Retouching As An Act Of Kindness
Retouching has come under serious scrutiny lately. Advances in digital photography have made it so easy to manipulate photographs that cover models and celebrities appearing in magazines don’t even look like themselves anymore. In many cases, they don’t even look human.
Photo credit: dl Q Retouch
Critics are saying that even if most of us are aware that the photos are manipulated, we don’t realize how extreme the manipulation is, and so the “perfect” ideal that those photos create is damaging to women and creates body image issues, because it sets impossible beauty standards.
Whether the backlash against extreme retouching in magazines is justified or not, my real-life friend Jan Miller argues in this post that gentle photo retouching of our loved ones can actually be an act of kindness.
—
I rarely retouch individuals in photographs, but I do have a few exceptions.
One major exception is mothers! I have retouched images of my mother and of my mother-in-law without telling them about it.
Recently, I retouched this picture of my mother-in-law and her husband:
Original Photo
Retouched Photo
This photo was taken after a short walk on a hot day. I had not planned on retouching the photo before I sent it to my mother-in-law, but I could not stop myself.
What would it hurt to fix her hair, straighten her necklace, fix her makeup, lose a few wrinkles and pounds—she was thinner a few months earlier!
Also, why not have her husband sit up a little straighter? He would have, if he had not just walked five blocks.
Oh dear, before I knew it, I had made quite a few changes. What can I say? My policy on mother photographs is “Don’t ask, don’t tell!”
This was the last picture that we took of my mother in law and her husband, who died shortly after the picture was taken. There was no chance of getting a more “flattering photo.” Because all the changes were subtle, no one in the family realized that anything was altered. They just looked a little more “rested!”
—
What do you think? Is retouching OK under these circumstances? Would you have done the same? And, if subtle retouching of family photos is OK, is it OK to retouch fashion and celebrity photos too, as long as the retouching is not extreme?
Filed under Women & Feminism —
Email This Post,
Subscribe To Comments, Trackback,
Subscribe Via 
Tess The Bold LIfe responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm →
It depends on the intention. Fashion magazines for both men and women are deceiving. Your friend Jan Miller retouched out of love and it can’t get any better than that. Yes I would do the same for my loved ones.
Photo Retouching | responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 6:52 pm →
[...] an interesting demonstration of the effects of photo retouching. The model is young and beautiful, but even with heavy makeup, she’s human and therefore not [...]
Women's Magazines | responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 6:53 pm →
[...] Retouching: Women’s magazines publish ads and fashion spreads featuring super-thin, [...]
Cath Lawson responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 7:09 pm →
Hi Vered – As much as I’m getting v annoyed with the retouched celebs recently – especially the Beckhams and Brooke Shields, I can see why this woman retouched her inlaws.
I know a woman whose mother in law refused to wear make up to her wedding. It really spoiled the family photos, so the woman had the photographer touch them up, without telling her mother in law.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 7:27 pm →
@ Tess: Exactly. She retouched out of love, and it was subtle. They still look like themselves, only – as she says in the post – rested.
@ Cath Lawson: That’s an interesting story on the wedding photos! I wonder if the mother in law ever suspected.
Andre Kibbe responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 7:42 pm →
I’ve done two stints as a portrait photographer. The first was in the early nineties when the state of the art was sending film rolls to the lab, and retouching was an upsell. The second was about six years ago, when the quality of digital photos started to overtake film, making it possible for me as a freelancer do all of the retouching personally with Photoshop.
I didn’t offer retouching as an add-on, but did it automatically when I felt it made for a better picture. It didn’t matter what my personal opinion of retouching was. Experience showed that unflattering features left in the pictures made them harder to sell. I also had a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, but I don’t remember a single instance of a customer spotting a retouch and preferring the unvarnished version.
Digital cameras and Photoshop are so ubiquitous that I think some retouching is expected, much like makeup on women. As long as the goal isn’t to transform the subject into something unrealistic, I don’t see a problem.
MommyNamedApril responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 8:05 pm →
You already know I’m a retoucher
But then… I can’t keep a secret either… so it’s all done in the open!
