People Told Me My Photos Are Too Photoshopped… Here’s My Reply And The Original Images
I recently shared a photo I'm proud of on Instagram. Reactions ranged from very positive to those denying my work the title of “a photograph,” calling it “computer graphics,” or “photo-graphics.” This got me thinking. Do people really understand the concept of photography art and why are they so adamantly against photo manipulation?
I became passionate about creative photography after the birth of my twin daughters Annabella and Juliette; my little kids inspire me every day in my work. Through photography, I strive to enter the world of my two children, to grasp all the childhood whimsies, and to recreate these magical moments that we all look back on and smile. This means using whatever photographic tools will get me closest to that vision. Photo editing is just one of those tools.
Photography was invented over 180 years ago, but it's only with the relatively recent invention of digital editing software that creative photo manipulation has become the subject of popular controversy. Really though, this just shows our lack of awareness of the history of photography: image manipulation didn't start with Photoshop. In fact, it's always been an essential part of what photographers do.
As I dug a little deeper, I came to realize that art and news photographers have been manipulating their photographs since the very first days of photography. So the argument that a particular image is less of a photograph because it has been retouched didn't seem at all convincing to me. If we started ruling out retouched and photoshopped images from the category of photographs, we would be left with not a single photograph in the world.
Since the invention of photography, image manipulation has been a key part of it. The 19th-century photographers liked to call it “removing imperfections” from the shot, and they did it by painting directly onto the glass-plate negatives. Sometimes, an entire person would be “painted out”. Moreover, they would combine multiple frames in the darkroom to add dramatic elements to their stunning pictures.
Similarly, most new photographs, made over the course of the last century, will have been cropped, dodged, burned, and even painted to some degree. The photographer does this in order to better illustrate the story in the paper. Even the snaps in the family photo album vary, depending on the film, the chemicals, and the color settings used. Most photos are certainly not simply neutral, un-manipulated snatches of the real world. They are rather a real-world story told in a beautiful way.
Sure, I can see why heavy use of Photoshop might be worrying in the area of photojournalism, but I do not consider myself a documentary photographer. Far from it. In fact, I think my work is a little like making a still movie. Image manipulation has always been a part of filmmaking too, but nobody ever suggested that a movie using a blue - screen or CGI is not a movie (cinematography?). There is art in applying these techniques as well. Thus, I will use whatever photographic tools will get me closest to my photo ideas.
The word photography literally means writing or drawing with light. The process of making an entirely computer-generated image - such as a digital illustration or animation - couldn't really be described as "writing with light." This contrasts sharply with my way of working: in simple terms, I make images using a box with a hole that lets light in - so they can definitely be considered "photo-graphs". The fact that I edit these images afterward using software doesn't change this. In any case, it's not fundamentally different from what people were doing in the darkroom over a century ago.
Now that I have tried to raise awareness about the history of and about photography in general, I would like to hear your opinion. How would you define photography? Please share your thoughts on when a photograph stops being a photograph. How much manipulation is too much manipulation?
More info: Instagram
This post may include affiliate links.
Happiness Is...
This one, for me, has the most dramatic change in mood. It goes from enjoying small moments despite adversity, to the sweet, pure innocence of childhood.
My Father has been a Professional Photographer (working for large Corp's) for 65 years + My mother for 50 yrs. I will not go without telling you "This is an amazing Photo!!" Never ever read comments and if you do don't believe them. They are speaking about themselves (how their brain processes) it never has anything whatsoever to do with you! The Art that gets into Museums even have critics. No matter how wonderful anyone is at anything, there will be people who feel hate inside themselves and just have to express it any moment they can.... That is not about you! Please, believe in YOU... there is no one in the world like you... be that, and let everyone else blab whatever they need to blab.... whatever their brain is processing AT THAT MOMENT.... it's always changing. This is about your life, not theirs. {someone may even criticize this}
Your comment is so heartwarming, truly! <3
Load More Replies...Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people will not feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone and as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give others permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
Did you think of these words? They are perfect, it reminds me of the kinda thing that one of my friends would say. Made me.sk
Load More Replies...Lilia, Your final images show photographic craftmanship! Well done!
Oh, thank you so much, Berten!
Load More Replies...Thank you, Serena! It was a wonderful summer day!
