Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory

 Retouching Reagan: Real or Reprehensible?

Re: Trends in 2008 ACT Classes
Posted by: Dan Margulis
Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:40 am (PST)

John Ruttenberg writes,

I think the definition of "substandard" probably plays a role here. The
photograher/retoucher is in a very different situation than the person who
only retouches the work of others. I'm thinking of my own work. As many of
you may remember, I am a ballet photograper at Boston Ballet, and have the
privilege to photograph the company's dress rehearsals. The professional
theater lighting is very beautiful, but ofen very challenging. About a year
ago I posted a case study featuring this shot:

http: //colortheory.smugmug.com/photos/153552178_zNF9t-L.jpg

from the second act of Giselle. Is this a "substandard" original?

I thought I gave a definition that was pretty clear "photos shot...by professionals under adverse conditions." I am not a professional photographer myself and so may be presumptuous in my assumptions, but I was bold enough to believe that when a ballerina is performing athletic maneuvers on a nearly completely dark stage where the major illumination is a blue spotlight, compromised by softer light of different color from the bottom, this constitutes an "adverse condition", and thus is likely to result in what I called a "substandard" original. It was not intended to be an invidious term, but rather to indicate a surmise that photographs shot in such circumstances are likely to be harder to fix than, say, a shot of the same ballerina in a photographic studio.

Well, if
it just lands on your lap, I guess it is. Dan used it to torture the members
of his class last year which is a good indication.

I still do. I put it in the advanced class last year, along with eight other new images. My selections weren't well received: only three of the nine made the cut for the 2008 advanced classes, but Giselle was one of them. She got favorable commentary from the 2007 evaluations and also on the first two sets from 2008, so she's almost certainly going to be in the 2009 classes as well.

The image is interesting not just because it is technically challenging but because it is a question of artistic interpretation. The principles of chromatic adaptation and simultaneous contrast are not repealed in a darkened theater. We humans strive mightily to adapt to any lighting condition. While there's no way we would see normal fleshtones under such extreme conditions, we *would* see them as far more normal, and more varied, than any camera would. The question is how far to go in catering to this known effect, and there's no one right answer.

I wonder whether I am a special case here, pushing the limits in a way others
don't ofen need to do. Available light makes my job harder and more rewarding
when it works out. Studio photographer never has these sort of issues.

I wouldn't say "never" but otherwise agree. Many of my students rarely face such retouching issues, too. I ask the questions of the classes so I can know whether such images are relevant enough to use as exercises. Nowadays, they appear to be, whereas maybe ten years ago, they wouldn't.

What about photojournalism? I'm a little confused over the rules. How much
retouching is allowed by newspapers and the like?

That question is a lot more complicated than it appears. It is very difficult to come up with standards. Consider the following reasonably well-known cases:

1) Wire service picture of a city under bomb attack in the mideast. Additional plumes of smoke added as embellishment, suggesting more violence than actually there.

2) Newspaper photo of two politicians chatting in front of a table. Can of Coke on the table is retouched out.

3) Newsmagazine cover of Ronald Reagan during the late years of his administration, highlighting a story suggesting that he was out of touch. Allegation: that the retoucher deliberately enhanced contrast and sharpening in Reagan's face in an effort to make him look older by emphasizing his wrinkles.

4) Newsmagazine cover of the mug shot of O.J. Simpson upon his arrest for murder. Allegation: that the retoucher, motivated by racism, intentionally made Simpson look "blacker" and thus more threatening-looking to a white audience.

Nobody in their right mind endorses #1, and somebody justifiably got fired for it. Of the other three, the last two are far more troubling from an editorial standpoint. #2 is the deletion of an irrelevant object of no editorial significance. The problem is that evil intent in color correction is impossible to prove unless somebody can come up with a smoking gun in the form of a specific written instruction, whereas the deletion of an object is easy to prove. So, the newspaper in #2 sanctimoniously began disciplinary proceedings against the individual responsible for removing the can, on the ground that some sacred line of journalistic integrity had been crossed.

Police mug shots qualify IMHO as "substandard originals", particularly when they have to be blown up as large as Stephen Marsh apparently has to do regularly. God knows what the color of Simpson's skin was in the actual mug shot; it wouldn't be surprising if it were green or blue. Did the retoucher try to match an overly dark photo, was it just an accident caused by his lack of familiarity with this type of retouching work, was it a neutral (if incorrect) surmise as to what Simpson actually looked like, given an obviously poor photograph, or was it, in fact, a racist act? There was too much rhetoric being bandied about for anybody to actually find out, IMHO.

I don't know what actually happened in that instance, but in the Reagan one, I was there, and I heard the art director reject the first proof of the Reagan shot with the comment "Can't you make him look older?"

We could, and did. What kind of rule can prevent it?

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Retouching Reagan (was: Trends in)
Posted by: Dan Margulis
Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:56 am (PST)

Just when I was ready to post attacking somebody else's ethics, I got a surprising comment concerning mine. When I get a chance (I'm dealing with an advanced class now), I'll post a reply.

Since I suspect that the question would be asked, let me say that this individual is one of the "super-amateurs" described elsewhere in the thread. He is prominent in an unrelated profession and is a person of outstanding intellect. I respect him deeply. He has not, however, AFAIK, ever worked in the graphic arts.

Dan Margulis

*********************

From:
Date: November 19, 2008 9:20:30 AM EST (CA)
To: Dan Margulis
Subject: retouching Reagan

Hi Dan:
 
As you know, I have the greatest respect for you -- both as a professional and a person.
Thus, I was dismayed to read the following that you wrote recently on the Color Theory
discussion site:
 
I don't know what actually happened in that instance, but in the Reagan one, I was there,
and I heard the art director reject the first proof of the Reagan shot with the comment
"Can't you make him look older?"

We could, and did. What kind of rule can prevent it
 
The short answer to your question is "personal ethics." I have sacrificed much in my career
because I refused to cave for those with an agenda. Others have as well.
 
That said, another year has passed, and I wish you all the best for the coming holidays
and 2009!
 