RC - RC Rambling responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 8:23 pm →
I think photo retouching is a tricky issue. As I’m good friends with a professional photographer, I’ve frequently asked her to “make us look good” on pictures. I had her fix red eye and discoloration on a family photo, reduce the shiny look of my skin and/or shadow my chin a bit (slimming my face) due to a bad angle of the camera, etc…
As long as the people still look like themselves and the alterations are subtle – not done to make a “perfect” picture – I’m fine with them.
My friend, who is so used to moms wanting every bit of baby acne, birthmarks, etc. removed from professional pictures of their babies, laughed at me when I told her not to mess with my son’s stork mark. She, like me, prefers to leave in those types of things, but she is so used to the requests to “fix that,” that it has become second nature to her to airbrush them slightly. She and I left it in as it was such a part of him as a baby (and I adored that mark), but like she pointed out, it was an unusual request and opposite of what she hears from other moms. At the same time, I know she “polished” me in those early pictures of him and I, and I’m appreciative.
I know how tired I looked, and how bummed I was that I didn’t have time to fix my nails a bit (for those close-up pictures of me holding him). I know she made certain my hands looked fine, not all chapped, so I wouldn’t feel self-conscious. I know she airbrushed my face a bit, so I didn’t look so tired. I know she fixed my chin a bit for the side shot, so I wouldn’t focus on my profile and the weight I should lose, and could focus on the beautiful baby I was holding.
In all of the shots, I still look like me. Just less tired and a little more pulled together. And my son? She fixed a little spit-up issue in a few shots, but left his stork mark (which at age two and a half, is still there, but only as a slight shadow).
Mike Goad responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 8:30 pm →
I don’t generally “retouch” a photo, but I do adjust contrast and saturation, just like I did years ago in the college darkroom.
I recently retouched a photo of a niece who had a very unsightly temporary blemish (a pimple) before I shared the photo online with family.
In the same batch of photos, I copied her dad’s head from one photo to another one. It was after the funeral of one of my wife’s brothers. All 8 of her surviving siblings were in the same place for a change so it was a good photo op that probably wouldn’t happen for a long time, if ever. Unfortunately with so many people in the shot, neither of the photos I shot were quite satisfactory. In one, though, Bob was the only one who was looking away. In the other he was looking straight at the camera. So I blended his head from the good shot of him to the other one. He never knew the difference.
Davina responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 8:32 pm →
Hi Vered. I was saying to myself, “It’s the intent that makes the difference”, just as I scrolled by Tess’s comment. You did an excellent job here. I had to scrutinize these photos to see the difference at first. If you hadn’t mentioned anything I don’t think I would have even noticed. As for those Before and After shots, they could take lessons from you… the retouched women looks like a Barbie Doll.
Elliott - 21st Century Dad responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 8:36 pm →
I totally agree that it’s OK to do things like straighten a necklace, remove a stray piece of hair, etc. The best retouching work looks like nothing was done to the photo at all.
Squawkfox responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 8:40 pm →
My author photo is retouched on the back of my book. I paid extra for the service to prevent scaring those young children looking to learn about personal finance.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm →
@ Andre Kibbe: “some retouching is expected, much like makeup on women. As long as the goal isn’t to transform the subject into something unrealistic, I don’t see a problem.” – I tend to agree.
@ MommyNamedApril: Yes, I remember your post where you painted makeup on yourself and disclosed it.
@ RC – RC Rambling: “As long as the people still look like themselves and the alterations are subtle – not done to make a “perfect” picture – I’m fine with them.” I feel the same.
@ Mike Goad: I think yours is an example of a perfectly legitimate retouching.
@ Davina: “the retouched women looks like a Barbie Doll.” Exactly. She looks plasticky. I hate that look.
@ Elliott: “The best retouching work looks like nothing was done to the photo at all.” Exactly.
@ Squawkfox: Hehe that was nice of you.
Tanya responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 8:55 pm →
Slight retouching – perfectly ok. I even think it’s a very nice thing to make a picture look more flattering. As for models and celebrities, I don’t care – they artificially altered their appearance in real life anyway so they don’t look at all like themeselves anymore, so what they look like in pictures doesn’t matter.
Jannie Funster responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 9:44 pm →
I think what you did was just lovely! At first I could not notice any difference, but then saw the slight changes. Great eyebrow improvement. It was indeed out of kindness. And boy, you are good at the retouching! I do not Phototshop but just recently learned to do a few tricks with my Microsoft Paint and my 7-year-old is so happy as I’ve been able to blend away a big mosquito bite on her forehead, (as Mike Goad with the blemish,) that really stuck out in a couple of her birthday pictures from when she turned 6.