Load More Replies...I love both the original photos, and the manipulated ones. At the end of the day, it is your artistic expression coming through on the finished product, and you're right to be proud of your work. To all the people just plainly saying "I hate it" or "it's top photoshopped", is that really constructive...? You're entitled to your opinion, but simply dragging someone's work because you don't like it is unnecessary.
People feel envy when they take photos with a phone and they don't turn out like this. The lighting and lenses, F-stops and apertures are correct. The mind does the adjusting for us so much so that when we see the photo we took it takes a little bit of color correction and post processing to get the image back to what we saw in the first place. It's perfectly ok and not cheating. If she didn't know what she was doing the info would not be in the file to fix it.
Completely adorable , light increased to increase the beauty magnificently , tender capture beautifully edited
Spring Breeze
Just one comment which goes for all your photos in this article. I prefer the originals for a simple reason: they are what they are. Your editing has in some cases masked that your lighting was off which I can understand. I just wouldn’t want to resort to Photoshop if a simple adjustment of your lens or a slightly different position of the model would have sufficed. Second, in many images you do more than slight adjustments. You fundamentally change them into something you didn’t photograph. While that is your choice I don’t really like it. Small adjustments like contrast and brightness are one thing, but you repeatedly adjust the colours in the picture which also is something you could have done while photographing. Anyway, it’s your choice and if you’re happy with it do continue.
Why does it matter if the beautiful result is done with the camera itself or with a computer "filter"? Either you adjust the camera and environment before, or adjust it afterwards. People are far too critical. I love your photos--you capture the essence of the subjects SO well. Kudos; and I second another BP member's advice: I would stop reading comments. Or at least discern the negative ones immediately and do NOT internalize them. :)
Load More Replies...They are beautiful photographs, on my opinion. Don’t be bothered by negative comments.
The coloration would have been perfect in between these pics - in my opinion.
Beautiful photograph, the original one. Lovely mood. However, the photoshopping of a little girl's skin is not necessary, makes her look like she's wearing makeup. Certainly does not need any.
I bet if she turned around, she would have tiny little fiery wings! <3 <3
Softness
The altered photo brings out such lovely colors. In other words, it makes the colors "pop"! :-)
You have a very good eye for beauty. This child came from the background to the foreground because of what you felt! Beautiful picture.
My husband has been a professional photographer (college degree in portraiture) for about 30 years. He is in complete agreement with you! When I showed him your article and your work, his response was "Those re great! Those are amazing!" He's with you: photography= light writing. Image manipulation is part of creating a good, sell-able image. My mother's senior portrait from 1961 was black and white and hand colored. It, as well has her bridal portrait of the same style, are stunning!
Either you didn't read the introduction or you're completely missing the point. Photographs are just another form of art and self expression. Try just enjoying the mage for what it is, a persons memories of their cherished children. I promise it won't hurt a bit.
Load More Replies...This completely changes the location from an open field with some bushes in the background to a grove in a forest with large old trees. If I was in the photo I'd like to remember where it was taken.
Completely changed the background again 100% photoshopped and not photo manipulation. Photo manipulation is changing the tone, the lighting etc ... as soon as you remove the background, slim down a model, remove aspects of the image etc, this becomes 'photoshopped' and not photo manipulation.
Did you actually read the whole intro to this article? Your comments are redundant.
Load More Replies...Happiness Is... A Warm Puppy
Lisa, thanks a lot! The image was taken during my workshop in London; we were all amazed at the instant connection between our model and the puppy.
Load More Replies...Agreed. This one, imo, is the most successfully enhanced ones of the whole series - enhancing, making colours pop, but not altering the model herself. Beautiful pic, lovely mood captured.
Load More Replies...How can enriching the colors make a bad photo? Your photos a GORGEOUS.
I prefer the original, again the enhanced seems to have been overdone slightly x
The coloration shuld have been perfect in between these pics - in my opinion.
I am delighted with the results of post-production in this image, thanks for the thoughtful suggestions though. Any chance you need to calibrate your screen? Sometimes colors can be a bit off... This image looks fantastic on archival print paper :)
Load More Replies...I prefer your original photos they are beautiful and tell powerful stories. .. but after the color grading they look like thousands of photos on the net. It takes away their uniqueness. It seems like everbody is using the same colors for photos featuring kids. Your shots age good I dont think you need to photoshop them so much.
