Can Digital Retouching Go Too Far?

As I'm sure you have already heard, photographer Jill Greenberg has stirred up quite the controversy in the photography world. She captured some very unflattering images of Presidential nominee John McCain, digitally retouched them to make them even more harsh and posted them on her website. (To read more about this check out PDNpulse.) Although digital retouching is predominant in the photo world, many photographers have gotten into trouble for retouching sports shots or news images.

So my question to you, do you think digital retouching should be okay in photojournalism? Chime in and share your ideas with us—let us know what you think!

Comments

[Andy]

I don't think the controversy is in regards to the retouching of John McCain's image, but rather her as a professional photographer making the conscious decision to go ahead and use the assignment opportunity to express her political views. As a young photographer, I feel that commercial photographers are constantly having to fight for respect and legitimacy in our field. Jill's action definitely does not help.

In regards to the posted question, and as a photographer who does a fair bit of retouching, I believe it is very much a part of modern photography (especially in the commercial arena) in the "image making" sense of the word.

/a

[Ian Aleksander Adams]

This is a really dumb question. It's like asking if painting can go to far. It's simply a technique. No morals can be attached to a technique.

Well - unless your new art technique uses the skin of virgins or something.

[Akshay Singh Jamwal]

The photograph of McCain on the cover of the magazine isn't the one in question anyway, so the question is kind of irrelevant.
Retouching is part of our industry today, people make careers out of it. Of course it can go too far. More often than not, in fact. Too often people retouch to the point where skin doesn't look like skin anymore and people look more like China Doll figurines.

The photographer did something extremely juvenile though. Silly and irresponsible for sure. But hey, if she wants to damage her own reputation, that's her prerogative.

[J. Siegel]

"So my question to you, do you think digital retouching should be okay in photojournalism?"

In photojournalism, digital retouching undermines the concept of gathering and reporting the news in an accurate manner. It's similar to a weatherman forecasting a sunny day during a hurricane. Retouching imagery meant for press and news would be falsifying information knowingly. At best, retouched photojournalism images should be referred to as artists renditions.

Try to picture Robert Capa utilizing digital retouching...

[Diana]

First of all, no question is ever a dumb question. One sounds pretty ignorant when making a comment like that. Secondly, it may be true that retouching is "just a technique" but it is completely untrue to say that morals cannot attach to it. I do believe that retouching is a part of the industry. Nevertheless, there should be some boundaries. Retouching a photo in order to fix minimal problems like contrast and brightness, hiding a person's imperfections, changing colors, or blurring out unwanted portions, like logos for example, is completely appropriate. Retouching a photo to taint someone's image is another story entirely. Not only does it make the subject of the photo look bad, it also makes the photographer look bad. The public is being mislead as well as cheated because they are being given a photograph portraying false information. Regardless of the feelings of the photographer about the person or image they are photographing, it is unethical in my eyes to completely distort the photograph. With that being said, I strongly believe that retouching can go too far. I agree with the above post that this photographer definitely damaged her own reputation by retouching the photograph the way she had.

[Laura]

I don't think this is a stupid question at all - I think the subject is actually something that is quite an issue in the media today. Retouching photographs should be tolerated - TO AN EXTENT. Retouching a photograph to paint someone in a dark light, especially when it is in a blatent attempt to sway public opinion on something as important as presidential candidates should not be allowed.

[skinnybitch]

In response to Diana's post above I do believe that retouching is a part of the industry right now, but does that mean that it is okay?
Retouching has now been taken to new heights in altering the covers of magazines and the people within them. I hope that that is what you mean when you say
"Retouching a photo to taint someone's image is another story entirely."

These woman are sometimes not even the same person when they are done with them. How do people feel about that?