Barbara Swafford responds:
Posted: July 5th, 2009 at 10:51 pm →
Hi Vered – As others mentioned, if retouching is only done to make slight modifications, I have no problem with it. When it’s done to totally transform someone into an image where they no longer look like themselves, then no.
As you’ve written about in the past, it’s those extreme retouched, airbrushed photos that add to the low self esteem of our children plus many others.
Carla responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 12:12 am →
I never retouched any photos of mine (I wouldn’t know where to start), but I think its OK to do in general within reason. The photo of the model didn’t even look like a real person after she was retouched. She was already beautiful before, her skin looked great (even if it was makeup) and had a nice natural skin color. The “after” picture was too washed out – she looked dead.
J.D. Meier responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 1:10 am →
I like the way you walked through and showed the spectrum.
I think you did a great job on the retouch and I think in any case, pictures matter more when you know the people in them. I think of it like portraits … they aren’t meant to capture the person exactly as the light or lens sees them, but instead, to capture the broad strokes and highlight the person’s main features.
ChasingSanity.com responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 3:55 am →
Where would the exceptions end? This reminds me of the post you wrote a while ago about plastic surgery. If I remember correctly, people seemed to support an exception in the case of stars whose income is dependent upon it; but then it just becomes a slippery slope. If we (the viewing public) see it as acceptable for stars to get plastic surgery, and children emulate stars, we shouldn’t be surprised that we’re developing a culture that encourages physical alterations.
Is Photoshop just cheap plastic surgery?
Barbara Ling, Virtual Coach responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 3:57 am →
I couldn’t even tell you had done retouching in the second photo until I compared it to the first.
Would you believe, I used to do that as well? Photo Restoration Wow, it’s been years since I last thought of that aspect of my online business. Gotta love the Photoshop gaussian blur filter.
I have no problems with personal retouching. Then again, I never ever compared myself with fashion models online, so I never had self-image problems like that as well. I hear it’s a pretty big issue with some folk.
Jon Winthorp responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 5:44 am →
I think everyone pretty much assumes you are going to retouch digital photos. I personally would prefer if it weren’t so extreme but I think it’s mostly expected and accepted in todays modern digital age.
Karl Staib - Work Happy Now responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 5:49 am →
That’s a tough question. I can see why retouching wouldn’t be that bad, but I also see the other side. The natural look of a person is more beautiful. I think as a society we like to trick ourselves instead of looking at the truth. It’s why I prefer real noses, breasts and lips to doctor enhanced ones. The natural look is something that I appreciate so much more because it means that people are more accepting of themselves as well as the health concerns of such surgery.
Evelyn Lim responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 6:01 am →
Retouching a photo certainly can help enhance one’s look. I seldom retouch my photos. I can’t do too much anyway because my skills are no good. They’ll just come out so unreal. Where lighting has been bad, it is a good idea to at least brighten up the picture somewhat.
Nathalie Lussier responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 6:20 am →
I think it was sweet of the woman to retouch the photo of her mother in law. I don’t think it’s something that we should do on all photos, but in certain circumstances I don’t see an issue with it. Like others mentioned, it bothers me more when it’s used to transform someone completely, which happens a lot in the media.
Hayden Tompkins responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 8:09 am →
Our wedding pictures were a gift from my husband’s Aunt and were completely untouched. She sent us a ‘preliminary’ version of the photos, intending to Photoshop a speck out of the pictures. (It was on the lens so they were in just about every photo.) But she never got around to it. The interesting thing was that I actually looked pretty GOOD already. She has very high end equipment and I have to wonder if the quality of her camera made a difference in our pictures.
Dot responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 8:42 am →
I agree with ChasingSanity: “Is Photoshop just cheap plastic surgery?” I noticed not only the small touches you mentioned in the mother and father-in-law photos, but also the removal of wrinkles. Why retouch only mothers and fathers? Because they’re are older and we want to show them the “kindness” of making them look younger? Reading between the lines, what you’re saying here and in the linked article is that to look tired, to have wrinkles, to have blemishes, to have a shiny forehead, to have crow’s feet, are not acceptable. A commenter feels that a woman without makeup “ruined the photograph” of a wedding.