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan (was: Trends in)
Posted by: "Ron Kelly"
Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:09 pm (PST)

Dan:

There is no simple answer to this one.

I would say that there are some equivalencies to be discussed: is this really different from making a Hollywood starlet look flawless? Someone look nicer in a portrait than they *really* are? Etc. etc.

This particular instance seems to be one of a case of going the other way from the usual "improvements" mentioned above, which I guess makes it "bad."

Let the chips fall where they may, the medium/individuals in question will find their true credibility eventually. If you feel guilty, change your ways, and if you don't fine but it's not up to me to decide.

Ron Kelly

It also depends on how badly he was mangled.
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Henry Davis
Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:12 pm (PST)

I would guess that some of the ethical questions could be resolved by determining whether an individual case is used for "editorial" or "commercial" purposes. The question to answer is: Can a case be made for visual slander? For a news story, I would consider any editing or altering to be unethical. On the other hand, in a commercial piece the airbrushed supermodel is a misrepresentation - but who cares? Plus, she, or her agent, may have given their approval. But artificially diminishing the visual characteristics of someone, even in a commercial setting, is opening the door to both profit and possible litigation. You takes your chances.

Yes, parts my world are black and white - even if they aren't for others.

Henry Davis

Legal advice is neither offered nor intended in this opinion. If you should find yourself in need of legal advice or representation you should consult a real lawyer.
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Bruce Albrecht"
Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:42 pm (PST)

Sorry Henry, but I must disagree. There is way too much ambiguity here. When a photographer composes an image in his or her viewfinder, they are likely adding bias to support the theme of their story, regardless the intended use. There is an imaginary line between what is acceptable and what is not in retouching for journalism, but it is far from being black-and-white. Would we not expect the journalistic photographer assigned to obtain an image of Reagan for such a story to utilize composition and lighting techniques to insinuate his advanced age? How is using in-camera techniques to achieve journalistic intent all that different from using color correction and/or retouching to achieve the same results? Would we not expect the war correspondent to capture material in either a patriotic or a grim light, dependent upon the intent of the accompanying story?

Clearly one can go too far in *either* pursuit--just look at the hype surrounding the Jill Greenberg-John Mcain incident for an excellent example--but to single out mild retouching is IMHO somewhat unjustified. Like most other legal matters, the ethical line will be drawn by the spirit of the day, and will likely shift as time goes on.

Bruce Albrecht
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Henry Davis
Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:09 am (PST)

On Nov 20, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Bruce Albrecht wrote:

Sorry Henry, but I must disagree. There is way too much ambiguity here. When
a photographer composes an image in his or her viewfinder, they are likely
adding bias to support the theme of their story, regardless the intended
use. There is an imaginary line between what is acceptable and what is not
in retouching for journalism, but it is far from being black-and-white.
Would we not expect the journalistic photographer assigned to obtain an
image of Reagan for such a story to utilize composition and lighting
techniques to insinuate his advanced age? How is using in-camera techniques
to achieve journalistic intent all that different from using color
correction and/or retouching to achieve the same results? Would we not
expect the war correspondent to capture material in either a patriotic or a
grim light, dependent upon the intent of the accompanying story?

Clearly one can go too far in *either* pursuit--just look at the hype
surrounding the Jill Greenberg-John Mcain incident for an excellent
example--but to single out mild retouching is IMHO somewhat unjustified.
Like most other legal matters, the ethical line will be drawn by the spirit
of the day, and will likely shift as time goes on.

That you disagree is quite alright - your opinion on the subject is one that is expected. I did say that for me, the ethical question on this matter is black and white. Regrettably there are quite a lot of people who enjoy, relish, promote and profit from the lack of personal integrity that "greyness" allows. Nonetheless, I still maintain that enhancing a photo that is to be used for editorial purposes is unethical, wrong, misleading and unpardonable.

Your claims of "regardless the intended use", and "there is an imaginary line between what is acceptable and what is not", may allow for you a more flexible ethic, but this kind of relativism sounds somewhat disingenuous. Would you apply this same ethic if it were your own ox that is being gored? I find that very few relativists walk the walk - perhaps you are the rare exception.

When a photographer composes such an editorial shot in his viewfinder, is he not observing and recording a real event as it is occurring? Honestly recording the event may impose a visual perspective, but it hardly changes the underlying reality of the event. You ask about using in-camera techniques. I say, not if they are used to alter the accuracy of the scene. As to the job of the war correspondent, his is to record the events of war. The question of which events he chooses and how they are framed has nothing to do with altering a photograph.

My points are these:

1. The legality of retouching editorial photography is secondary. It is one's personal ethics that comes first. If the photographer or retoucher's moral philosophy is well-principled and of high standards for right and wrong, then there is rarely a need for litigation. The "ethical line" is drawn by the individual. The "spirit of the day" is ethical relativism.

2. The editorial use of photography is that of accurately recording an event. The less contrived, the more honest is the recording. In contriving a photograph, the photographer is inserting himself into the event. A journalist's business is not that of creating events.

3. When there is a great deal of greyness between lying and telling the truth - we all suffer for this.

4. We are each accountable for our own moral philosophy and behavior. It is left to you as to how much grey area you allow for yourself. Because of their impact on the nature of society, it is incumbent upon journalists to observe high standards.

You may argue with any of the point I have made, and I am ready and willing to change my views if your arguments are sound. Which of them do you find "unhealthy"? Which of them are you not willing to accept for yourself?

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "RJay Hansen"
Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:09 am (PST)

As I read Dan's post, the photo wasn't "retouched" so much as it was manipulated to enhance the appearance of Reagan being old. That could be done solely with curves and sharpening.

I'd also point out that it's not just the photographer that affects the presentation of news via the composition of their photos. Even headline writers slant the headlines in such a way as to affect the perception of a story and reinforce their publication's editorial leanings. Very little news is really presented absolutely objectively.

