Moles and Freckles: Leave them alone or remove them?

I'm finishing up a little PP work on some pictures I took at my cousins wedding. I didn't get paid to do this, I just always take tons of pictures at any family event and send them out to everybody. Here lies my question though.
Obviously people have acne and I always remove that as best as I can from the images because nobody wants to look back on the pictures and think "my face was a disaster that day!" However; I'm wondering if I'm supposed to remove the moles and/or freckles on peoples faces and chest, or if people know that they have moles and freckles and would be upset if they thought I took it out because I thought it was unsightly (ex. Cindy Crawford has her mole in all her pictures, I don't think she'd be happy if someone removed it with PP). If this was just a random group of people I didn't know, I would probably just remove them and send the pictures, but considering it's family I really don't want anyone to be upset.

So:
Leave them! People will think you're criticizing their appearance if you remove them!

OR

Take that stuff out! Nobody will notice they've been removed and the people will look better in the shots!

With

I"m always SO conflicted on this issue. Always. However, comma, here is how I resolve it: I think about how I would want a photographer to deal with images of ME that are out there. I honestly think I prefer to see images of myself WITHOUT my moles and bumps. Yeah, whatever. I know they really ARE there, and all that crap, but, still...people who might see the photo and don't know me or haven't paid attention don't know that. Overall, get rid of them and present me as moleless. I will assume they just didn't show up on camera because you are SUCH a fabulous photographer. Or whatever.

When I am photoshopping images, I think about the subject and if they are as completely freakin' shallow as I clearly MUST be, and I remove the moles without question. If there is a question about how they would accept that, I will still dial down the opacity so they are there, but not jumping out screaming for attention. With male subjects, I don't typically touch things. they usually don't care. And yes, I know, I know, accept people as they ARE. That's a load o' crap most of the time. They want to be seen as how they wish they were, so I deliver. It's a judgement call.

Remove them , and keep original layers. I have a feeling it will be their favorite photography. It's not like your adding hair to a bald man.

leave a few for taste.
Remove the most obnoxious ones

I would say leave them - in fact I would question why you'd want to remove them. You're not trying to craft "perfect" people for the glitz magazines, you're trying to record the family event. So record the family with all their warts, grey hair, baldness and more.

I think a few selective touchups might be suitable; eh lessening baggy eyes a little and cleaning up stray hairs - but I'd leave it at that.

I would offer both. Personally I remove "flaws" from even my kids photo's. And most Senior shoots the parents ask me to remove acne, scars and other flaws.

I'd count spots/acne a little differently as its a temporary feature on most people - esp teenages - so it comes and goes naturally from them whilst the remainder is far more permanent to their facial makeup and appearance.
Offering both is probably the most diplomatic approach and at least lets them make the choice rather than you making the choice for them on how they "should" look.

Interesting question as I have just finished a family portrait shoot. One of the daughters (aged 15) was very photogenic and loved being in front of the camera. She had a few spots, lots of pretty freckles and a couple of large freckles - looked almost like moles)

I healed out all the spots / acne, I healed out the large dark freckles/ moles. I then did a bit of skin smoothing on a separate layer and turned down the opacity so the freckles could be seen but were not so pronounced.

I think I got the balance about right because her freckles could be seen if viewed close up but, from a distance they were barely visible.

it's a tough one for sure, I've done both and usually I will have the two side by side and see if I can get someone else's opinion. Generally if a mole or freckle for example is quite noticeable then I'll leave it alone as it can become more noticeable if it isn't there any more.

I usually remove the small freckles and moles, but am more careful if the thing is prominent and remarkable to the point where it becomes part of that persons look. You wouldnt get rid of Cindy Crawford's beauty mark, she would look different. Aunt Sally may not look as good with hers, but if she looks a lot different without it leave it in or have a discussion about the level of retouching preferred.

From a customer standpoint I wouldnt want freckles removed they are a part of what I look like the good and the bad

I leave them. I personally love freckles and will only remove them if asked. Moles, I ask about. Some people love theirs, some people don't. My rule is, if it's permanent it stays unless I am specifically asked to remove it.

I also tend to clean up people's faces. Freckles stay but I don't totally remove the moles. Instead I minimise them as if some sort of foundation make-up was applied. Some men wear make-up too! Basically I lessen their intensity some. Acne is always cleaned up. I wouldn't want to see myself in an image framed in my mothers house with my face all broken out and I bet no one else would either.

fraiseap wrote in post #11246048
I healed out all the spots / acne, I healed out the large dark freckles/ moles. I then did a bit of skin smoothing on a separate layer and turned down the opacity so the freckles could be seen but were not so pronounced.

I think I got the balance about right because her freckles could be seen if viewed close up but, from a distance they were barely visible.

i like this idea if anything. i would think it would make someone more self concsious if removing it completely. something thats a part of them to be removed by someone might make them think 'o, people think its ugly and don't want to see it'

I retouch any non-permanent blemish without question.

One thing to remember is that a photograph emphasizes facial imperfections, primarily because it "fixes" them in place. Even if a person is comfortable with a mole or scar, they rarely "see" the imperfection as sharply defined as the camera sees it. So I will soften and lighten almost any spot--unless like Cindy Crawford's beauty spot, it's clear that the person herself emphasizes it.

Many dark-skinned people grow moles as a sign of age. A middle-aged woman with dark skin may have many, many small moles. As with other signs of aging, removing most of those tiny moles is normally appreciated. The larger moles will be the older character marks, so I leave them--but lighten them.

It takes about five years before a person is comfortable with how they looked five years earlier, so I generally "roll back the last five years" with respect to any signs of age over 35. A sixty-year old woman doesn't want to look 30, but she won't mind looking 55. That means removing the latest wrinkles, moles, and age spots and lightening the older ones.

I also remove those horizontal rings most people have around their necks.