Aside from ageism and sexism, we’re also dealing with perfectionism here. When, when, when will it be okay to appear just as we are? There is nothing wrong with attending a wedding without wearing makeup. There is nothing wrong with being tired, having blemishes, having wrinkles. Most of you need to go home and smash your mirrors. You’re not seeing the real you anyway, you’re just seeing society’s expectations and reacting in “horror” at your own normalcy. How can we redefine expectations for women when we’re all promoting the current ones?
John Hoff - WpBlogHost responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 8:58 am →
My father-in-law is a talent agent and photographer and he touches up photos all the time. I don’t think it’s a big deal as long as it’s not changing things up so much that they don’t even look human.
Many times the changes he does are lighting effects. Also, when you zoom in real close to someone, you start to see what the skin looks like up close. Most people don’t look at you that close, so the softening of the skin in close photos makes sense to me.
I see no problem with toying around with family photos – especially if you’re doing it to make fun of them hehe (ok, just kidding).
Sagan responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 10:51 am →
Interesting question! I think that small tweaks, like changing a necklace, is acceptable. It’s when the fashion industry does things like hiding freckles or making legs look several inches thinner that I take issue- there should be a caption that states that the photo has been altered. It’s one thing to be aware that the photo was altered, it’s another to see the caption stating that. It would help people feel better about themselves, because right now it makes people feel a whole lot worse.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am →
@ Tanya: I thought Jan was amazing for doing what she did.
@ Jannie Funster: Blending away temporary blemishes is totally legit.
@ Barbara Swafford: There’s certainly a big difference between subtle retouching and extreme airbrushing.
@ Carla: “The photo of the model didn’t even look like a real person after she was retouched.” Exactly.
@ J.D. Meier: I like the way you put it. The idea is to capture the essence of the person, not the way she happens to look on the day the photo was taken.
@ ChasingSanity: “Is Photoshop just cheap plastic surgery?” In a sense maybe, although a lot less powerful, since it doesn’t alter the person’s real-life appearance.
@ Barbara Ling: “I never ever compared myself with fashion models online, so I never had self-image problems like that as well.” You are a smart woman.
@ Jon Winthorp: I agree it’s expected – but shouldn’t be extreme.
@ Karl Staib: I agree that the very need to retouch, even subtly, means lack of basic self-acceptance.
@ Evelyn Lim: There’s definitely a difference between altering someone’s features, and making the entire photo a little brighter.
@ Nathalie Lussier: I thought it was sweet too. It made me love Jan even more.
@ Hayden Tompkins: Non-retouched wedding photos- wow, that’s rare!
@ Dot: “Aside from ageism and sexism, we’re also dealing with perfectionism here. When, when, when will it be okay to appear just as we are?” As always, you are raising very interesting and valid points here, Dot. I love hearing your perspective.
@ John Hoff: “when you zoom in real close to someone, you start to see what the skin looks like up close. Most people don’t look at you that close, so the softening of the skin in close photos makes sense to me.” It’s true that photos sometimes capture, or highlight, things that in normal daily contact people wouldn’t have noticed.
@ Sagan: “It’s one thing to be aware that the photo was altered, it’s another to see the caption stating that. It would help people feel better about themselves, because right now it makes people feel a whole lot worse.” I completely agree.
Mrs. Micah responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 11:01 am →
I sometimes retouch photos if I have a pimple or temporary blemish. I don’t think I’d change anything that’s actually there. I was very grateful that my senior pic photographer (college) removed a large pimple from my cheek. It was only there a couple days, but it could have been there for the rest of my life.
I go back & forth on the scarring that acne left on my cheeks. Sometimes I lighten it (since in some pictures it barely shows up anyway) and sometimes I just leave it. I keep the originals too.
The Lawyer Mom responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 11:02 am →
Doris Day was constantly “re-touched” with that soft-focus camera lense.
I don’t see the harm in touching up family photos . . . as long as my chin gets “re-touched” in the process.
Diana responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 11:51 am →
First of all, I was a professional retoucher in publishing for almost 20 years, starting with an airbrush and then photoshop. There is a big difference between what I did (removing a tree from someone’s head, an arm sticking into the picture from outside) and airbrushing their face.
