Options
Removing blemishes v who the person is
happysmileylady
Registered Users Posts: 195 Major grins
When post processing shots of people, what do you do about removing blemishes (assuming you remove those...I know some don't.)
I am not necessarily talking about the occasional zit or scratch, more things like moles, scars etc. Things that are more permanent like that are a part of who the person is...and some folks embrace that, whereas others dislike those sorts of blemishes.
Do you leave those things or remove them or do something else?
I am not necessarily talking about the occasional zit or scratch, more things like moles, scars etc. Things that are more permanent like that are a part of who the person is...and some folks embrace that, whereas others dislike those sorts of blemishes.
Do you leave those things or remove them or do something else?
0
Comments
My philosophy is to remove stuff that is temporary - zits, etc.
Wrinkles, moles, scars are fair game for softening or minimizing, but not removing.
Just my $0.02....
I get rid of acne and other temporary blemishes. I get rid of or soften wrinkles sometimes as well, depending on the subject. For example if I had a shot of a teenage girl and you could see a fine crease on her forehead, I might get rid of it entirely. On the other hand, I wouldn't completely remove the wrinkles from the forehead of a 60 year old woman because it would look unnatural and bizzare. As for moles and scars, if it's a tiny mole in an area that I think is distracting I might remove it, but if it's prominent and in an obvious location I'll either leave it as-is or soften it a bit. Same with scars.
If it's a portrait for the client, I don't want them looking at it an immediately thinking, "Oh, he removed my _______ with photoshop." I want them to think, "Wow, I look great in this photo!" One good rule of thumb for permanent scars and moles could be to ask yourself whether you noticed it when you met with them and did the shoot. When you look at a photograph of someone you notice every little detail in a way that you wouldn't if you were engaging them in conversation. Therefore, if you want to present a person as they appear in real life it makes sense to get rid of those distracting elements.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
Take freckles for example. Are they blemishes? Opinions seem to vary on this. Different post moves will emphasize freckles (green channel luminosity blend, e.g.), others will play them down (surface blur.) Even if you don't explicitly remove them, your workflow will bring them out or not. What to do? Kind of depends on who you are trying to please and that depends on what you are going to do with the image.
A forensic photo of a crime victim should be unretouched.
A portrait should generally respect the wishes of the person being photographed. Some people might prefer a flattering photo, if less than realistic.
Fine art photography can be highly evocative, and you might want to emphasize those features or remove them.
There is photography as a recording device where faithful recording is critical. Then there's photography as expressive artform.
I agree that blemishes, scars, etc. can be indicative of who someone is. People's self-image and how others view them can be very different. I think you need to use good judgment and consider what's appropriate from the different viewpoints.
My wife, for example, will remark about the wrinkles under her eyes, when she sees an unretouched photo. If I retouch them, so they stand out, not only will she be offended, she'll be resistant to being photographed. If I as to stand on some sort of artistic principle and insist that photographs should faithfully reproduce what the eye sees, whowould benefit?!
Cheers,
Mitch