point of view. When I see and talk to people, I probably see them s 30 years younger than they are, because I don't focus on the things that make them look older. I've always felt looking too closely at people was in some way impolite. I want them to look as I see them. If there's an imperfection I didn't see while in casual conversation I usually take it out. It just wasn't part of the experience of looking at that person.

You want the defining features front and centre, and the distractions subdued an in the background. You're capturing the essence, not every little distracting feature. That being said, of the former dancers I've known, it is hard to meet their expectations. They mourn the loss of their physical beauty the way I mourn the loss of my range and throwing arm from when I was good short stop in baseball. We all have memories of ourselves in the past that I makes us sad to realize they are gone.

If I was going to have some kind of image of me done today, I'd probably like an action shot of myself on a tennis court with my racket. Even though I haven't played in 10 years. To me, I'm still that guy, just as in your friend's mind, she was still that dancer.

[gatorguy]

I was talking about it with one of my friends the other day, he asked why so much editing was needed for fixing skin and such, when cameras are "as good as they are now". My reply was along the lines of "yes, they are incredibly good at making us look detailed. That doesn't mean they make us look good when it's guys like us in front of the camera, we can't pose if our lives depend on it "

After thinking about it some more it seems I do have a line I won't cross, and that involves one-click overtly obvious PP programs like Luminar. I own the most recent version of it, the AI one as well. I've toyed with them, done some images in both "just for fun", even resorted to Luminar for an event a few weeks ago where the skies were an integral part of the photos and typical enhancement tricks just weren't cutting it. Even then I modified the presets a LOT, and made sure not to completely duplicate that sky for associated shots. No blue skies were turned into sunsets. For me if ever use the program it will be a rarity and only for very specific needs.

On the other hand I don't have serious qualms around PP using DxO, or Topaz, or LR or PS but not clear in my mind on the rationale, why those are OK but in general Luminar is not for me. Perhaps because some skill along with consideration of "why that photo" is required? I'm not really sure.

[Serkevan]

After thinking about it some more it seems I do have a line I won't cross, and that involves one-click overtly obvious PP programs like Luminar. I own the most recent version of it, the AI one as well. I've toyed with them, done some images in both "just for fun", even resorted to Luminar for an event a few weeks ago where the skies were an integral part of the photos and typical enhancement tricks just weren't cutting it. Even then I modified the presets a LOT, and made sure not to completely duplicate that sky for associated shots. No blue skies were turned into sunsets. For me if ever use the program it will be a rarity and only for very specific needs.

On the other hand I don't have serious qualms around PP using DxO, or Topaz, or LR or PS but not clear in my mind on the rationale, why those are OK but in general Luminar is not for me. Perhaps because some skill along with consideration of "why that photo" is required? I'm not really sure.

Yeah, most I've done is something along these lines where I deliberately made the image painterly, or the second option where I did color substitution with a Technicolor preset - in both cases it's still "what was there" (okay, the lens flare in the second shot wasn't ):