Not to be mean but, my reaction to your “kind” retouching of your MIL and FIL was horror! I have many candid pictures of my grandmother and I enjoy every quirk of her dear face. It’s the little things that make recognition possible. A crooked smile, wan lips. Ruddy cheeks are a dead giveaway for someone’s mood or drinks at dinner! (I have this condition, rosacea.) By the way, I prefer the Before photo above.
I wonder…would you have kindly “corrected” a picture of your own mother? Or would you cherish every brown patch, slumped shoulder and furrowed brow she earned taking care of you and your family? I say, we are who we are, and thank goodness for the “little things” that endear us to each other as being all too human. I liked the original Susan Boyle too. But she had to be “brought up to standards.” Fine if it was her choice, but not absolutely necessary.
Michelle @ Find Your Balance responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pm →
Oh yes, this is what photoshop was meant for
I always retouch out zits and shiny skin, on myself or others. It is an act of kindness, truly! Things like that can be distracting and take away from seeing the person…all you see is the red-eye or the messed up hair. So, yes, I am guilty of retouching in this way. For our wedding we hired a cheap photographer bc that’s all we could afford. She got one good shot of my husband and I, but the background had dead grass and his 5 o’clock shadow was just coming in. A little photoshop later and it’s a picture I can be happy with for the rest of our lives.
Lori Hoeck responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm →
In Journalism, I was taught never to “fake” a photo by retouching — it would be the equivalent of “enhancing” the news story. You are supposed to give readers and viewers as much reality as possible so they can decide what they think. With that said, yes, I’ve retouched a wee, little bit on non-journalism portraits, but only when requested.
Dr. J responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm →
I think the first time I saw this was for my high school graduation photos! I never really cared, they were really more for my parents. I don’t think I like the idea of the way photos are changed but that’s the way the world is. Now if we could just apply that to our mirrors
Bonnie/JustPeachyBabyBlog responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm →
I had a similar experience when I got my headshot done by a professional photographer. I asked him if he could retouch the bags under my eyes and he gently declined. He told me, “I don’t want pictures too perfect. They’re not real. I want life in my photos.” It’s interesting because I absolutely loved all the portraits he had of his clients displayed on his walls, but when it came down to my photo, I cringed seeing what I wish wasn’t there. I had to learn from that experience, that I better learn to love who I am more than what I look like, ‘cuz my mommy looks are slowly but surely getting more “lived.”
Thought provoking post!
Patricia responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm →
My geek girl is busy retouching some family photos that hung on the wall in the sunshine and are nearly faded to nothing. I am so happy she is going to do that. We are going to spend our whole Christmas making family photo albums and put them on “memory sticks” so that we will all have copies and not 47 albums to carry around of our lives ….we are going to put names and titles to the pictures so that we will not forget.
Kindness is important to me – Intentions are important to me.
Deception and manipulation feels awful to me…
I also share some of Dot’s ideas too, I feel better with a touch of make up, but I even have trouble with everyone who whitens teeth and had braces – some character is lost.
My Mother looks beautiful on her wedding day but the bouquet of flowers on the mantle looks like something funny for a head piece just sprouting out of the top of her skull – it truly makes her only wedding picture not worth hanging up, where as if the flowers could be modified and you could see her stunning black hair – we could truly see a beautiful moment in time.
Thank you for sharing this.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm →
@ Mrs. Micah: Your pimple example is a very good one.
@ The Lawyer Mom: Indeed, actresses have always been airbrushed, regardless of the technology used.
@ Diana: Interesting points. Dot in her comment above expressed essentially the same opinion. I still think what Jan did was kind. But I can see the other side too.
@ Michelle: “Things like that can be distracting and take away from seeing the person” – I agree, and this goes back to what J.D. Meyer said above – sometimes, light retouching enables us to see the person.
@ Lori Hoeck: You’re making an interesting distinction between journalist and non-journalist standards.
@ Dr. J: “Now if we could just apply that to our mirrors” – exactly.
@ Bonnie: “I better learn to love who I am more than what I look like” – the problem is, we are not living in such a world, so it’s a big struggle to get to that place.
@ Patricia: Sounds like a wonderful family project!
Katie West/The Levity Coach responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 7:11 pm →
Wow! People have such passionate feelings on this. I guess I am in the “what is the intent” camp. I think setting a standard of beauty that may cause harm is one thing and retouching a photo to hep freshen some up is another. If I was the woman in the picture, I would have loved you for the kind retouches.
