Retouching & ethics.

I'm about to retouch some model photos I shot a week ago and these are the first photos like this that I've retouched.

The model has some very minor acne on her face and I have no qualms about getting rid of that. My question is whether or not it's okay (i.e., ethical) for me to retouch a few small moles on her skin. We're not talking Cindy Crawford moles...just a few very small ones on her face and neck. My concern is how she will be looked upon when an agent (or whoever) sees her portfolio and sees that she actually has some small moles but that they aren't on her skin in her portfolio photos.

Any rules of thumb or best practices in the industry?

--
Jay
http://www.jpwphoto.com

My view would be quite simple, if it is permanent leave it, if it is temporary (like a pimple) remove it.

The model will probably think she looks a little odd with things removed she has had there for years

Just my opinion

It would not be "unethical" to give her a third eye. You can do whatever you want, it's your art.

Is there a client here, or is this you doing your work and expressing your creative vision? If the model hired you for the photos for her book, then you should talk to her about what she wants as you would with any client project. In this case the objective is to deliver for the client.

If the model worked with you to because she viewed you as a capable artist and wanted some images with your vision/style -- create what you want. If she doesn't like it then she took a chance and it didn't work out. Taking risks is part of creating art for all involved. Make the best art you can and let the chips fall where they may.

How she presents herself to her clients (mole or not) is not your concern.

This issue had nothing to do with ethics on your part.

Good luck!

but I know well put when I read it, and that's well put.

Michael

Model portfolio and actor portfolio shots have several different criteria.

Generally, model headshots for agency selection and actor headshots require the most "faithful" presentation of the person's actual appearance--full head view, no fancy lighting, ordinary street makeup, no retouching. They want a true view of the person's appearance. If a fault isn't covered by street makeup, you as the photographer should leave it alone.

Portfolio shots that purport to show character, personality, or versatility have more leeway in terms of pose and lighting. However, a general rule with them is still that it is the model's responsibility to make any appearance changes--covering up moles or blemishes with makeup, using a cap to fill tooth gaps, et cetera.

In that case, your retouching would be only for correcting the problems you cause, such as lightening skin folds caused by the pose (like the neck folds created when a model looks backward over her shoulder, closing gaps in clothing, and such other things you should have caught when you took the picture.

If the model is inexperienced at makeup, that might be a case in which you--after discussion with her--decide to retouch things that would have been corrected by an expert makeup artist.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

AugustPhoto said:

It would not be "unethical" to give her a third eye. You can do
whatever you want, it's your art.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm..... "whatever you want" in the name of "art" may be a bit of a stretch - unless conscience and potential lawsuits are not of much concern.

If you were to draw her with a pencil on a sketch pad, or paint a beautiful oil painting of her, would you fee compelled to draw in the details of moles and acne?

If not, what's the difference?

I think the more important question is if some mole represents her personality or visual trademark in a positive way.

In the same vein, do you think that changing the photo to black and white is a distortion of reality and the truth?

What about if she wears makeup or not? Is there a difference between covering a mole with foundation or by zapping it in photoshop?

Furthermore, if you shoot her with a wide angle or telephoto, or with a fliter, does that distort reality and the truth? What about bokeh and blurred backgrounds?

.... and so on

Various photo equipment and lights totally alter reality anyway, all the time. Composition itself is an alteration of reality. Our cameras see life differently that we see with our eyes. Perception of what we see in our finished images may be closer to reality than what comes from your camera uneditied.

Just make the best images of her you can, and that's the rule. Everyone has a beautiful side and anyone can be ugly.
--
Stan Schutze
http://www.pbase.com/schutze/modeling

'AMATEURS worry about equipment. PROFESSIONALS worry about money. MASTERS worry about light' ... I love it all and I don't worry about anything

It sounds like the pics were taken for her benefit: finding a modeling job. Maybe in the future you can make it easier by having in your model release permission for retouching facial blemishes......

--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D,Oly5060 and lots of typos

Have you seen this?

http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/blonde/blonde1.html

He explains what he did to improve the image and change the model's looks.

Retouching, even if extreme, is fine.

