In another area of the forum, I made a comment that gave rise to the following response:
As for enhancing a photo to make someone look their best....hey...it is no different than putting on makeup to make yourself look your best....no different than a photographer manipulating the lighting in the room to make you look your best....no different than taking film into a darkroom to make you look your best....if someone wants a wrinkle removed because it stands out in the harsh lighting the original photo was taken.....so what? No camera reveals exactly what the human eye precieves....so even the rawest of photo file from the most technically advanced camera....is not exactly as "real life" was at that moment....I say....if the photographer likes it....and the subject likes it....then it is a success.
In reply I thought it best to start a new thread here.
Look, I understand the approach that says "if the photographer likes it....and the subject likes it....then it is a success". I can agree with that.
But what I can't accept is the denial that using PortraitPro is, no matter how well intended, an attempt to deceive. I reject entirely the notion that all we are doing is making someone look their best. The reason that the subject likes the result is that the result shows them as the are NOT. That's fine, but as photographers let's just be honest with each other as to what we are doing.
It is a mere rationalization to claim that because a photograph is already not true to reality that you therefore have a license to remove 500 huge freckles and say you are "just making the subject look their best".
I think that it is legitimate under the heading of "making the subject look their best" when you remove harsh lighting. But elongating their face and removing a huge scar is changing what is to what is not.
But that power to change what is to what is not is why we bought PortraitPro, and why we use it. I just ask that we don't lie to each other.
murali
As for enhancing a photo to make someone look their best....hey...it is no different than putting on makeup to make yourself look your best....no different than a photographer manipulating the lighting in the room to make you look your best....no different than taking film into a darkroom to make you look your best....if someone wants a wrinkle removed because it stands out in the harsh lighting the original photo was taken.....so what? No camera reveals exactly what the human eye precieves....so even the rawest of photo file from the most technically advanced camera....is not exactly as "real life" was at that moment....I say....if the photographer likes it....and the subject likes it....then it is a success.
In reply I thought it best to start a new thread here.
Look, I understand the approach that says "if the photographer likes it....and the subject likes it....then it is a success". I can agree with that.
But what I can't accept is the denial that using PortraitPro is, no matter how well intended, an attempt to deceive. I reject entirely the notion that all we are doing is making someone look their best. The reason that the subject likes the result is that the result shows them as the are NOT. That's fine, but as photographers let's just be honest with each other as to what we are doing.
It is a mere rationalization to claim that because a photograph is already not true to reality that you therefore have a license to remove 500 huge freckles and say you are "just making the subject look their best".
I think that it is legitimate under the heading of "making the subject look their best" when you remove harsh lighting. But elongating their face and removing a huge scar is changing what is to what is not.
But that power to change what is to what is not is why we bought PortraitPro, and why we use it. I just ask that we don't lie to each other.
murali