Exactly ! Why is a retouch in Photoshop (after the shot) considered fake" or "false" while the photographer might as well have altered the scene before taking the shot ? It's not fair, is it ?

And would the famous Rembrandt have been paid his fees, if he would have portrayed his clients exactly how they were ? He must have covered up quite a few spots and blemishes as well. (Although he wasn't very vain about his own face...)

But it's the purpose that counts. If the photo is intended to document something the way it is/was (like in journalism), or what's on sale (product photography), then it matters that the displayed persons, objects, or environments are truly as-is, and un-doctored. Even (and especially) framing matters !


Oorspronkelijk geplaatst op Quora: Are the ads any less false without Photoshop, especially when other techniques are still used like, makeup, lighting, and ideal figure shapes?"