RJay
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Russell Brown"
Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:13 pm (PST)

Dan Margulis wrote:

#2 is the deletion of an irrelevant object of no editorial significance. The
problem is that evil intent in color correction is impossible to prove unless somebody can
 come up with a smoking gun in the form of a specific written instruction, whereas the
deletion of an object is easy to prove. So, the newspaper in #2 sanctimoniously began
disciplinary proceedings against the individual responsible for removing the can, on the
ground that some sacred line of journalistic integrity had been crossed.

My apologies that I have been busy this week and not able to keep up with this discussion until now.

I have been a press photographer for 25 years and can make informed comment on this point.

Images can be colour corrected and their technical quality can be enhanced (Unsharp mask, dodging and burning, etc) but the content of the image cannot be changed or manipulated so that the final image is not true to the original.

This is important because editorial images must be factual representations of the situation and must also be seen to be factual by the viewing public. If the impression is taken by viewers that editorial images cannot be trusted to be factual, the credibility of the news media is undermined.

For this reason, it is absolutely incorrect to digitally remove the Coke can. If you want to simply crop it out, no problem - this could potentially have been done in-camera during the shoot, but it cannot be actively removed. Journalistic ethics are clear on this and it is not sanctimonious for action to have been taken by the newspaper, nor is the "sacred line of Journalistic integrity" a random or trivial issue, as seems to be implied.

The exception to this rule is when images are montaged or in some other way manipulated to create something to illustrate a particular story, in which case they are clearly labelled, in our case as "photo-illustration" or the like, so that there can be no confusion and the viewer is informed about the nature of the resultant image.

Dan, similarly to your other correspondent who replied to you off-list, I have the greatest respect for you and your skills, but felt that I should clarify this point because it is very important that journalistic ethics are adhered to, so as to avoid these kinds of examples, which damage the credibility of the news media in the eyes of the public.

Russ Brown
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Jacob Rus
Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:17 am (PST)

Henry Davis wrote:

When a photographer composes such an editorial shot in his
viewfinder, is he not observing and recording a real event as it is
occurring?

No.

Honestly recording the event may impose a visual
perspective, but it hardly changes the underlying reality of the event.

Of course it does.

Take as a prominent recent example the photograph of the tearing down of a Baghdad statue of Saddam Hussein in 2003, and the accompanying news stories (for instance
<http: //www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue/>).
This photo fails to show the miniscule size of the crowd, and the article fails to mention the protests of the US invasion occurring just blocks away. The picture is deeply misleading and a pure tool of propaganda, despite the camera capturing a literal rectangle of photons which have entered it during a short duration.

Or take this photo:
<http: //marcambinder.theatlantic.com/r1772410910.jpg>.
Does it show the "underlying reality" of the event?

As to the job of
the war correspondent, his is to record the events of war. The
question of which events he chooses and how they are framed has
nothing to do with altering a photograph.

This is a deeply naive and credulous view, and I would hope that citizens would be more generally critical of everything they view and read.

If the photographer or
retoucher's moral philosophy is well-principled and of high standards
for right and wrong, then there is rarely a need for litigation.

Whose high standard? Who decides what is a good principle? You? Kant?

Russ Brown wrote:

This is important because editorial images must be factual
representations of the situation and must also be seen to be factual
by the viewing public. If the impression is taken by viewers that
editorial images cannot be trusted to be factual, the credibility of
the news media is undermined.

This is certainly true, but "factual" is a complex and relative notion, depending on cultural norms rather than any absolute standard (and those norms have already changed dramatically over the short history of photography). I would hope that the journalistic integrity of trusted news organizations would extend far beyond worries of minor retouching.

This strikes me as like arguing about whether a single word was changed in a long quotation, when the whole thing has been taken completely out of context—that is, it misses the forest for the trees.

Errol Morris has had an ongoing fascinating discussion (tens of thousands of words by now) about this topic for the past year or so, beginning with
<http: //morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/pictures-are-supposed-to-be-worth-a-thousand-words/>.
I strongly recommend the whole series.

Cheers,
Jacob Rus
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Bruce Albrecht"
Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:17 am (PST)

Henry,

In some ways I feel we are splitting hairs--I too believe that manipulating a photograph for editorial purposes is unethical. However, what you have characterized as my "ethical relativism" is what I would call a healthy dose of cynicism. Total objectivity in journalism is a lofty goal that I feel is ultimately unattainable. Just as I expect that an event reported upon by the New York Times will vary in content considerably from the account as told by Fox News. Both claim objectivity but neither achieve despite the best efforts of many prominent and ethical journalists. Everyone applies their own slant and all ultimately cater to the wishes of the editorial staff.

...Your claims of "regardless the intended use", and "there is an
imaginary line between what is acceptable and what is not", may allow
for you a more flexible ethic, but this kind of relativism sounds
somewhat disingenuous. Would you apply this same ethic if it were
your own ox that is being gored? I find that very few relativists
walk the walk - perhaps you are the rare exception.

Actually, I would *expect* my ox to be gored, as my cynicism dictates that my ethics are subordinate to the agenda of newsworthiness.

When a photographer composes such an editorial shot in his
viewfinder, is he not observing and recording a real event as it is
occurring? Honestly recording the event may impose a visual
perspective, but it hardly changes the underlying reality of the
event. You ask about using in-camera techniques. I say, not if
they are used to alter the accuracy of the scene. As to the job of
the war correspondent, his is to record the events of war. The
question of which events he chooses and how they are framed has
nothing to do with altering a photograph.

Yes, but my point was the photographer has some latitude in the way he chooses to record the events unfolding. They are interpreting the story as they think it should be told. We the consumer ultimately decide whether it is objective and ethical, based upon our own biases.

My points are these:

1. The legality of retouching editorial photography is secondary.
It is one's personal ethics that comes first. If the photographer or
retoucher's moral philosophy is well-principled and of high standards
for right and wrong, then there is rarely a need for litigation. The
"ethical line" is drawn by the individual. The "spirit of the day"
is ethical relativism.

But the individual ultimately answers to the wishes of a committee, and their performance is not measured by their own ethical line, but by the consensus of that committee.

