Skin smoothing, people "enhancement"

Hello folks.
Got to get something out, and feel this community may be the best place.

I find I am becoming more cynical of the average use of skin smoothing and "flaw" correction, and would like some others thoughts on this. Let me try to paint my perspective.
Keep in mind, I don't feel that I am a purist, in full, but I have never liked many manipulation elements of top artists in photography where skin smoothing and PP have, what I can only define as, stolen the true character of the subject.
Now, I have never been one to like makeup as per the average North American visage displayed my woman, there is a line that I fell is often crossed. "Makeup" denotes to make up for inadequacies, and while I get some of that, as humans are vain by nature, there is also something lost in it many times I feel.
I just wonder how, as photographers, we are at capturing the true essence of people when we smooth out to a plastic appearance. When we remove actual human face structures, like folds under eyes, deserved wrinkles and "fix people". Again, as with makeup on the masses, I can appreciate a tweak her and there, but as of late, I find even myself starting to make my work look like Barbie doll plastic, devoid of pores, lines, texture.... character!
People (often woman) are beginning to look like a CGI artwork rather then a human. I find my work drifting to look like the rest of the market, to meet the market and expectation I guess. Perhaps that is what I have to sample from, so I adapt to it, I am not sure; I just know I don't like it and the cynisisum grows to where I am failing to appresiate others work and my own, yet I feel lost in finding my genra as of late.
It gets philosophical here, as I say "human"; what I am getting at is, I want to maintain an art form that celebrates the human form, and who are we, if not flawed?
Now if a client wants to look like a lab engineered fantasy model, then I will do it, to some extent, but at the end of the day, I am putting my name to the work, how much do I surrender of my convictions and desires to convey humanity?
The age old question of artest vs. the dollar? (AKA selling out).
I hope not to offend anyones work, though that is a risk, and I am awair there may be no firm answers to such a rant, but I have to throw this out there. Mostly for curriosoty of what others may think, particularly portrate and glamor and nude photographers.
I am simply frusterated with all of this in mind.


Thanks.

I have a slightly different way of looking at it for you to consider...

If you believe that the market shares your point of view, at least to the point where you can compete at a level you're happy with, then why not look at it as a point of differentiation for your business?

If on the other hand, you think photographers should deny this option to their customers, simply because you don't think it's right, then allow me to congratulate you -- because every photographer you manage to convince, means one less that I'll be competing with.

Nice.
The point of view comment is appreciated. Perhaps it is that simple!

I would tend to find myself in agreement, but:

Sometimes, when you take a shot, the camera seems to pick out flaws that you dont even notice when looking. Perhaps the way the lighting and contrast affects the digital image, perhaps because it's a still image and your eyes are drawn far more to details when there is no movement or change in expression to concentrate on.

So, perhaps then there should be some leeway for the photographer to subtly 'iron out' the flaws... not to make the model look the way he wants, but to make her look the way she looked to him.

I'd like to expound on what timmy said up there just a touch... (which I completely agree with, btw)

Everything you do when making a photograph qualifies as manipulation of a two-dimensional microsecond. I think it's important to maximise the way that image communicates, because you only have that microsecond at your disposal.

The word photogenic exists to describe people who reflect more of themselves in pictures, than do other less photogenic people. Some really beautiful people lose a lot of themselves when only an instant is captured.

So, whether it's removing wrinkles or in fact enhancing them (which happens a lot too, though not in glamour photography), enhancing the communication offered by a picture in order to offer a broader truth, is more important than reflecting the truth of that microsecond.

It's an art that's in demand, and those who are good get highly paid.

timmyeatchips wrote in post #6476975
I would tend to find myself in agreement, but:

Sometimes, when you take a shot, the camera seems to pick out flaws that you dont even notice when looking. Perhaps the way the lighting and contrast affects the digital image, perhaps because it's a still image and your eyes are drawn far more to details when there is no movement or change in expression to concentrate on.

So, perhaps then there should be some leeway for the photographer to subtly 'iron out' the flaws... not to make the model look the way he wants, but to make her look the way she looked to him.

Good thoughts!

milorad wrote in post #6477218
Everything you do when making a photograph qualifies as manipulation of a two-dimensional microsecond. I think it's important to maximise the way that image communicates, because you only have that microsecond at your disposal.

The word photogenic exists to describe people who reflect more of themselves in pictures, than do other less photogenic people. Some really beautiful people lose a lot of themselves when only an instant is captured.

So, whether it's removing wrinkles or in fact enhancing them (which happens a lot too, though not in glamour photography), enhancing the communication offered by a picture in order to offer a broader truth, is more important than reflecting the truth of that microsecond.

That is a fascinating view point.
I am writing that down to further contemplate on it!

Ultimately I guess the baseline (which I have further thought about today) is what my ethical mindset, and my interpretation of truth, in my vision of personal art... ultimately deciding what styles and services I will navigate to and offer.
Maybe I should stick to product photography for a bit longer!

I think I have been evaluating all of this in the last bit, more so, do to attending a college Photojournalism course. It can get fairly philosophical there at times!

Good stuff guys!

DC Fan wrote in post #6477646
It's an art that's in demand, and those who are good get highly paid.

There is no question of that.
My mandate however as an artist using photography, is to maintain a balance from mainstream profitable and the alternative... not so profitable?!

"I am already starving, so might as well be an artist!"