When 'photographers' post processing goes too far: No, this is not about distortion of really, well, it is but that is not the what gets me going here... It seems that now...

Rongnongno Loc: FL

No, this is not about distortion of really, well, it is but that is not the what gets me going here...

It seems that now 'photographers' (I would call them con artists not photographers) seem to want to charge extra for simple things like minor retouching whitening teeth by example. I was aware of it before but now it the envelope is pushed further with 'slimming down' option, in effect altering a picture in such a way that reality has no place left.

I am really irked by this as offering this (slimming) as part of a default package. It is wrong in my opinion.

Your thoughts?

MW

Its not wrong and its not right. Its just a tool. Photography is just a tool.

It can be a tool to accurately record reality in two dimensions. It can be a tool to achieve an artistic statement. Etc. Etc.

Wrong happens when a tool is used to maliciously harm or deceive.

sshinn1 Loc: Phoenix

MW wrote:

Its not wrong and its not right. Its just a tool. Photography is just a tool.

It can be a tool to accurately record reality in two dimensions. It can be a tool to achieve an artistic statement. Etc. Etc.

Wrong happens when a tool is used to maliciously harm or deceive.

I agree, if that's what the client wants and pays for what is wrong with it? Unless it's a picture for an online dating service of course :lol:

Rongnongno Loc: FL

It is not about right or wrong of PP but about charging for basic things (like whitening teeth) and propagating the idea that 'a better virtual you' can be made at a $$$ package.

This smacks of unnecessary esthetic surgery to 'conform'. This is where I start to balk.

HowardPepper Loc: Palm Coast, FL

I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

If there over 18, why not. If there under 18 parental permission may be required.

How people view themselves, and how the world sees them are to separate issues. If the client wishes to do the mirror mirror on the wall routine, then it's there call.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

MW wrote:

Its not wrong and its not right. Its just a tool. Photography is just a tool. ......It can be a tool to accurately record reality in two dimensions. It can be a tool to achieve an artistic statement. Etc. Etc......
Wrong happens when a tool is used to maliciously harm or deceive.

First caveman to use pigments in his cave painting instead of just scratching the rock faced the same question.

XKaliber

Rongnongno wrote:

No, this is not about distortion of really, well, ... (show quote)

You are probably from the same generation I am. If so, you understand the value of being honest and forthcoming rather than contributing to the deceptiveness we find all around us.
I certainly can not fault you for the frustration and indignation you are expressing nor are you wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

Unfortunately,

The problems are many for ever recovering from the socio-immorality we find everywhere. There is much to much idol worshiping going on in our prevalent society. Looking young and perfect is of utmost importance to the majority. Photoshopping to project this "perfection" has become the norm in a vast percentage of the photographic images we see of celebrities. If it is available to the rick and famous, then the public as a whole wants it available for their use also.

The post production artists you are upset with are only providing a service that finds itself much in demand. If someone is willing to pay for the service, someone is going to provide that service, regardless of the dishonesty and wrongness it projects.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

XKaliber wrote:

...The post production artists you are upset with are only providing a service that finds itself much in demand...

When I took portraits, it would never have come to my mind to charge for removing minor things or correcting a color, that was part of the job. Now it seems that some folks are trying to itemize everything which irritates me as it is ripping off the client for something they have already paid for otherwise, well, every picture us a snapshot, regardless of who took it.

XKaliber wrote:

...If someone is willing to pay for the service, someone is going to provide that service, regardless of the dishonesty and wrongness it projects.

I also agree here what troubles is the advertising of it, creating a 'do like the Jones' effect and if you cannot afford it you are a dork (pushing the envelope here).

I have no problem with folks asking and the demand being met (and paid). I have a problem with contracts that are made to rip-off the clients and make them feel inadequate. This is especially true when it comes to kids as this trend started with the senior pictures.

twindad Loc: SW Michigan, frolicking in the snow.

Rongnongno wrote:

No, this is not about distortion of really, well, ... (show quote)

Ya know, I don't always agree with you, but at least you're interesting, and that's why I always read your posts.

MW

HowardPepper wrote:

I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.

I recently read part of an essay by Anse Adams. Recalling one part of it as best I can - Every photograph starting from the very first on is an illusion. I takes light reflected from four dimensional space (four because thing move) and projects it as a pattern on to a finite, static two dimensional space. No photograph can show reality; the very best you can hope for is the "illusion of reality". The only question is whether the illusion achieve your intent.

Mickey88 Loc: Central Florida

Rongnongno wrote:

No, this is not about distortion of really, well, ... (show quote)

the thinning part might be new, but teeth whitening ,blemish removal, removing glare from glasses etc were offered at least as far back as the 70's by pro labs, and were a service that was charged for

oldmalky Loc: West Midlands,England.

if you use PP then what is the difference it is altering the finished article im just surprised Ansel Adams hasn't been dragged into the discussion.

pixbyjnjphotos Loc: Apache Junction,AZ

One must weigh the operations necessary to fix the problems. Whitening the teeth, fixing a couple of blemishes, and recoloring the eyes would probably be accomplished by an expert in less than 10 minutes. And, they are going to charge extra for that???? Come on! That's the rip off. If the photo requires a lot of work especially eyeglass glare removal maybe the photo wasn't taken as well as it should have been taken in the first place. Personally, I would want to do a retake if there was an extreme amount of post-processing involved. Putting extras into a contract for the purpose of collecting a lot of extra money is just plain greed. Have a GREAT DAY!

pixbyjnjphotos Loc: Apache Junction,AZ

One must weigh the operations necessary to fix the problems. Whitening the teeth, fixing a couple of blemishes, and recoloring the eyes would probably be accomplished by an expert in less than 10 minutes. And, they are going to charge extra for that???? Come on! That's the rip off. If the photo requires a lot of work especially eyeglass glare removal maybe the photo wasn't taken as well as it should have been taken in the first place. Unprofessional to say the least. Personally, I would want to do a retake if there was an extreme amount of post-processing involved. Putting extras into a contract for the purpose of collecting a lot of extra money is just plain greed. One must also remember that the customer is always right. What the customer wants the customer gets. Depending on the customer's ridiculous demands, maybe the customer should have to pay dearly. Have a GREAT DAY!