2. The editorial use of photography is that of accurately recording
an event. The less contrived, the more honest is the recording. In
contriving a photograph, the photographer is inserting himself into
the event. A journalist's business is not that of creating events.
3. When there is a great deal of greyness between lying and telling
the truth - we all suffer for this.

and who decides what the "truth" is for any given event? Are you implying this is always clear? Or that we will always agree?

4. We are each accountable for our own moral philosophy and
behavior. It is left to you as to how much grey area you allow for
yourself. Because of their impact on the nature of society, it is
incumbent upon journalists to observe high standards.

Absolutely. And the most successful photojournalists will successfully balance the desire for objectivity against the need to present a compelling story that engages the reader.

You may argue with any of the point I have made, and I am ready and
willing to change my views if your arguments are sound. Which of
them do you find "unhealthy"? Which of them are you not willing to
accept for yourself?

The healthiest thing for all of us is to constantly question the morality, ethical standards, and objectivity of every piece of journalism we consume. If we expect that each story we are told is delivered with a bias, we can better use our own ethical standards to weigh it's validity. And, of course, vote with our wallets!

And, with that, I shall respectfully climb off my soapbox.

Bruce Albrecht
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: David Barrack
Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:04 am (PST)

One measure is a question of intent. Is the retouch work attempting to deceive? This addresses a lot and considers composure, in camera settings, etc. For example, I can make a subject look very "shady" through high ISO and negative exposure compensation and not retouch at all. There seems to be the assumption that retouching is mostly used to distort versus restoring the moment as observed.

David Barrack
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Cicero Rodrigues"
Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:46 pm (PST)

Just for the record: the retoucher of OJ Simpson Time cover was Matt Mahurin.

He is far from being a naive Photoshop operator. The guy is a very accomplished artist who knows (or should know) what he was doing. Here is an interview with his opinions on the subject:

http://www.tlchicken.com/view_story.php?ARTid=3345

___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Henry Davis
Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:03 pm (PST)

On Nov 22, 2008, at 3:02 AM, Bruce Albrecht wrote:

Henry,

In some ways I feel we are splitting hairs--I too believe that
manipulating a photograph for editorial purposes is unethical.
However, what you have characterized as my "ethical relativism" is
what I would call a healthy dose of cynicism. Total objectivity in
journalism is a lofty goal that I feel is ultimately unattainable.
Just as I expect that an event reported upon by the New York Times
will vary in content considerably from the account as told by Fox
News. Both claim objectivity but neither achieve despite the best
efforts of many prominent and ethical journalists. Everyone applies
their own slant and all ultimately cater to the wishes of the
editorial staff.

Bruce,

I appreciate your reply and the back and forth that this topic has caused. I am also gladdened to know that you disapprove of manipulating editorial photography.

Granted, total objectivity may be unattainable, but one will certainly fall short if one allows this to be an excuse for not striving. Your cynicism is justified and is probably healthy if it is the kind of thing that causes more people to apply more scrutiny to their sources of information. This naturally leads one to ask "what has caused this need for cynicism?". Surely it isn't due to an increase in high moral standards, is it? The increased questioning of personal ethical standards in journalism is due to the erosion of them, along with the ethical grey areas that are being promoted. Would it not be better to be able to relax your concern that your ox may be maligned? Of course it would! Do we get there with sloppy ethics? Hardly.

No, in disagreement I must say that the individual ultimately answers for his own behavior - not the committee's or because of its pressure. It would be convenient to think otherwise. It is possible to be criminally obedient to the committee. One always wrestles with his own moral philosophy. "To thine own self be true", wasn't conceived for convenience - quite the contrary. Of course if one doesn't find any personal value in this tenet, then one will not be troubled by one's lack of ethical standards. Such a person may, however, become quite concerned with the behavior of others who are like thinkers.

As for the truth, it's pretty clear that altering a photograph is a much easier call with regard to truth. Has it been altered or not? But now it is so effortless to alter a photograph in such a believable way that the only effort that is left is in deciding if it is morally acceptable to do it. The point is that this temptation has already been fallen for, and could be on the increase.

For the public, the power of the image hits them first - not the questioning of the ethics of the journalist presenting it. Journalists understand the power of image, and it is a specious activity for those who prevaricate in regard to the ethics of the field. This is not a kid's game. This is about very powerful stuff. Playing with ethics in this field is playing with fire on a scale that goes beyond a photojournalist's paycheck. An "end justifies the means" argument compelling the altering of an editorial photograph is the first step in lighting the fire. It is an unnecessary step.

If we have grown to the point where every photograph must be suspected, then we need to take another look at what we call "growth".

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Henry Davis
Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:03 pm (PST)

Jacob,

I disagree with each of your criticisms. Your responses are as dogmatic as you claim my positions to be. Your first response, for instance, is truly baffling.

Here is my earlier summary in case there are some who missed it. I ask again, which of these points do you have trouble accepting?

My points are these:

1. The legality of retouching editorial photography is secondary. It is one's personal ethics that comes first. If the photographer or retoucher's moral philosophy is well-principled and of high standards for right and wrong, then there is rarely a need for litigation. The "ethical line" is drawn by the individual. The "spirit of the day" is ethical relativism.

2. The editorial use of photography is that of accurately recording an event. The less contrived, the more honest is the recording. In contriving a photograph, the photographer is inserting himself into the event. A journalist's business is not that of creating events.

3. When there is a great deal of greyness between lying and telling the truth - we all suffer for this.

4. We are each accountable for our own moral philosophy and behavior. It is left to you as to how much grey area you allow for yourself. Because of their impact on the nature of society, it is incumbent upon journalists to observe high standards.

You may argue with any of the point I have made, and I am ready and willing to change my views if your arguments are sound. Which of them do you find "unhealthy"? Which of them are you not willing to accept for yourself?

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Henry Davis
Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:03 pm (PST)

On Nov 22, 2008, at 10:10 AM, merlot3000 wrote:

One measure is a question of intent. Is the retouch work attempting to deceive? This
addresses a lot and considers composure, in camera settings, etc. For example, I can
make a subject look very "shady" through high ISO and negative exposure compensation
and not retouch at all. There seems to be the assumption that retouching is mostly used
to distort versus restoring the moment as observed.

What is the intent? That is the question, and it goes hand in hand with the photojournalists' goal for an assignment. Editorial photography is distinct from commercial photography where artistic license is a marketing tool. As the ethical standards of editorial photographers become more scrutinized and topical, the new technical options have found their way into the arguments of those wanting to complicate the ethics of the field. There is little reason for allowing the technology to muddy ones personal ethic. I suspect that those wanting to muddy the ethical waters in the field of journalism are doing so for self-serving reasons.

If the goal is to record a person, for instance, in an unflattering way, then the job becomes much easier if the photographer is willing to alter the normal perception of the scene as it occurred. How far is one willing to go with this is where one defines his personal and journalistic integrity. If it is one's goal to misrepresent, be it through the technology of the day, or simply because it is one's biased desire is to do so, it is still prevarication. Pleading for technology as an excuse for lying doesn't insulate one from one's personal moral responsibility. It does help some to muddy the water,
however.

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Ron Kelly"
Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:31 pm (PST)

Folks:

Well, talk about timely: anybody catch the latest cover of Time? It's a picture of Obama.

I feel sure that they stretched his chin; that sure gets me riled up awright.

Ron Kelly
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Jacob Rus
Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:31 pm (PST)

Henry Davis wrote:

1. The legality of retouching editorial photography is secondary.
It is one's personal ethics that comes first. If the photographer or
retoucher's moral philosophy is well-principled and of high standards
for right and wrong, then there is rarely a need for litigation. The
"ethical line" is drawn by the individual. The "spirit of the day"
is ethical relativism.

Well, first, I'm not sure where litigation really comes into this story: suing news organizations for their content is a difficult and often counter-productive endeavor. But more importantly, journalistic (as well as artistic, legal, marketing, and other) standards vis-à-vis photographs have changed *dramatically* over the past 150 years or so, and are changing rapidly still with the advent of widely distributed cell phone cameras, rapid and open communication via the internet, etc. Ideas about proper and improper uses of photography for journalistic and other purposes are highly variable and dynamic. Your "well-principled high standards" would be unrecognizable to a photographer of the 1860s or 1930s or 2050s. Take a look at the second link I posted, of the unflattering still of McCain and Obama after one of their debates. Such a photograph would have never been published or widely seen before an age of bloggers. Governments, photographers, news organizations, & simple social pressures have wielded significant control over photographs, and even when this doesn't take the form of explicit censorship, it certainly distorts "reality", as if "objective" pictorial reality can even be defined.

2. The editorial use of photography is that of accurately recording
an event. The less contrived, the more honest is the recording. In
contriving a photograph, the photographer is inserting himself into
the event. A journalist's business is not that of creating events.

But the point is that this is inevitably the journalist's business. He cannot but insert himself into the event, and the notion that the camera is a purely transparent observer has always been a fiction.

4. We are each accountable for our own moral philosophy and
behavior. It is left to you as to how much grey area you allow for yourself.

Well, I wouldn't go so far. We can and do establish norms, as a society, for the use and manipulation of photographs.

Because of their impact on the nature of society, it is
incumbent upon journalists to observe high standards.

Agreed!

–Jacob Rus
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Rick Gordon"
Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:31 pm (PST)

This has been an intriguing discussion. What about a related thing that you very commonly see in news photography, where a person is photographed in an awkward fleeting moment while moving from one position to another, or in the middle of a facial position shift, where that actually happened, but the image is used (sometimes extensively) to portray the person in a negative light.

This is just photons onto the sensor, like the Saddam Hussein example, but can be just as misleading as emphasizing shadows in an image to suggest age. Yet this application is routinely offered as valid news photography by every news organization I can think of.

Rick Gordon

___________________________________________________

RICK GORDON
EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Bruce Albrecht"
Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:31 pm (PST)

Interesting article, and IMHO worth reading his explanation of the incident (despite the horrible formatting). It speaks well to a few of the issues raised in this thread.

Bruce

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Cicero Rodrigues wrote:

Just for the record: the retoucher of OJ Simpson Time cover was Matt
Mahurin.

He is far from being a naive Photoshop operator. The guy is a very
accomplished artist who knows (or should know) what he was doing. Here is an
interview with his opinions on the subject:

http://www.tlchicken.com/view_story.php?ARTid=3345
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: David Barrack
Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:11 am (PST)

Oh, I agree. In my opinion, and I am not an attorney, (although my Dad is a retired patent attorney so I've heard a lifetime of legal issues) but the only two issues that come into play are intent or negligence. Again, my opinion If I clearly intended to present an image as I recalled the situation then there should be no issue. However if my recollection is so maligned versus a "normal" recollection then although I may have had the best of intentions I become negligent. None of this matters much if there are no damages and man that would be fun to prove. Intent as many of you may now is a common legal test and tough to establish clearly.

David Barrack

Henry wrote:

What is the intent? That is the question, and it goes hand in hand
with the photojournalists' goal for an assignment. Editorial
photography is distinct from commercial photography where artistic
license is a marketing tool. As the ethical standards of editorial
photographers become more scrutinized and topical, the new technical
options have found their way into the arguments of those wanting to
complicate the ethics of the field. There is little reason for
allowing the technology to muddy ones personal ethic. I suspect that
those wanting to muddy the ethical waters in the field of journalism
are doing so for self-serving reasons.

If the goal is to record a person, for instance, in an unflattering
way, then the job becomes much easier if the photographer is willing
to alter the normal perception of the scene as it occurred. How far
is one willing to go with this is where one defines his personal and
journalistic integrity. If it is one's goal to misrepresent, be it
through the technology of the day, or simply because it is one's
biased desire is to do so, it is still prevarication. Pleading for
technology as an excuse for lying doesn't insulate one from one's
personal moral responsibility. It does help some to muddy the water,
however.
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Dan Margulis
Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:05 am (PST)

My favored method of smoothing skintone without overly softening the image hasn't changed since 2001:

http: //www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-Smooth-Skin.html

In lectures, I have a great example, a picture of a woman destined to be the cover of a magazine aimed at women of age 40+. The file as submitted to the magazine always draws a huge laugh, because the woman has been sharpened so much that she looks like a crocodile. Not just every pore and wrinkle, but every blotch of powder is visible.

