Ethical Issues surrounding Post-processing and re-touching?

[Jamesino]

As a photographer and former Photoshop graphic manipulation artist, I feel no ethical restraints when I am post-processing and airbrushing my photos.

However, several colleagues of mine feel that "photoshopping" or otherwise doing any post-processing work on photographs is ethically/morally incorrect and is in bad taste. After explaining that when shooting in RAW, it is neccessary for me to post-process my pictures- to adjust white balance, saturation, contrast, etc..., they still don't understand and feel that photography should be preserved "as shot."

As well, many of them feel that airbrushing and removal of skin blemishes is also ethically wrong. They say that it is giving the viewers a false impression of "real beauty" and removing the human sides of the models.

What can I say to counter these points?

[Bumgardnern]

This is an age old debate.

My personal feelings is that a photograph is both an historical document and a work of art. The photograph shows certain truths that are colored by the vision of the person taking the photograph. What is not included is just as important as what is. The persons choice of editing is extremely important it tells you something about the subject, the artist, and the reason for taking the photograph. Historians have this debate all the time. It is also one that is waged with editorial photographers. For the most part for editorial you can do wb, curves, and stuff that does not affect what actually took place.

As long as you are not portraying the photo as editorial have fun with it. People have been editing photos since the beginning of photography. I don't see an ethical delimia unless you are portraying the picture as truth. If it is an artistic vision then it is great

[Wilt]

Yes, age old debate which actually even predates digital! In the darkroom you can alter white balance, contrast, etc. (though ability to adjust saturation was more dependent upon the choice of color print paper or process...e.g. Cibachrome) And you can darken regions, and lighten regions of the photo, analogous to PP with Photoshop. And while Photoshop makes certain operations easier, many can be done with darkroom technicqes as well as retouching the negative or retouching the print! Removal of blemishes was long practiced with medium and large format negatives!

Point out ALL of the above was true for film, well before digital. Digital makes it simpler for Joe Average to do it reasonably well. Then tell them "Get over it!"

Inserting something into the photo is a somewhat different story, for a photojournalist, as it does not portay a reflection of those people and things present in the scene at the time the photo was taken. If you intensify the clouds, is that 'acceptable'? Yet the boundary of 'acceptable' alteration is blurred by making a cloudy sky look blue! That can be as much a 'lie' as adding Heather Locklear to your wedding photos! So what is 'acceptable' vs. 'not acceptable'?

If you are not documenting the scene, but you are portraying an articstic rendition, then what is 'reality' in that circumstance?! In that case, everything is the artist's imagination, just as an oil painting. The photograph is simply the new media used to capture than imagination. So is there anything that is a lie?

[airfrogusmc]

The final image is what matters. If you're not shooting news or documentary type photography or something that needs to be factual don't worry about it. Do what is needed to get the image the way you saw it at exposure whatever that means.

[Glenn NK]

What can I say to counter these points?

Do you have to say anything?

After all, those are just someone else's opinions. Are their opinions any more valid than your's?

It seems that their somewhat narrow minds have preconceived ideas of how things should be, and they've mistaken the ideas for the truth.

[Zazoh]

I'm not even sure an untouched photograph represents reality. Just as the written sentence "The day is bright" can mean different things to different people, an image has that same ambiguity.

It is unethical to represent something that isn't. But retouching an image by itself is not unethical.

You and your friends need to debate something juicy like gun control, abortion or religion ... more fun .... ;-)

[Wilt]

I'm not even sure an untouched photograph represents reality. Just as the written sentence "The day is bright" can mean different things to different people, an image has that same ambiguity.

Exactly! To this point, two months ago I attended a christening. The church inside was very dimly lit. I set ISO 3200 and shot hand held. To look at the photos, one would think that the church was very bright and cheery! To the contrary, it was so dark because the person in charge of turning on the lights was over an hour late! So the photograph did NOT portray reality, for a totally untouched photo (even with no PP at all, it looked that way)

[bieber]

You can almost as much with artificial lighting and angle trickery, but I bet they weren't complaining about that ;) Photography as an art is about creating a beautiful image, not an "authentic" image: do whatever you want with yours.

[KarlosDaJackal]

Peoples eyes and cameras do not work the same.

When you talk to a person you like, you look in their eyes. When you talk to a person you don't like you look at everything but them.

Either way you don't see the blemishes. So people will always look worse in a photo than they do in real life because the viewer is not interacting with them, their role has changed to examining them.

So If you want to capture a person as the human eye would see them, you have to remove the blemishes.

Another approach is to treat the artform as an art. Painters don't go to great lengths to explain to people where there red ink comes from. They just say here is a painting, take it or leave it.

[breal101]

Yes, age old debate which actually even predates digital! In the darkroom you can alter white balance, contrast, etc. (though ability to adjust saturation was more dependent upon the choice of color print paper or process...e.g. Cibachrome) And you can darken regions, and lighten regions of the photo, analogous to PP with Photoshop. And while Photoshop makes certain operations easier, many can be done with darkroom technicqes as well as retouching the negative or retouching the print! Removal of blemishes was long practiced with medium and large format negatives!

Point out ALL of the above was true for film, well before digital. Digital makes it simpler for Joe Average to do it reasonably well. Then tell them "Get over it!"

Inserting something into the photo is a somewhat different story, for a photojournalist, as it does not portay a reflection of those people and things present in the scene at the time the photo was taken. If you intensify the clouds, is that 'acceptable'? Yet the boundary of 'acceptable' alteration is blurred by making a cloudy sky look blue! That can be as much a 'lie' as adding Heather Locklear to your wedding photos! So what is 'acceptable' vs. 'not acceptable'?

If you are not documenting the scene, but you are portraying an articstic rendition, then what is 'reality' in that circumstance?! In that case, everything is the artist's imagination, just as an oil painting. The photograph is simply the new media used to capture than imagination. So is there anything that is a lie?

I agree, back in my lab days Kodak introduced a high contrast color paper which was intended to "save" underexposed negatives. Many people liked the way it looked with normally exposed negatives so we had to stock a lot of it. Fuji paper gave a much different look to a picture, so was that unethical to request HC paper or go to a lab that used Fuji? I really don't think it was. Is it unethical to slim someones face in a portrait, not if that is what they want. When I went digital my first thoughts were goodbye reality, retouching is wonderful. If you don't like it don't do it.

[Tixeon]

Dad Blasted Purist!!!....:p

[elfy]

Look, when you listen to a piece of music you don't sit there and think about how they made the different sounds do you? You don't sit and go, "Well they've used reverb or distortion on that guitar so that's not how a guitar string actually sounds when it's plucked. Therefore, they have cheated." You enjoy it for what it is. I really don't see how it should be any different for photography.

The end product is the important thing. If you run around naked with a chicken on your head to achieve it, then it's no one else's business but yours. :D

[Gethin]

i think since it's (mostly) all digital these days, PP and things like photoshop is just another tool or accessory, no different really to something like how a filter or a flash alters the 'actual scene'.

[nicksan]

Many also believe that having sex before marriage is unethical.
I'm not one of them...

[MattMoore]

Is it unethical is an author writes a bestseller on a computer?

The source & vision remain the same regardless of the medium used to record it, it is when they try to pass off fiction as fact that the problem begins.

[Andrushka]

Many also believe that having sex before marriage is unethical.
I'm not one of them...

now that would be an interesting topic of discussion!:eek:

people make the same kind of "purist" statements regarding music recording, like "well was that a sampled drum?" or was that a "violin loop blended in, or was there a live violinist?" does it matter if you like the final outcome?

just don't BS that something is real if its not, the rest is art and can be altered in post or pre-engineered or set-up before hand anyway. If you are being paid, than do what makes the client happy... if its for you, do what you think looks good. Photography is subjective from the start - even starting with your choice of lens length.

If you want the subjects in your photos to look airbrushed, thats your call I would think.

[bieber]

Many also believe that having sex before marriage is unethical.
I'm not one of them...
How is this even remotely relevant? Some people believe that women in public with uncovered heads is unethical: I'm not one of them. Should we bring up every other religious/societal convention while we're at it?

[nicksan]

It's not. It was my feeble attempt at humor.
I forgot who the target audience was...;)

Oh, BTW, I am thinking about trading in my SUV for a horse and carriage to go green...I can use horse crap for to grow vegetables in my garden.

Technology marches on...end of story.

How is this even remotely relevant? Some people believe that women in public with uncovered heads is unethical: I'm not one of them. Should we bring up every other religious/societal convention while we're at it?

[DucoNihilum]

As long as you aren't a photojournalist there is no ethical dilemma. If you are a photojournalist and edit a photo, expect to be fired.

[bieber]

As long as you aren't a photojournalist there is no ethical dilemma. If you are a photojournalist and edit a photo, expect to be fired.
Depends on the circumstances. If it's clearly altered, and run as "photo illustration," I would expect no such trouble to ensue