Breathe In The Ocean
Me too, the first reminds me of actual time spent at the shore, the light quality, the second is a movie shot in front of a green screen
Load More Replies...I like them both - you see different things in each one. They inspire different feelings.
YES, I agree. Personally, I do feel the first one could have been polished a bit more, and if that's her definition of fixing up a picture, who am I to correct her? The two pictures communicate different moods; perhaps she simply did not want to communicate the mood of the first image. You can not compare the two pictures. They aren't meant to look alike.
Load More Replies...I like the untouched photo much more. She looks very contemplative and the entire shot takes on a more mysterious quality.
Spring Is Here
You did not just "remove imperfections from the shot"... This is a whole lot more of changing. It still is very beautiful work.
Photography is art and like all art forms it's the interpretation of the artist that matters. Everyone that views it will see it from their own perspective, which may or may not be like anyone elses or the artists. Framing the focal point of the pictures is also open to interpretation. I prefer to frame with photo manipulation instead of matting. I like the open and more natural look. I prefer to make images that evoke an emotion or tell a story instead of just capturing the moment. Painters have been doing this for thousands of years. These pictures are stunning.
And as an added side note to my previous post here...In my opinion, the object in these photos are not meant to be "natural, good ol' plain shots" ,rather, "whimsical, imaginative, creative, and bright". If you like, and PREFER, this kind of photo, these are perfect! If you like plain Jane photos, well, dont use this photographer. I think you capture creativity very well in your work! Love these!
If my parents were enhancing my eye and hair colour in my childhood pics Im not sure how I would feel. If you not happy about yourself and enhance your pics its one thing - doing it to your children is another..
I'd agree if these were photos taken just for memories of the children or a particular day but these are photo shoots and meant as art. The photographer isn't changing anything dramatic about the children - no new noses or anything.
Load More Replies...All of these pictures are absolutely beautiful, but I think this one is my favorite. Very pretty with the flowers added. Very nice work!
I love the added touch of flowers around the right side. Looking at the "touched up" version, I feel as if she is standing in an enchanted garden and surrounded by beauty. I love the effect you give off in ALL your photos, they literally feel magical. Some prefer more natural photos as far as light and filters but others want their photos "fixed up" and perfect. I prefer the latter and LOVE your work😍👍 keep the awesome photos coming, please!
What is the goal here? To make a commercial poster? A postcard? The original is very beutyful as it is. Just a little cropping at the right and that’s fine.
What's up with the flower movements, though? No offense though, I love the photo and the girl <3
All, thanks for your question! Flowers in the original image have a "poor look", it was a good reason for me to replace them.
Load More Replies...Prefer the original. This one touched up gives the impression that the photographer things that even little girls' slightly darker tones under their eyes need covering up / photoshopping. They certainly do not, she would have been lovely as is.
The originap is already beautiful, no need to edit this actually
Can You Keep A Secret?
Lilia, these are all beautiful photographs! The different tonal qualities you show make each one so different! They are amazing! Most people don’t understand the definition of the word photograph or photographer. A picture does not a photographer make! But you, are a true photographer! Thank you, for these amazing sweet pictures!
Awe, Kim, many thanks for your positivity and kindness! <3
Load More Replies...That little girl is so gorgeous but in the altered, she looks almost plastic.
Eyes are kindda creepy. Also the skin + eyes make her look too much like a porcelain doll. -> SYx2011690...621174.jpg
I know that that picture you commented was an exaggeration, but it doesn't look anything like the girl in the picture ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Load More Replies...S**t... yes, TONS of photoshop. Look at the girls face... Why this????
I was wondering the same thing, in this and some other photos here. Looks like now she is wearing makeup. She certainly did not need it. I also wonder, what the girl will think of this herself now, let alone when she grows up.
Load More Replies...My god, why to work so much on a child skin??? That´s crazy... The final result looks like a painting, with all the photoshop. Bad, really bad.
I like most of the altered photo, but not the eyes on the little girl. The alteration makes them look fake and doll-like and her natural eye colour is quite pretty, should have enhanced it, not changed it completely.
Boy And A Girl
While the crop of second photo is better, I like the green of trees in the first one more.
Maybe too much of a sepia tone in the 2nd photo. I really like the fresh colors of the original.
What Does The Tide Bring
It's like picture #5. The orange background takes away all innocence of a child playing at a beach and instead gives the picture a doomsday feeling.