When I show how the magazine tried to compensate it always gets another big laugh. They gave her flawless skin, entirely suitable for the centerfold of Playboy, but not what one would expect of a woman in her forties.

My method is somewhat more subtle than just blending these two extreme versions, and usually gets a very attentive response, because this type of work is critical for professional retouchers.

All this is of course a segue into the response to the suggestion that I was unethical in connection with a 1980s request from Newsweek magazine to make a cover photograph portray Ronald Reagan as older than he appeared on first proof. The response, however, is going to be pretty short--most of this message is about current events, because the ethical question about retouching was raised twice during this recent campaign.

The brief response is this: I was not personally involved in scanning or retouching this photograph. If I had been, the problem would not have occurred because I am notorious among my colleagues for preferring a natural look with a minimum of retouching. Hence, my subjects tend to appear older than those corrected by others, and would likely have satisfied the Newsweek request on first proof.

I was *aware* of the request at the time and certainly could have jeopardized my job and my company's relationship with one of its larger clients by publicly calling the art director's ethics into question or lobbying my company to refuse to execute the instruction. There was no need for this, because in the event I had regarded the instruction as in any way unethical (which I absolutely do not) I could easily have either brought the issue discreetly to the attention of the art director's boss or leaked the matter to another newsmagazine.

The fact was and is, however, that there was nothing improper about the request and it was completely appropriate for the art director to make it. Portraits on magazine covers are routinely retouched heavily. Blemishes are removed, teeth are whitened, nose hairs and crumbs of food deleted, features made more decisive, eyes made less bloodshot, skintone made to look smoother and more healthy. It is seriously argued (see below) that it is unethical *not* to retouch. That's nonsense, but it's certainly *acceptable* to retouch with the aim of making a subject look more attractive. Anybody who tolerates not just decreasing contrast and sharpening but actually hand-retouching defects out for editorial purposes is in no position to challenge artificial aging, which is accomplished with contrast and sharpening only and deliberately refrains from the type of plastic surgery described above.

Contrast and sharpening within faces--which is all the "aging" controversy is about--are both notoriously subjective, and a wide range of results are to be expected. The magazine example I described in the first paragraphs was live work. One professional produced a version that almost everyone considers wildly oversharpened. A second made the skin plastic in an effort to compensate. That's the kind of variation between individual retouchers that a magazine can expect. The art director is entitled to insert his own opinion of what the interpretation should be. It is in no way falsifying the picture. Quite the contrary--photographers, retouchers, and printers all know what our preferences for skintone are, and their procedures are tailored to satisfy them. A natural, minimally retouched look may make the subject seem older, but it is a natural, minimally retouched look nevertheless.

But enough about Reagan, let's get on to the 2008 Republican ticket, because there were two prominent examples in this campaign that deal with the question of the ethics of retouching techniques, and hence are on topic for this list.

*The cover of Atlantic, October edition, was a portrait of John McCain. The headline reads, "Why War Is His Answer." The shot was treated in the manner discussed for the Reagan example. McCain looks old, jowly, and wrinkled--but decisive.

*The cover of the October 13 edition of our old friend Newsweek was a shot of the left half of Sarah Palin's face, printed large enough that her chin and the top of her head did not fit and were cropped out. The headline reads, "She's One of the Folks".

1) McCAIN AND THE DUTY TO TREAT THE SUBJECT FAIRLY.
I don't know where the Palin picture originated. The McCain image was commissioned. Atlantic hired a prominent California photographer who is known for dramatic portraits. McCain agreed to a 15-minute portrait sitting for the purpose of the cover.

A cursory investigation would have shown that the photographer had little use for George W. Bush. It would not have shown AFAIK any hatred or ill will toward John McCain, but evidently there was quite a bit. She took advantage of her 15 minutes to pose him not just in the conventional manner that appeared on the cover, but in a bizarre light-from-the- bottom way, complete with a false explanation to McCain about light purportedly coming from elsewhere.

At around the time the magazine appeared, the photographer posted on her site some retouched versions of her McCain images. The light-from-the-bottom shot was altered to transform McCain into a vampire, with sharp fangs and blood trickling down his face and shirt. The caption, "I Am a Bloodthirsty Warmonger". Other similarly retouched images are apparently based on outtakes that the photographer might have been intending originally as candidates for the cover. One has added a chimpanzee defecating on McCain's head. Another image shows McCain with a lipstick smear and the caption, "It was really fun to cheat on my car-injury-disabled first wife."

The photographer bragged publicly that she had refrained from the usual cosmetic retouching of the cover and was happy that it had made McCain look bad on the cover. She made fun of the lack of sophistication of McCain and his handlers for not realizing why she was lighting him from the bottom. She pointed out that Atlantic could surely have learned of her anti-Bush politics.

These retouched images are can be found at
http: //americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/the_atlantic_mo.php
Conservative outlets stated that this was all part of Atlantic's agenda and that this particular photographer should never have been hired in light of her anti-Bush views.

Atlantic refused to pay for the cover, citing the photographer's "disgraceful" behavior. However, the editors defended the cover itself. The author of the story felt differently; he thought that the photographer's assertion that she had taken (or omitted) Photoshop steps in order to make McCain look bad completely discredited the cover and, by implication, his story.

2) PALIN AND THE DUTY TO RETOUCH.
The claim about my Reagan image was that it was ethically questionable to go farther than customary in emphasizing imperfections. Here, we get the logical continuation: it is unethical *not* to retouch to make Palin look more attractive. Various conservative outlets charged that pictures were routinely altered to smooth Barack Obama's skin and that Palin was entitled to the same courtesy. For example, at
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2056
we learn, "it should be noted that magazine covers for Obama are filtered and photoshopped to the point there isn't a blemish to be found" whereas Palin's pores were clearly visible, as was her makeup.

