so-called 'portrait professional' software ethics

[Keith]

Part of the problem or most of it is associated with the digital age. To manipulate images in the darkroom obviously required quite a lot of skill and was an art in itself ... these days anyone with the ambition and a computer can move a slider in some piece of software.

 

[lynnb]

Portrait professional is to beauty like politicians are to honesty, its all an illusion that the public swallows hook, line and sinker. Its a case of style trumping substance, exactly whats wrong with the world.

Since Lightroom and Photoshop can do the same thing (it just takes a bit more effort), presumably you are against any use of them?

Cheers,

 

[lynnb]

Part of the problem or most of it is associated with the digital age. To manipulate images in the darkroom obviously required quite a lot of skill and was an art in itself ... these days anyone with the ambition and a computer can move a slider in some piece of software.

…and the skill is in how to use the sliders, and deciding which, if any, to use! Do you remember the first Photoshop images that were publicly available? Most were terrible! And my darkroom prints were nothing to write home about

There will always be an enthusiastic army of people who overdo the tomato sauce.. (ketchup, for our US friends)

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

This has been going on for a long, long time.

Do you think the statues made by the ancient Greek & Romans were true to life?

Do the painters reflect people accurately? Try looking at the scenes in the Sistene Chapel and tell me that's an accurate depicition.

I was taught that the statues and paintings that showed perfection of form were those of the Gods. That being the case, it was actually a very serious sin to emulate those images and there are various myths regarding the consequencies. Even their own kind were not immune, as poor Daphne found out when Apollo took a fancy to her.

When the head on such a statue was that of an imperator, it was to show that the said emperor had been declared divine, by order of the Senate.

As for the Christians, remember Deadly Sin number one? In a man, Pride was about arrogance. In a woman, however, it was very much about appearance, or at least, that's what my teachers said and, with the image of a bark clad Daphne in our minds, we felt it unwise to challenge their views.

 

[lynnb]

Just to avoid confusion: there are two uses to which this (and other retouching software) is put:
1. for retouching, i.e. removing pimples and unsightly blemishes, stray hairs, and I'd also include contrast adjustments, fill light etc.
2. changing the underlying shape of a face or features to conform to an image that does not correspond with how the subject actually looks.

For (1) this software is a useful tool. For (2) this is where ethical considerations apply. Silly to condemn the software for (1). Not so silly to condemn it for (2) - but it does depend on the circumstances, as I outlined above. Generally I am reluctant to noticeably change appearance. No desire to encourage insecurity or image-envy, particularly with young people (mostly females, but increasingly males as well). But each circumstance must be treated on its own merits. An accurate picture of one of my close friends who is 60 yrs old female and suffering cancer, would do much more damage to her fragile self esteem than a retouched one.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Don't you post-process your portrait images? I do.

I have used the program and it has merit; simple sliders for effects that take a lot of work by hand in Photoshop.

I like post-processing to be subtle, something that improves the look but doesn't look like anything has been done.

Some of their recent ads are hardly subtle.