Editing people's physical characteristics - when is it appropriate?

I've had a couple talks with some family and friends recently about when it's appropriate to edit out people's blemishes and whatnot and when to alter other physical shortcomings. Some people insist that no editing of that sort is appropriate and that by doing it, the picture somehow becomes "fake." I don't agree with this, but editing should definitely be approached in moderation. This really mostly applies to portrait shots since everything is presented in so much more detail.

I generally find it appropriate to edit out any blemishes that I deem "temporary" such as pimples and other little things. If someone has a mole or something similar or anything that is permanent and everyone knows that they have it, it's extremely difficult to justify editing out so it almost always stays. I try not to edit anything that seems obvious. I also do some light skin smoothing (really just blur a little bit) because most people want portraits to be relatively soft and not show amazing detail. Nobody in the world looks great very close up.

A dicier issue is when is it appropriate (if ever) to slim an overweight person down (or other general enhancement/reduction)​? I try to stay away from this as much as possible, but sometimes the person in the picture specifically asks me to slim them down a bit or change this or that, and am I supposed to object? I always oblige and of course the person looks much better afterwards. I never do very much and nobody can tell that any picture was edited unless if I show the original. Sometimes using creative camera angles in an attempt to make a person look better just aren't good enough. I always feel a little awkward and sort of sketchy editing someone's physical characteristics (outside of small blemishes) and hate it when someone considers any picture of mine "not real."

Any thoughts/comments on this topic are appreciated. I would love to know how everyone else approaches this.

I edit people to the point that their photos look the way I see them in real life. Generally because I really only take pictures of friends and family, I am looking at them through a "lens of love" and I do take some liberties with wrinkles and other permanent issues that I don't see when I look at them in real life. They all love me for it, so it's all good.

i edit out things that wont be there long term (rash, cuts, zits, etc). scars and birthmarks? nah... and if they say lose the fat? its your own duty to lose weight, not your photographers

This is a tough topic.

Pros want to sell photos to feed their kids and the way they do that is by making their client happy with their photos. What better way to do that then to "slim down" someone who is overweight. They will love it and spend some cash because you are a "great photographer"!

I have a buddy that goes WAY too far with PP. I have heard a few of his clients complain due to excessive PP (specifically toying with eye color). I recently took some photos at my Grandmother's 80th birthday. I got an absolutely stunning candid of her in deep thought. His first comment was that I should smooth her wrinkles, whiten her teeth and touch up her gray. I said I would never do that. My main reason is I want my kids to know what their Great Grandmother really looked like at 80, not some post processed fake that I have digitally created.

Andrea, I think that was a great answer, "lens of love" works for me.

I think it all depends on what photos you are taking, as stated above an 80 year old grandmother, then leave the picture alone.

If you are taking photos professionally then more PP work should be done. Clienst should be asked about what they want, maybe even have some images that are worked on to see what they thing of your work.

I think that a photo can be quite harsh in its "judgement" of someone. As Andrea says, sometimes we don't see characteristics of a person when we look at them, but we see those same things when we look at a photo of them.

With temporary things, such as spots, bruises etc, I'll usually take them out. But with more permanent flaws, I usually "lessen" rather than remove them. One instance that springs to mind is of some christening photos I took. The godmother had one very yellow tooth, with the rest fairly white. I lessened the yellow of the singular tooth, to take its starkness away. It was no substitute for cosmetic work, but it made the godmother say "ooh, that's a cute photo of the baby" rather than "christ, look at my yellow tooth".

This is an interesting topic, something I have thought about myself!

I think you should do editing in moderation, so that it's not noticable that you have done anything. But if someone asks you to "slim them down" or turn their skin color to purple, you might as well do it since they asked!

My policy is that temporary things are edited out if they affect the image, permanent features no - unless that's what the subject/client wants.

I am also in the camp of editing out temporary blemishes, and then I make a judgement call on other things but if I decide to do anything about the permanant items such as moles, etc. it's only to lessen the appearance. So I typically copy to a new layer, healing brush out the item, then lower the opacity of that layer to bring it back in from the underlying layer. Bringing it back up just to the point where you can see it there, but is less visible that the original image. How much of it to bring back is all personal choice and depends. I do this same technique with eyebags, wrinkles, etc.

My situation is also like the lens of love thing--almost all my pictures are of people I know, so I'm always trying to make them look as good as I see them to be since usually a 100% crop isn't too nice to anyone's facial features, but at the same time I'm not skilled enough nor do I want to take the time to do any serious PP (weight loss, etc). Mostly it's just getting rid of blemishes and that sort of stuff.

Lots of very interesting thoughts/ideas, guys. I certainly agree with the idea of lessening certain flaws that draw attention away from the intended focal point of the picture.

Dermit wrote in post #5820597
I am also in the camp of editing out temporary blemishes, and then I make a judgement call on other things but if I decide to do anything about the permanant items such as moles, etc. it's only to lessen the appearance. So I typically copy to a new layer, healing brush out the item, then lower the opacity of that layer to bring it back in from the underlying layer. Bringing it back up just to the point where you can see it there, but is less visible that the original image. How much of it to bring back is all personal choice and depends. I do this same technique with eyebags, wrinkles, etc.

I can't believe I never thought to do this! I usually edit these things on the original layer, so I might start using layers like you to simply draw attention away, when warranted. Thanks.