Fox News devoted a five-minute segment to the ethical ramifications of Newsweek's treatment of Palin's face. It can be seen at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yStRlkHyFrE
The Republican spokeswoman described Newsweek's ethical failings as "mortifying" and "a slap in the face" to the McCain campaign and to Palin personally. The Fox anchorwoman, not to be outdone, termed the failure to retouch "ridiculously unfair" to Palin and added "any respectable magazine should be doing a little retouching."

Newsweek did not have a response in this segment, but elsewhere a spokesman was quoted as saying, "as a news magazine, it is not our policy to cosmetically retouch the photography we publish."

THE JOURNALISTIC ETHICS OF FACES.
Atlantic management, it seems to me, is 100% in the right. It should not be launching investigations into the politics of its photographers and retouchers. We all have our private political views; it's only when they're made public in an decisive way that they become an issue. If the magazine had asked the photographer for a portrait of Bush, she would have had an ethical obligation to disclose her public anti-Bush activities before accepting it. But she was not asked to shoot Bush, she was asked to shoot McCain.

I also agree with management, and disagree with the reporter, about the cover itself. The photographer provided it but the magazine made the decision to use it. This is not the first portrait that has ever run on the cover of Atlantic. It surely knows the range of retouching possibilities, and elected not to employ them. If I were the editor deciding whether to run it, I would have found it an impressive portrait that showed a lot of McCain's character, and I would have run it. The article seems to portray him as a tough guy and it is fitting that the cover portray him as that. In making this editorial decision, the opinion of the photographer carries no weight. McCain was running for President, not Miss Photogenic. Even granted that the photographer later disclosed that she deliberately had made him "look bad," I am unmoved. I interpret that statement to mean that she found him not as pretty or as sexy as she could have made him. I do not see the relevance of these factors. The editors made their choice and management was right to back them. The image stands for itself, not for the photographer's politics or Photoshop skills.

Furthermore, Atlantic was absolutely right to refuse to pay the photographer. McCain was the publication's guest. As representative of the publication, the photographer had an obligation to deal with her guest in an honest and courteous way. Instead, she lied about the purpose of the lighting and duped him into participation in a project that he knew nothing about and for which he would not have authorized the use of his likeness. McCain believed he was sitting for a magazine cover portrait. The photographer's subsequent personal use of the images to advance a political cause was unacceptable and unethical.

The Palin brouhaha shows thef utility of attempting to put some kind of limit on facial maneuvering short of the total deletion of detail or the addition of something that isn't there. These critics presumably knew little about retouching technique and so were probably referring to sharpness and contrast allocation more than use of a painting tool. They may also not have realized that pores and the like are more visible when the picture prints at larger than life size, as Palin's did, than at a more conventional cropping such as that used for the McCain cover.

Palin could nevertheless have been made prettier without crossing any ethical boundary. It is also true that the prettifying techniques are commonly used on most cover subjects, including politicians. The charge that they have been used on Obama and Hillary Clinton is correct, but they have also been used on McCain. On the other hand, the article's subject was Palin being "One of the Folks". The editors and art directors might reasonably prefer a more natural version of her face in this context and a more retouched one in another.

It was useful to hear the Republican critics opine that the printed cover was accurate. It was useful because it enabled them to say flatly that the magazine had not just the choice but the ethical duty to move the picture away from reality. However, though useful, the statement was not correct.

When we stare at a face we pick up much more detail than if we just give it a quick glance. A harsher image is "accurate" in the first setting and a smoother one in the second. Both photographer and retoucher often make decisions about which alternative reality they want us to see. Neither is more "accurate" than the other.

The problem with establishing an ethical obligation to retouch is that it implies an ethical obligation not to go too far. Magazine retouchers are sometimes not all that skillful. There would have been hell to pay if one had been hamhanded enough to give Palin the Playboy-centerfold type skin described in my first paragraphs. Many would term such a move sexist. And it's very hard to say how far in that direction the retouch would have to go to provoke such a response. Consequently, this whole business of second-guessing the retoucher amounts to a claim that it is unethical for the retouch to not be as violent as the critic would like, but it is also unethical for it to be *more* violent than the critic would like.

Giving typesetters, scanner operators, retouchers, strippers, and pressmen veto power over editorial decisions is not a good idea. Most publications in my experience do welcome feedback from production folk. So, if they really wanted me to give Palin a teenager's skin, I'd do it--but I'd ask the art director whether the magazine had considered that certain people might find that type of retouch politically incorrect and offensive.

More likely during this campaign my complaint to the art director would have nothing to do with Photoshop technique. I would say, "I note that this image of Palin image that you're asking me to correct is the eighth one this week that allows me to determine what length she prefers for her skirt. I observe that during the same period, every picture of Obama, McCain, and Biden is cropped no lower than the navel. Yawl need to crack down on your photographers."

But if they just ask me to make Palin look a little younger, fine. Whatever you say, boss. Same as if you had asked me to make an old man look his age.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Jim Bean"
Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:42 am (PST)

dan wrote:

Atlantic was absolutely right to refuse to pay the photographer. McCain was
the publication's guest. As representative of the publication, the photographer had an
obligation to deal with her guest in an honest and courteous way. Instead, she lied about
the purpose of the lighting and duped him into participation in a project that he knew
nothing about and for which he would not have authorized the use of his likeness. McCain
believed he was sitting for a magazine cover portrait. The photographer's subsequent
personal use of the images to advance a political cause was unacceptable and unethical.f

I agree with this viewpoint... with the exception of the 'refusal to pay'... had the magazine not used the image.. I could follow this logic... however, if the publication did use and publish the image.. I see no reason for not paying the invoice. perhaps I missed something...

regards, jim bean
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Bruce Albrecht"
Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:16 pm (PST)

Well, except for the fact that Atlantic was not aware of Ms. Greenberg's extracurricular project until after the magazine went to print. Maybe if they had a choice in the matter they would have recommissioned the shoot? I noted at the time that the McCain campaign planned on filing suit against the magazine, and Atlantic went to extraordinary lengths to publicize the fact they were completely unaware of her activities.Maybe they *should* pay the photographer and send along a bill for the costs associated with their defense? I sure know that if a subcontractor of mine pulled a stunt like this, it'd be a cold day in hell before they saw any of my money.

