Heresy

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
8:36 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
I know if this is heresy, but, with the advent of Photoshop and similar programs, how many of you are retouching? I want to tell you that when I take a picture of my wife, she looks younger than her younger sister. And, when I apply the same techniques to a friend or client, I often say "And this picture is unretouched. You don't need retouching."

And just the other day I took a telephone pole out of a photograph.

Any other honest documentary photographers caught in Satan's web?

Bill
 
I don't even know how to do it... but don't know if I would in case I knew how to. There's something crass and commercial about retouching, and life and its traces are far too precious to hide.

In sum, I don't do it, and probably wouldn't either.

Now, if it's a problem with an object... I might. :)
 
I'm an old slide film shooter, no retouching for me. I think I'm the exception though. Lots of folks tweak and twiddle stuff here and there. I have to say I've done it a bit to add a kid into a team photograph who was not there on that day.

Love to see what others say though.

Great question.

B2 (;->
 
This is a non-issue. It doesn't bother me particularly. I don't do it much, partly because I'm not that competent in photoshop and partly because I can't be arsed, but it's just a tool like many others. It's not new, of course, just easier.

Regards,

Bill
 
I can, and do, but only for fun, and when I do I make it clear that it is a photoshop creation, not a photograph.

Then again, I'm an amateur and not beholden to someone for the results they want.
 
We should know, or remember, that the term "airbrushed" does not come from photoshopping. There used to be a practice of retouching prints or negatives...

Again, it does have its uses and purpose, just I don't see why do it in my little parcel of the photographic world.
 
cropping, dust & scratches, some "dodging & burning", little duotone work.

don't know how to do anything else really.

how is this different than traditional dodging & burning, toning and hand retouching dust and scratches?

here's a recent image that has a little of all the above applied to it.
 

Attachments

  • 01920004b.jpg
    01920004b.jpg
    162.1 KB · Views: 0
I occasionally remove something from a scene, like a discarded coffee cup that spoils an otherwise nice scenic. Or a cigarette butt from an otherwise nice architectural shot. So sue me! :)

Gene
 
I dodge, burn, crop, dust bust and adjust the contrast and try to limit myself to what you could do in a darkroom. I do not remove or add items. If the shot doesn't work, well, it doesn't work. Lady luck doesn't pay every Friday. Better luck next time. I think it's made me a better shooter, because there is a price to pay form not paying attention or pushing myself.

I have done some portrait work that I retouched. Basic things like removing blemishes etc.
Nothing worse than what Hurrel did on his 8x10 negs.

But I don't start to rearrange people's faces and bodies, like they do in fashion mags.
 
Of course! I recently had to take a bookcase sticking out of a subject's head after a 'snap' shot. Excellent portrait otherwise and he didn't even notice. Non commercial, of course.
Murray
 
I haven't done any major photomanipulations to date, but that doesn't mean I wouldnt. Photography is in my view, never a real representation of the world, so why limit yourself? I can see the point for documentary photography, in which manipulation is frowned upon, and I wouldn't manipulate something I intended to be a documentary image. However in documentary you are still choosing the camera angle, framing, depth of field, film, lens, format etc...
 
Well yes. I'm a digital child. Whatever is fun, whatever is necessary. Removing blemishes, dust, shaping contrast, dodging burning, up to removing backgrounds, color manipulation. The lot.

It's just photography after all, the end justifies the means.

DSC_1363_laurence_630.jpg
 
Fairness (of complexion) is much valued in India. Commercial portrait photographers, who once applied a pink wash to the face part of a 6 x 6 negative with a fine brush, now use the tools in PS.
 
Yep.. why not.. maybe not every photo though.
Portraits for my wedding work are retouched.
Some group shots are also retouched.
Stuff that I shoot, I may crop, and duotone but rarely anything else - oh.. wait.. I remove dust and such.

But really.. there's a paradigm shift over the last 8-10 years and with the juggernaut that is digital continuing to roll along it will soon be short time before people will scratch their heads and wonder about those who may still shoot that stuff called "film"... :)

Dave
 
Last edited:
A photographer friend is sitting next to me. She says she has a rule where portraits are concerned. Pimples can be removed because they are transitory. Moles, on the other hand, are permanent and are not touched.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I know if this is heresy, but, with the advent of Photoshop and similar programs, how many of you are retouching?
Click to expand...

I'm an admitted film snob, but I do post processing and printing in the "digital darkroom" and I don't feel guilty of it.

I use Photoshop mainly for levels and a little cropping.

However, the stuff I take photos of doesn't need any serious retouching.

One thing I have been using, particularly on the large 12x18 prints, is Neat Image to control the grain and noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom