Arlo reacted to something and has had a rash around his mouth for the past week or so.
My first instinct when I looked at the photo was that the rash was too harsh and detracting, so I edited it out. I don’t want to look back at this photo in years to come and the overriding thought be, “Look at Arlo’s rash”. It’s distracting.
This is the image straight out of camera. Yes, it would have helped if I got the framing and exposure right SOOC too. In fact, everything about this image is terrible.
So, I did what I usually do when I can’t decide, and I edited two versions – rashy and non-rashy.
Sometimes I find it really difficult to resist the urge to ‘perfect’ an image. Especially when I have all the tools right in front of me and I’m used to doing it for client work.
I don’t like to mess around with eyes – if they come out super sharp and crazily vivid straight out of camera, then that’s great. Otherwise I leave them alone. There’s something about the eyes, I feel that if you create that look artificially, you end up making that person look artificial and not like themselves any more.
But with a close up portrait that I know I’m going to print one day, I do like to smooth and even out skin tone. Mainly because a barely noticeable red patch on screen can become a hugely harsh and distracting blotch on a large print. I will see that photo every day on my wall, and it will annoy me.
Sam absolutely hates it. He would prefer if every image was exactly as it was in real life. Whereas I don’t hesitate to edit out snot and food.
So, where do you draw the line? When does an image stop being a true representation of your child?
Until I make up my mind, I’ll just keep on editing two of everything.