My photography skills suck, so I use my skills with photoshop to turn my crappy photos into works of art. Sure, it might be a little unethical, but I don't see anyone complaining.

--
Fluffy Germanski
Canon EOS 5Dust

Seems that you obviously have a pretty comprehensive working knowledge of this subject.
Thanks for sharing it with us.
Tom

--
(See equipment list under 'profile')

She's 16 and an aspiring model. She probably wouldn't have any better idea than I would. And this was my first model shoot...thus the question to you guys.

--
Jay
http://www.jpwphoto.com

The entire point of model photography is to mold the model into whatever idea you have. It is not portrait photography where the objective is to capture the likeness/essence of a person. Models are supposed to be easy to change into something/someone else. That's the whole point of model photography.

Even in a model's portfolio, the vast majority of images are heavily retouched. Just saw books of some of the most famous/successful models last Friday and about 90% of the images were heavily retouched (either tears or final art before the copy was applied). That's what is used these days. Polaroids (or their digital equivalents) and casting calls are the tools for evaluating the un-modified version of the model if the client wants that info.

Conscience pertains to the message of your art, not the process or that you are adapting the model to portray sometheing/someone else.

RDKirk said:

Generally, model headshots for agency selection and actor headshots
require the most "faithful" presentation of the person's actual
appearance--full head view, no fancy lighting, ordinary street
makeup, no retouching. They want a true view of the person's
appearance. If a fault isn't covered by street makeup, you as the
photographer should leave it alone.

Click to expand...

This was my thinking...thus the conservative approach.

I think maybe I'll just give them (them being the model and her mother) both versions. One with basic retouching, and one with more extensive retouching.

--
Jay
http://www.jpwphoto.com

Nice work. Great little hoax you have going. I'm impressed. Pretty funny, lot's of satire and you just don't give up. You always have a comeback when someone starts to question your existence.

Its kind of cruel of you though to keep preying on the good intentions of the people on this forum don't you think? Or is that the ultimate intention? Does that give you kicks?

My guess is that you are a guy with a certain amount of knowledge about digital stuff, just enough to know how to ask questions and make comments tjat will push peoples' buttons. Perhaps some gender identity issues. Aftyer all, where else but on the web could you get away with this foolishness. Like I said, very clever.
Do you know Amanda Taylor?
Sincerely,
--
Wendell
http://www.wendellworld.com

'Not everything that counts can be counted, not everything that can be counted counts.'
Albert Einstein

wrider said:

Nice work. Great little hoax you have going. I'm impressed. Pretty
funny, lot's of satire and you just don't give up. You always have
a comeback when someone starts to question your existence.
Its kind of cruel of you though to keep preying on the good
intentions of the people on this forum don't you think?

Click to expand...

I don't really see how I have a "hoax going".

All I have been doing is asking basic questions, but you and your friends keep following me around forum to forum and saying over and over that I'm a hoax.

Ask yourself, who has more time on their hands? The person asking for help, or the guy that follows people around all over the forums saying the same thing over and over?

--
Fluffy Germanski
Canon EOS 5Dust

Time on my hands? Not really. A few minutes a day. Hey, I'm enjoying your posts as much as you are.
--
Wendell
http://www.wendellworld.com

'Not everything that counts can be counted, not everything that can be counted counts.'
Albert Einstein

I think you missed this statement by the OP: "My concern is how she will be looked upon when an agent (or whoever) sees her portfolio and sees that she actually has some small moles but that they aren't on her skin in her portfolio photos."

If the only purpose for the photographs is to suit the photographer's purpose, then of course he can do as he wishes.

If they are primary to fulfil some other purpose, then that may not be the case.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Habemus_Canon said:

Have you seen this?

http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/blonde/blonde1.html

He explains what he did to improve the image and change the model's
looks.

Click to expand...

Did you read the text? He was meeting the requirements of the art director.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

FluffyG said:

I don't really see how I have a "hoax going".

All I have been doing is asking basic questions, but you and your
friends keep following me around forum to forum and saying over and
over that I'm a hoax.

Click to expand...

well, sometimes its fun to read one of your 'blond girl' messages, but it's not fair to all those people that don't visit these forums regularly and take the time to write you an intelligent response.