Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

It's easier to flag the "ok"s. Just put "beginner" somewhere on your images.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I believe that an image should look realistic. I shoot a lot of people and I do touchup and sometimes even use a touchup program but always in such a way that the person still looks real and not plastic. Here is one I shot last week.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

So you are ok with drastically altering your images and pretending to the world that your photographs are real - and that you were really clever in shooting them. Hope it makes you happy and fulfils your ego.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

What upset her?

PHW Loc: Madison, WI

Do you have examples?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Rongnongno Loc: FL

When something is requested, I am for charging folks. When the retouching is minor (like whiter teeth and removing blemishes) it should be included in the price as this know how is what separates a pro from and idiot.

As an old time portraitist this kind of 'service' was done in a lab and included in the price. Some needed more than other so it was a win/loss situation that usually evened out.

It is different from airline pricing as if you recall bandages adds to the plane weight and raises the cost of flying a plane.

In the case of digital photography minor PP does not raise the cost. The digital world suppressed the lab cost because a minimal can be done by anyone in less than 5 minutes which was nearly impossible before unless you had you had you own lab. There is no justification for gouging clients and itemizing is just that: gouging. It says: I can do it, I know how to do it but if you want it you pay for it. It resumes to this: You pay me to take pictures. I will deliver unfinished work unless you pay me more. Once again I am not talking about major alterations that take time and should never be included.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I've never taken a fake photograph with a camera. How is that done?

On the other hand, what is pictured in a photograph is not "real", and is not the object photographed.

What purpose, other than ego, is there in roping off vast portions of photography (specifically the part one individual doesn't care to do) and claiming it isn't really photography?

There are vast portions of photography that I've never been interested in, and may never be interested in. I think it would be pretty silly of me to claim any of that is not photography! For example, I've never had any desire to take pictures of big rocks... but I'll be the first to tell you that Ansel Adams was a fine photographer!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I have lots of fun altering photos - and cloning etc. Unfortunately there are people who do it and then pretend the pic has not been tampered with. Do you not agree that that is deception?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

It all depends on what you think it the best business plan. I shoot mostly business portraits, and include retouching in the price of the finished digital files. It seems since the recession, my corporate clients have gotten tighter with their money, and don't like to hear that anything costs extra. I probably average about 15 minutes of post processing per photo, but some people require more major alterations than others, and I figure it averages out. If I told them the more difficult people would cost extra, they would probably say no, and then the people I shot wouldn't be happy.

hiker60 Loc: Northern Idaho

My opinion in working with clients, paying or nonpaying (nonprofit groups) is simple: Minor touch-up work is ok [whitening of teeth]; major changes require a note that the picture has been edited, especially if the piece is published (Example: removing someone from a picture or inserting something into a picture, a composite photo.]. This is an ethical decision on my part.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

And I whole hardheartedly agree with that. What I disagree with (not you) is folks that deliberately try to jack up the price under the hidden threat of delivering sub-par work.

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

:thumbup:

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That does not make it a deception.

If I sell pictures of a sunset, and advertize it as a pretty photograph and never mention that it has been manipulated, that is in no way a deception. It is just that, a pretty picture of sunset.

But claiming that you ever make a photograph that is not tampered with is a deception. All photographs, by definition, are an illusion and have been tampered with. Claiming that because you only tamper with it in this way or that, as opposed the next photographer that does something else, is just an ego game to justify an insecurity.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Are you talking about people actually saying they haven't altered their photos, or just not volunteering the information? When I show people manipulated photos I don't go into what all I have done to them. I would like them to judge the photos on their own merit. If they asked I would tell them. I don't see that as deception.