Bruce
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Henry Davis
Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:16 pm (PST)

On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Jacob Rus wrote:

as if "objective" pictorial reality can even be defined.

I can't resist. The photojournalist does indeed know when he is intentionally contriving a scene and most certainly knows when he is manipulating the content.

The thrust of your views on this matter seem to center on the denial of the possibility of contriving and manipulating. Such a view dismisses the ethical and moral issues as meaningless pursuits. Is it possible to contrive or manipulate reality? Not according to your view. How can reality be contrived or manipulated if there is a doubt that there is an existing objective reality? This free-for-all attitude may work for you, but not for me.

The denial of personal responsibility is at the root of so much of this thread. The case has been made for peer pressure and changing social norms, appeals to the authority of the "boss", the need to make a living, following orders, if I don't someone else will and so on. All of this is simply an attempt to skirt the aspect of one's personal accountability. And not to forget the apex of argument that suggests that there is no objective reality, so what's the big deal and concern over how it is portrayed? Well, that's a fine how-dee-do.

There is one argument, however, that has not been voiced but there may be one of two who might have the courage to admit it. It is this: Some of us derive great pleasure in jerking people around with our craft. We get to play with the thing that others may mistakenly assume as reality. We get to screw with their heads. We like this power, and so we use it. We excuse it so that we can keep using it. We sneak it in. At times we abuse it. There are some who enjoy goring the other guy's ox and have found that if they can remove themselves from the ethics of it, they can make money without a guilty conscience. I would much prefer to hear such an honest admission as this than to listen to a disingenuous attempt at philosophical justification.

Individuals within a field, at least in some areas, are the ones who set the height of the ethics bar. Individuals who are so determined in their argument for adjusting the bar lower and lower can't, in their hearts or minds, expect a high standard of ethics in return.

Henry Davis ___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Jacob Rus
Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:46 pm (PST)

Henry Davis wrote:

The thrust of your views on this matter seem to center on the denial
of the possibility of contriving and manipulating. Such a view
dismisses the ethical and moral issues as meaningless pursuits. Is
it possible to contrive or manipulate reality? Not according to your
view. How can reality be contrived or manipulated if there is a
doubt that there is an existing objective reality? This free-for-all
attitude may work for you, but not for me.

No, no!! It's exactly the opposite. I deny the possibility that any photograph can avoid being contrived and manipulated. Or perhaps more accurately, the interpretation of any picture depends on the surrounding text and the cultural context, and to suggest that any photograph is inherently "real" or "unreal" is missing most of the story.

Of course photographs can be contrived and manipulated, and especially by altering accompanying text (this is a much easier deception than altering images, as readers/viewers are less aware of the ease with which they can be misled). And no! Journalism is *certainly not* a free for all; indeed, I expect journalists to have high personal and professional standards. I am merely saying that I think an obsessive focus on whether a photo has had minor retouching is the *wrong* standard. Instead, photographers, and journalists more generally, should do their level best to tell the story as they think it happened (as should politicians, police officers, historians, etc.); picking a propagandistic camera angle (depending on the situation) is no more inherently acceptable than pasting one person's head on another's body.

The denial of personal responsibility is at the root of so much
of this thread.

Who is attempting to deny personal responsibility? Do you have anything specific in mind to go with this claim?

–Jacob Rus
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: "Kevin Stecyk"
Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:11 am (PST)

Dan Margulis wrote:

-------------
My favored method of smoothing skintone without overly softening the image hasn't
changed since 2001:

http://www.ledet. com/margulis/ ACT_postings/ ColorCorrection/ ACT-Smooth- Skin.html

In lectures, I have a great example, a picture of a woman destined to be the cover of a
magazine aimed at women of age 40+. The file as submitted to the magazine always
draws a huge laugh, because the woman has been sharpened so much that she looks like
a crocodile. Not just every pore and wrinkle, but every blotch of powder is visible.

When I show how the magazine tried to compensate it always gets another big laugh. They
gave her flawless skin, entirely suitable for the centerfold of Playboy, but not what one
would expect of a woman in her forties.

My method is somewhat more subtle than just blending these two extreme versions, and
usually gets a very attentive response, because this type of work is critical for professional
retouchers.
-------------

Thank you very much Dan. As a newer member to your group, I appreciate being pointed to these golden nuggets of information and knowledge.

Best regards,
Kevin H. Stecyk
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Retouching Reagan
Posted by: Henry Davis
Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:58 pm (PST)

On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Jacob Rus wrote:

Who is attempting to deny personal responsibility? Do you have
anything specific in mind to go with this claim?

The photojournalist who contrives, manipulates or alters a photograph.

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________

Smoothing Skintone (was: Retouching Reagan)
Posted by: "Cicero Rodrigues"
Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:04 am (PST)

I am aware that tough guys must do all the manipulation themselves, by hand.

But for those who have to correct lots of pictures and deliver perfect skin, that Gisele Bunchen look (or even a plastic Barbie look) I recommend a try on the Dynamic Skin Softener Filter from Nik Color Efex .

It really works.

Cicero Rodrigues
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Smoothing Skintone (was: Retouching Reagan)
Posted by: David Barrack
Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:10 am (PST)

I tried it and thought it was great .... at first. In the end I had clients tell me that "things just don't look as good" and they can't put their finger on it. I tried changing the Nik parameters and playing with opacity but I was spending as much time or more as before and still wondering if I was getting my "tough guy" results. In the end I think it's a great filter for quick and dirty work but you won't get great skin texture and detail in all the right places. So I agree that you can do lots of images fast, but disagree that you'll get perfect skin. And at least for me it failed the litmus test which was client reaction. Back to being a manly man!

David Barrack