Load More Replies...Again - the original photo is fresh and innocent and lovely. The altered photo takes a strange post-apocalyptic turn. Ray Bradbury's "Dark They Were, and Golden-Eyed" colony on Mars story pops into my head on this one.
The original looks much more fresh and clean. Better! I must agree with the people saying you overdo it with the photoshopping in most of your photos
I truly prefer the unaltered one here. The added colors really weigh this lovely image down
I am sorry but in my opinion the altered pic looks like a watercolor drawing, not something made with a camera.
At first, I loved what I was seeing. I agree it IS photography. Photography has changed over the decades and some processing is part of that process now. However, more and more I see OVER processing and over saturation. The original photo here is so sweet, precious, and pure. All of the white really makes the little girl shine. I Feel her curiosity. The altered photo, however, is just too much. It almost feels like there's a forest fire somewhere close. Try not using so much orange and yellow, keep it more natural looking and not as processed looking.
Relax a little bit the warm effect ... you always tend to show the sky as too red. It's a little bit distracting
Hey thanks for your thoughtful suggestion, but I love the final results and this is how I process my work :)
Load More Replies...Sister's Kiss
I actually much prefer the unaltered photo on this entry. There's authentic, cheerful fall crispness about it that quite draws me in. I think this is lost in all the red tones applied in the altered photo and the rain effect comes off as very false. For some reason it reminds me of those rather tacky Sears Family Photo pics circa 1970's & '80's where the subject was placed in a champagne glass or something with a loved one in profile looming them. Again, just my opinion and the original photo is lovely in its own right.
Oops! Sorry didn’t know the universe will implode if I misspelled rain 🤣
Load More Replies...Love that original photo... so cute and genuine. But the altered photo is too altered for my tastes.
I actually prefer the original, the colour in the altered one is too false x
I also prefer the original. More realistic. If the leaves aren't really red, then why mess with it?
Dawning
I actually prefer the original photo here. It's much more ethereal and pleasant to my eye than the second one, which changes to an almost hellish, bizarre feel. I mean no offense, it's just my opinion. From all the shots, this one with the girl on the beach is the one that I think it's been worked a bit too much. Very beautiful photos, though.
I agree, there's something almost apocalyptic about the background in the altered photo.
Load More Replies...OMG... ease up on the reddish and orange! It really hurt my eyes as I scrolled down. The deep saturation really detracts from the girl and her lantern, which I think pops in the original.
Ok slow down- it did not "really hurt" you eyes. Eyeroll. Ouch.
Load More Replies...This is going far too far, IMO. The altered photo looks so artificial that it lost all emotion.
The first few are simple color corrections. There's no room for relevant criticism any more than criticizing a photo lab for corrections to it's prints. As the gallery descends, however, the simple corrections begin to morph into surprisingly maudlin compositing. The photographs themselves are sensitive, seen nicely, and self-sufficient, I don't get the need to turn them into Thomas Kinkaid kitsch.
I love how you make sure that the main subjects(these gorgeous children) of your photographs are always the priority. Your lighting and color work enhances the children’s faces. Your color work is amazing. Unfortunately no matter what you do in life somebody will be a total turd about it. Continue following your vision, it’s spot on. I’m obviously not a professional, but your work makes me relaxed and happy while I view it. Art is supposed to make you feel, you’re doing your job!
Well, I think it's beautiful photography. I like the second photo better because you see the little girl's face better. As for the tone and colours, it's up to the artist to decide what she likes? I notice she puts a lot of yellow or warmth in most of her shots in photoshop. So what? It's beautiful!
Unfortunately we can't always take a picture of what the reason was that brought us to the location. We can't always recreate the beauty when it is time to take the photo. By editing it, we can let the picture reflect the true beauty the artist sees.
I'll give my take on photo manipulation, and the 3 levels of it: The first level is what I would consider a normal part of real photography. This is just upping the exposure or reducing the contrast on an entire image, or cropping or zooming; stuff one can do in the Photos app on OSX without any real photo manipulation software. The second level is Lilia's work here: adding hues, tones, effects, etc. Even adding or removing bits of the images counts as second level. And this is the most controversial because it makes beautiful art, but a lot of people pretend they didn't manipulate their photos, and that these are the originals. That's why there was backlash to your photos: people thought you were claiming they were unedited. the third level is like Eric Johansson's art: using Photoshop to combine several, dozens, or even hundreds of photos and images into one piece of art. In conclusion, image manipulation software is a great tool to improve photos, but it needs to come with honesty.