I think extreme re-touching, when it is obvious, takes everything to a new form. Almost as if it is the blending of human and digital which I find kind of fascinating.
Great topic.
Marelisa responds:
Posted: July 6th, 2009 at 7:45 pm →
I don’t really see the difference between retouching the pictures of celebrities and retouching pictures of “normal” people. In both cases you’re using technology to enhance a person’s looks. Because one is to sell a product and the other is out of kindness? Nope, I don’t see a difference. If someone takes a picture of me on a day in which I have a blemish and they ask me if I want them to Photoshop it, I’d say yes. But if someone asked a marketer running an ad campaing if they wanted the model’s under-eye circles to be Photoshopped, they would say yes too. Same thing.
Kathy | Virtual Impax responds:
Posted: July 7th, 2009 at 8:05 am →
If I were the little voice inside your head, responsible for creating “spin” – I’d say your retouching of the image was simply a way to “align” the image with your memory of the scene!!!
IMHO, there isn’t anything “wrong” with retouching a photo – just as there’s nothing “wrong” with retouching your physical appearance. (Retouching to create a more “accurate” memory – priceless!!!)
My first “food shoot” was truly a lesson in “what you see is not exactly what you should expect in real life.” The food you see in magazines is not edible. That perfect Thanksgiving turkey is covered in shellac to achieve that “appetizing sheen.”
However, you raise an interesting issue… and I believe the “devil” in the whole “retouching” issue is that frequently, most of us don’t stop and think… “this is make believe”.
Real food doesn’t look like it does in the magazines. Real rooms that people live in don’t look like the photos in magazines and real people don’t really look as they appear to look in magazines.
Which brings up the whole “don’t compare your insides to other people’s outsides” issue. Comparing yourself to the images in a magazine is definitely a path to destruction.
janice responds:
Posted: July 7th, 2009 at 11:38 am →
What a wonderful discussion you’ve generated, Vered! I mean no disrespect, but retouching without the person’s knowledge or permission isn’t something I’d ever do, whether or not I thought they’d notice. I agree with Dot and Diana, and many of the comments above stunned, saddened and distressed me.
Friar responds:
Posted: July 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm →
So reading these comments, I’m getting the sense that it’s okay to touch up photos and alter reality. Provided it’s for your own personal reasons, and provided that it’s not “too much”
But it’s NOT okay to do this with glamorous fashion models in women’s magazines. Especially if it’s “unrealistic.”
Somewhere in between, a line is crossed.
It’d be interesting to know where that line is.
And who gets to decide?
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 7th, 2009 at 3:47 pm →
@ Katie West: “If I was the woman in the picture, I would have loved you for the kind retouches.” I feel the same way.
@ Marelisa: Interesting point of view. Thank you for sharing it!
@ Kathy: “Comparing yourself to the images in a magazine is definitely a path to destruction.” I agree. It never occurred to me that those perfect homes and rooms and food displays can be a problem – but you’re right, if we don’t realize it is all fake, they can be.
@ janice and @Friar: Nothing wrong with voicing your opinion, Janice. It seems there are two schools of thoughts on the subject. Friar – I do see what my friend did as kindness, and what the media does as outrageous, but I can certainly see your side of the argument too.
Bamboo Forest - PunIntended responds:
Posted: July 7th, 2009 at 7:07 pm →
Hmmm… I think magazines can retouch all they want. It’s their product–they can run it as they see fit.
I’m not even completely sure what these magazines are about though. If they’re about glamour and gliz, then retouching probably comes with the territory. What can you expect when you’re reading magazines that cover this subject matter?
As far as retouching pictures of people such as relatives… why not! If it makes them look better, what’s wrong with that? As long as it’s not over the top. Probably most appropriate in circumstances such as the one you speak of.
Robin responds:
Posted: July 7th, 2009 at 10:39 pm →
I think it makes perfect sense to fix up photos of people to make them look a little better – I do it all the time – for example if I make a birthday card for them or put a photo on a website. The camera definitely does lie!
