Retouching photographs, is that ethical?

[chloe_peebles@yahoo.com]

Hello all-

I'm just starting off photography, and I was fooling around with a couple pictures of mine on the computer, retouching them, but they look so different afterwards, nothing like what I was actually taking a picture of.
Doesn't retouching in some sense spoil the picture? How far in retouching can you go and still call it photography? Do any professionnals today abstain themselves from retouching?

Thanks for answering my questions!

Chloé

[Saralonde]

In general retouching is fine, except in the case of photojournalism, where all but minimal editing, such as cropping, could be unacceptable.

There are people that strive for SOOC images and others that believe editing is just part of the process. It's just a matter of what you like.

[jeff.amadon]

The only time it's unethical is when you tell people you didn't retouch, but you did. That's called "lying".

Otherwise, the final product should represent what you want it to. It doesn't necessarily have to look like what you saw in reality, either - I mean, think about it - you're already taking 3 dimensions of reality and transforming it into 2 dimensions on a piece of paper (with pixels, even! Reality isn't pixelated!), so by making a photo in the first place you're already misrepresenting reality. You're a monster.

[FormElement]

Also, retouching for that perfect "natural" look is something of an art that comes with a lot of practice and study. I typically retouch anything that might go to print, and I try very hard to avoid indications that the end result is glamour processed. To that extent, I try to leave in anything that counts as character (including fine wrinkles and natural, permanent features), and I focus on retaining maximum skin texture and natural tones. I think people have a right and desire to look their natural best, but never more.

[Jim Bryant]

Not for editorial or magazine purposes.

[Raoul Isidro]

There was a time National Geographic altered their photo of the two great Pyramids in Egypt to be closer together, so as to fit in the front cover of their magazine, and boy, did they get into hot water and tarnished their reputation. It wasn't the real world that was being portrayed in that cover.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by Raoul Isidro

There was a time National Geographic altered their photo of the two great Pyramids in Egypt to be closer together, so as to fit in the front cover of their magazine, and boy, did they get into hot water and tarnished their reputation. It wasn't the real world that was being portrayed in that cover.

Yup........I remember that one too. Kind started the whole ball of wax.........just look at what they do to the covers of those cheesy magazines that are posted in the check out stands at supermarkets here in the U.S. It's not the photographers, but the designers and graphic arts who are unethical.

[PhotoPatzer]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Yup........I remember that one too. Kind started the whole ball of wax.........just look at what they do to the covers of those cheesy magazines that are posted in the check out stands at supermarkets here in the U.S. It's not the photographers, but the designers and graphic arts who are unethical.

You mean Cosmo Mag covers aren't real!!!???

[essvee]

Ansel Adams "adjusted" most every photograph he printed. A little dodging here, some burning there... It's called "art". As others have pointed out, photojournalism has a different set of rules.

[FrankLamont]

It may not be considered 'right', or 'correct' - but honestly, drop this whole 'ethical' idea. Ethics is basically just motivation based on a correct or just idea. As aforementioned, lying is considered unethical, but honestly, photos... no.

RE the retouching photos: yes, if for editorial purposes, it's not right. Otherwise, fine (I still don't approve of major photoshop retouching, though it's thus a personal opinion).