Very interesting, Django! Thanks for sharing! What do you think about this: https://gajitz.com/fake-history-6-photo-manipulations-way-before-photoshop/
Load More Replies...I believe everyone deserves the right to express their vision and creativity. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your work doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Jealousy is often expressed through negativity which is sad. It would be pretty boring if everyone would do things the same. I know for a fact that you inspire a lot of people, creatively and professionally. You are enhancing your subjects by letting them shine, giving them the full attention in the photography without distractions. All the edits are gorgeous and you can be very proud of yourself!
Love these before and afters, your editing is sublime, the completed portraits are simply amazing, love each and every one!
Thank you so much, dear Clare! <3
Load More Replies...I completely disagree with the negative consensus put across in a lot of the comments here. The second I saw this photo next to the original it swept me back to my childhood. All that she has done to this photo is give us as adults, the outlook we had on the world as innocent, carefree children. Don't you remember the world looking like the second photo when you were a child? Every flower was bursting with colour and beautiful smells, the waters of the lakes we explored with our friends and families sparkled with an irredeccent magical light. Every strand of grass and each one of the leaves was as fluorescent as we drew them in our artworks! These photos don't scream fake or overly edited to me. Instead they lift me up to a level of joy and beautiful innocence that was my entire childhood, before the wonder, and the colour, and the joy faded into the muted reality we see today.
I think they are beautiful photos. Some had too much editing for my taste, but it's just my personal preference.
Thanks a lot! We all have different preferences! :)
Load More Replies...This debate will never end. There are those that feel like they are some how better than you because the do not edit their images. Oh wait, except everyone of them will tweak the color temp, the contrast, the white and black points since RAW images are so flat looking out of the camera. So then they draw lines of what is acceptable editing and what ventures into the world of art. Oh wait - aren't photographers artists?? We just paint with a different media than others types of artists. So at the end of the day - you do what creates your vision and what satisfies you and stop listening to the critics who think your work is somehow not "pure" enough to be considered photography.
I think a photograph "stops being a photograph" when the picture looks unreal-- like making the moon look five times larger than normal, for example. Let me be clear that such an image would still be art, but a photograph, edited or not, reflects the real world. I don't think making things pop or editing out a fence with extra flowers makes it not a photograph. I do agree with some of the comments that the reds are a bit much, but that's a matter of preference and style. I would say "it's too much for me," but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not a photograph anymore.
Your an accomplished digital artist. Love the images but calling them'Natural Light' is a bit of a stretch.
Thanks a lot! I did not use flash or a strobe while capturing this set of images.
Load More Replies...One thing I can understand complaints about, is that they're children, they don't really need beautification. But the skin changes in these photos are subtle enough that I have no problem. Could be bias. My dad is a professional photographer, and never removes anything like acne or skin spots on Photographs of me despite carefully touching them up in Photoshop. IMO, Photoshop is important for touching up photos as long as they don't do something drastic like how some Cosplayers and "ulzzang" (selfies for face beauty) Photoshop their face to look unrealistic like thinning/sharpening their nose, enlarging eyes, thinning jaw, unnaturally-whitened skintone, etc... Then try to pass it off as their "real self". Or how magazines for celebrities or fashion can Photoshop their bodies to be much thinner than they really are without the natural skin folds from being in certain poses. At that point it becomes more digital art than photograph.
I can understand that about children especially, or anyone trying to pretend it's really them. Though there's a place for great and creative digital art too, and I do think cosplay is one (They aren't trying to trick you into thinking they're really the spitting image of a anime warrior babe in real life lol, it's fun and art). In these though I didn't see her doing body editing or that sort of thing, mostly changing the mood and feel of the overall photo with lighting and some background manipulation, which I think is a good use of editing for this style of photography.
Load More Replies...Unfortunately we can't always take a picture of what the reason was that brought us to the location. We can't always recreate the beauty when it is time to take the photo. By editing it, we can let the picture reflect the true beauty the artist sees.