Natural responds:
Posted: July 8th, 2009 at 2:50 am →
i wish i had the skills to retouch a photograph with people in it. i don’t. i can play around with landscapes, but wow on the necklace that you straightened out. i would have never imagined that could be done. if i retouch it’s very obvious in the photograph, if it’s a person, i might make it look like a drawing or something else. is that retouching or just playing around with photoshop.
in any event, what you’ve done is not a big deal. i don’t like it when a retouched photo makes a person look totally different, like removing a 2nd chin, making that person slimmer, removing all of their flaws, etc.
Sara responds:
Posted: July 8th, 2009 at 9:47 am →
My husband is a professional photographer in the digital medium. He does mostly weddings and portraits in a photojournalist style. He rarely retouches. Temporary blemishes mainly. Once he lessened a double chin because the woman was looking down as her fiance lifted her and he loved the shot so much but knew the bride would hate it. He didn’t mention it and she loved the shot. Our philosophy in photographing our family is that this is what you get. We want a record of who we are not who we wish we were. My husband has tattoos and his mother removes them in photoshop for her screen saver. I find it sad that she is sitting at home diligently creating the son she wishes she had rather than accepting the amazing son she does have.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 8th, 2009 at 12:31 pm →
@ Bamboo Forest: “If it makes them look better, what’s wrong with that?” I guess some of my commenters feel we should accept people the way they are.
@ Robin: “The camera definitely does lie!” – it’s true that the camera can be seriously harsh, much more so than the naked eye.
@ Natural: I was impressed with Jan’s Photoshop skills too.
@ Sara: Your comment is very powerful. I guess it goes back to, “if you feel the need to retouch, then you don’t really accept people as they are.” Perhaps the most justified cases are where the camera, or the angle at which the photo was taken, exaggerates a flaw that would not be so visible to the naked eye.
Kim Woodbridge responds:
Posted: July 8th, 2009 at 2:55 pm →
I don’t think I would have even noticed the differences if they hadn’t been pointed out to me. I’ve never retouched a photo but then I’m not very good with Photoshop and I don’t have the patience. I kind of feel like the photos should just be left alone though – too much emphasis on appearance.
Damien (no it's not a joke its my name) responds:
Posted: July 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm →
This reply is meant to address mainly the point of womens body image brought up through the idea of standards
Hi, I’m a 15 year old guy and I want to start this post with the disclaimer that I fully and truly believe that women are equal and should be treated thus
However, your post about unattainable beauty, impossible standards and body image issues caused by the media and all of its retouching, etc. really made me laugh a little. Of course the standards are unattainable. But that doesn’t matter in the harsh reality that is high school. Maybe everywhere else is different, but everyone I know does the best they can to look better then they do naturally, they do almost anything to look good, etc. and that’s just the way things are. It’s messed up, YES. Should we do something about it? YES. However no matter what happens things wont change in the next 5-15 years in my honest opinion. So while you should raise your kids to be themselves, etc. just remember that you should also keep an idea in them that image counts for SOMETHING. Sure you may think that they’re always beautiful, however the world sucks… plain and simple… and if you don’t go through the movements as everyone else does there is a very good chance that your life from around age 13+ will be… less good than it would have been if teenagers weren’t the most ruthless people on earth (myself included in that category)…
to sum it up, the system of needing to look good etc. is a bad one, however those who don’t go through the motions nowadays are torn to shreds, they are the ones who’re (I apologize for lack of a way to better articulate this) SCREWED. Teenage-dom will eat people who are ONLY themselve alive. Be yourself, be confident, but be realistic.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 8th, 2009 at 3:47 pm →
@ Kim Woodbridge: “I kind of feel like the photos should just be left alone though – too much emphasis on appearance.” I can see your point.
@ Damien: Thank you for your input. I can’t argue with you: looking good is important. I do my best to look good too. I guess the question is, how far are you willing to go to look good.
Are teens really so cruel? No kindness and empathy whatsoever? It’s been 20 years since I was a teen (I’m 38) – I don’t remember it being so bad. But maybe things are changing. Maybe our culture is growing more and more shallow. Scary thought!
Arswino responds:
Posted: July 9th, 2009 at 8:16 am →
Hi Vered, I have never retouched a photo before. But I think retouching a photo is okay as far as it is for a kindness.
Kikolani responds:
Posted: July 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pm →
I don’t think the retouching that you did took away from what they really look like. Flattering retouching is one thing, but the retouching that they do to celebrities in fashion magazines and tabloids turn them into totally different looking people. Most people don’t have clear complexions and 0% body fat. My thought is that if you can recognize the real person from their photograph, no harm done. If it is retouched to the point that taking off makeup will make them look like a different person, then it has gone too far.
