The two pics with this post have nothing to do with the people mentioned in the blog - actually, it is a before-and-after snapshot of one of my daughters. and I've posted it as an example of retouching. The second version is the photo as it came from the camera while the top one has been has been "enhanced". Is one better or more honest than the other? Her face is a litle fuller, her skin slightly tanned, her eyes a bit brighter and clearer, her hair a touch darker and glossier... If you hadn't been shown the original, would you have known the version you did see had been airbrushed? Does it matter???
You get some interesting requests from people coming up to their wedding day. I recall a truly lovely bride who had just one wish: please, I don't want any double chins in my photos. Well it was her Wedding Day, so naturally, her wish was granted!
There are a limited range of options for a problem like this: in a controlled environment like the portrait studio, skillful posing and control of the lighting might do the trick. But weddings aren't like that, at least not for the most part. You can't manage the lighting in a church or out on the beach during the vows...and you cannot afford not take those photos. There are dozens of situations that are going to highlight your subjects less photogenic attributes, and most of them are unavoidable.
You might resort to Photoshopping the images (up to a couple of thousand!) but apart from the time involved, and the skill required to make the photos look natural, is it appropriate? Is it ethical?
For me, the answer has to come from the bride herself; what she wants is what I want - within limits.
Portraitists have always tried to show their subjects in the best light. Airbrushing, removing blemishes, ensuring the ideal lighting to blush the skin and put a catchlight in her eyes. Film photographers did / do it, painters do it and wedding photographers should do whatever they can to show the bride at her glowing best. But it has to be her. Not someone so "enhanced" that people look and say "doesn't that look like Lucy? They must be related."
The camera might be able to lie, yet the photograph has to be honest! Think of in the same light as the make-up artist getting the bride ready for the Ceremony: you want the make-up to emphasize her best features, minimize any flaws, and never call attention to itself.
Honest is easy to define at one level: it is fine to hide that mole by having the model turn her head slightly; at another level it is a bit tricky: should you clone it out of the picture digitally? Personally, I don't think so, but if the bride asks me to do so, I will.
So much is a matter of judgment: in most cases, taking off a little weight digitally (or reducing a double chin) is OK ... if you can think that a couple of weeks more would have given her time to lose that weight, then why not?
It is simplistic just to say it isn't 'the truth'. My own test is simple, too: if someone who knows the subject would say "What a lovely picture; you really caught her at her best" then I'm happy; Subtle enhancements of the qualities that make a person who they are are perfectly acceptable. But when the "improvements" are obvious to people who know the person, you have failed your subject; if your photo looks fake, so does our subject. That is not acceptable. And when you fail your subject, then you have failed yourself, too.
And our bride with the double chins? Her father, mother and her new husband all said the same thing when they viewed the photos, "wasn't she the loveliest bride? And so natural".