I'll give my take on photo manipulation, and the 3 levels of it: The first level is what I would consider a normal part of real photography. This is just upping the exposure or reducing the contrast on an entire image, or cropping or zooming; stuff one can do in the Photos app on OSX without any real photo manipulation software. The second level is Lilia's work here: adding hues, tones, effects, etc. Even adding or removing bits of the images counts as second level. And this is the most controversial because it makes beautiful art, but a lot of people pretend they didn't manipulate their photos, and that these are the originals. That's why there was backlash to your photos: people thought you were claiming they were unedited. the third level is like Eric Johansson's art: using Photoshop to combine several, dozens, or even hundreds of photos and images into one piece of art. In conclusion, image manipulation software is a great tool to improve photos, but it needs to come with honesty.
Very interesting, Django! Thanks for sharing! What do you think about this: https://gajitz.com/fake-history-6-photo-manipulations-way-before-photoshop/
Load More Replies...I believe everyone deserves the right to express their vision and creativity. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your work doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Jealousy is often expressed through negativity which is sad. It would be pretty boring if everyone would do things the same. I know for a fact that you inspire a lot of people, creatively and professionally. You are enhancing your subjects by letting them shine, giving them the full attention in the photography without distractions. All the edits are gorgeous and you can be very proud of yourself!
Love these before and afters, your editing is sublime, the completed portraits are simply amazing, love each and every one!
Thank you so much, dear Clare! <3
Load More Replies...I completely disagree with the negative consensus put across in a lot of the comments here. The second I saw this photo next to the original it swept me back to my childhood. All that she has done to this photo is give us as adults, the outlook we had on the world as innocent, carefree children. Don't you remember the world looking like the second photo when you were a child? Every flower was bursting with colour and beautiful smells, the waters of the lakes we explored with our friends and families sparkled with an irredeccent magical light. Every strand of grass and each one of the leaves was as fluorescent as we drew them in our artworks! These photos don't scream fake or overly edited to me. Instead they lift me up to a level of joy and beautiful innocence that was my entire childhood, before the wonder, and the colour, and the joy faded into the muted reality we see today.
I think they are beautiful photos. Some had too much editing for my taste, but it's just my personal preference.
Thanks a lot! We all have different preferences! :)
Load More Replies...This debate will never end. There are those that feel like they are some how better than you because the do not edit their images. Oh wait, except everyone of them will tweak the color temp, the contrast, the white and black points since RAW images are so flat looking out of the camera. So then they draw lines of what is acceptable editing and what ventures into the world of art. Oh wait - aren't photographers artists?? We just paint with a different media than others types of artists. So at the end of the day - you do what creates your vision and what satisfies you and stop listening to the critics who think your work is somehow not "pure" enough to be considered photography.
I think a photograph "stops being a photograph" when the picture looks unreal-- like making the moon look five times larger than normal, for example. Let me be clear that such an image would still be art, but a photograph, edited or not, reflects the real world. I don't think making things pop or editing out a fence with extra flowers makes it not a photograph. I do agree with some of the comments that the reds are a bit much, but that's a matter of preference and style. I would say "it's too much for me," but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not a photograph anymore.
Your an accomplished digital artist. Love the images but calling them'Natural Light' is a bit of a stretch.
Thanks a lot! I did not use flash or a strobe while capturing this set of images.
Load More Replies...One thing I can understand complaints about, is that they're children, they don't really need beautification. But the skin changes in these photos are subtle enough that I have no problem. Could be bias. My dad is a professional photographer, and never removes anything like acne or skin spots on Photographs of me despite carefully touching them up in Photoshop. IMO, Photoshop is important for touching up photos as long as they don't do something drastic like how some Cosplayers and "ulzzang" (selfies for face beauty) Photoshop their face to look unrealistic like thinning/sharpening their nose, enlarging eyes, thinning jaw, unnaturally-whitened skintone, etc... Then try to pass it off as their "real self". Or how magazines for celebrities or fashion can Photoshop their bodies to be much thinner than they really are without the natural skin folds from being in certain poses. At that point it becomes more digital art than photograph.
I can understand that about children especially, or anyone trying to pretend it's really them. Though there's a place for great and creative digital art too, and I do think cosplay is one (They aren't trying to trick you into thinking they're really the spitting image of a anime warrior babe in real life lol, it's fun and art). In these though I didn't see her doing body editing or that sort of thing, mostly changing the mood and feel of the overall photo with lighting and some background manipulation, which I think is a good use of editing for this style of photography.
Load More Replies...