~ Kristi
Tara@Sticky Fingers responds:
Posted: July 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm →
wow Vered, you are good!
I retouch my photos all the time. To take a stray sweet wrapper off the floor from of picture of my daughter looking cute as a button, or the worm she’s just discarded and left looking all limp and dead in the foreground or even the black marker pen she took to her brother’s favourite coat. Sure the thing was ruined but at least it looked good in it’s final photograph!
Rowe responds:
Posted: July 10th, 2009 at 4:32 am →
Vered, this made me smile. I think it is nice you wanted to enhance your mother and father in-laws appearances for a photographic memory. Not that I think they looked that bad in the original shot, but gee, if you have the technology available, then why not, have some fun, enhance away. As for photos of myself, I immediately destroy any photos I see of myself that are not flattering and I do the same with photos I have taken of other people that are not flattering.
Diana responds:
Posted: July 10th, 2009 at 9:24 am →
Almost everyone here seems to be missing the point. We have been programmed to fix reality, sweeten it, to where it becomes artificial. This was the message we’ve been fed by ads since the 50s… the perfect family with the perfect car, the perfect dog in the perfect station wagon and no fast food wrappers anywhere. Little Bonnie’s hair was mussed, oh no! Come on people, we do not all need to become little celebrities. Ask yourself, how many MEN would airbrush out imperfections out of photos (or have it even occur to them?) And then ask yourself are you doing this because women have been programmed to please?????
Even removing the candy wrapper from a candid photo expresses out new ned for perfection, or the appearance of it. If you airbrush out the truth, what do you have a photo of? I say you no longer have captured that moment in time but rather, created your own advertisement of how you wish things had been. Like history books. Just leave out what you don’t want to see or hear? Reality? Why is reality disgusting? I’m shocked at how the generations have changed due to media’s influence over the years (I am 56).
Writer Dad responds:
Posted: July 10th, 2009 at 9:52 am →
You make an excellent case. I generally don’t believe in distorted reality without a tub of popcorn, but doing it so that others feel better about themselves (rather than worse like 99% of cases) is noble indeed.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 10th, 2009 at 11:32 am →
@ Arswino: I’m sure most people are not into retouching at all.
@ Kikolani: I agree with you about the distinction, although several commenters here seem to disagree.
@ Tara: Funny as always.
@ Rowe: “I immediately destroy any photos I see of myself that are not flattering” I do the same. It’s quite shallow of us, isn’t it?
@ Diana: I can’t argue with you about the media’s negative influence. 50% of my posts say basically the same. However, don’t you think people always wanted to airbrush reality? I believe most portraits that were painted hundreds of years ago presented the subject in a flattering light. It seems to me that wanting to present things as “pretty” is very human and not at all a modern invention.
@ Writer Dad: my first reaction to what Jan did was “wow, what a noble thing to do.”
The Stiletto Mom responds:
Posted: July 11th, 2009 at 4:25 am →
That makes me want to cry it’s so sweet…both the fact that she wanted to “fix up” her mother and the fact it was the last picture of the two of them. Honestly, if it’s not a massive overhaul that totally changes the person, I don’t see anything wrong with it. The last time I had my picture taken by a photographer, who is also a mom and a friend, I was standing up with my kids. Got the proofs back and I looked five pounds lighter because she had shaved the baggy parts of the sweater I was wearing off…now thats a good friend!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 12th, 2009 at 8:41 pm →
@ The Stiletto Mom: I totally agree. I thought it was sweet, and I think what your friend did was incredibly sweet too. I was a little surprised at first to read comments by people who thought what she did was wrong, although I have come to respect their views after giving it some thought. But I still think what Jan did was amazing.
JMom responds:
Posted: July 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm →
I am totally impressed with your retouching skills! It took me a few minutes going back and forth between pictures to see the changes.
In this case, I think that retouching the photos is ok because it’s for family. You weren’t trying to sell them as senior models or something like that.
Writing Web Copy That Works | Social Media Marketing responds:
Posted: September 24th, 2009 at 10:46 am →
[...] became apparent when I read the comments to my article on retouching, posted to my personal blog a few weeks [...]