Are Photo Filters Dishonest, Fake?

I see this debate everyday on social media;

Are using photography filters dishonest? An illusion on some level? Not authentic? Do you feel filters are disingenuous especially when trying to attract attention for romantic dating? Etcetera, etcetera.

Filters are a loosely defined definition and I want to share with you my take on photo filters from an old school dinosaur professional photographers point of view.

Filters, real filters, are one thing. The Snapchat® types and often built-in phone camera filters are quite another. The first, enhance the subject, in a subtle manner. The others, render the subject into some sci-fi/anime image when overused and are commonly used to create fun images. What people refer to today as filters, is what I studied and was taught as photo-retouching decades ago. I’m not talking about those filters that add doggie ears and such. I am talking about real portrait photography retouching techniques.

You should know that a photograph is typically captured at 1/60th of a second when using a flash. The tools to create a better, more appealing image to what the human eye can perceive in that time frame is what filters are used for. The use of camera filters and filters such as dodging/burning used in the darkroom have been common practice in portrait photography since the invention of cameras.

In the days before digital editing, we used a multitude of lens filters. In fact, some professional and amateur photographers still use them. Numerous lens filters were used specifically to defuse and soften skin tones. They were a must-have for any portrait photographer. Even with today’s advancement of cell phone cameras, there are still diffusion filters specifically made for camera lenses during professional and amateur portrait photography. There are an abundance of diffusing filters for lighting such as flashes and professional strobes underneath umbrellas and inside of soft-boxes, which soften lights and skin tones.

There is also widely used professional imaging software such as Photoshop® and Corel® that add soft filters as well. So I ask you, what is the difference between using portrait softening filters on a camera lens vs. skin softening features as found in Photoshop® and other photo editing software?

Personally, I DREAD unretouched candid photos of myself.

Here’s why.

I love photography. Especially portrait photography. I understand photography from a professional perspective. I have been into photography since I was a teenager. Yes, the days of film. I owned and operated a professional portrait photography studio including my own darkroom. I’ve been a model photographer from boudoir, to weddings, and pretty much everything else in between. I am extremely meticulous about attention to detail — lighting, depth of field, and composition. But I am absolutely OBSESSED with the final photograph capturing the vision I saw in my mind’s eye to begin with.

I am not a beautiful model, and although I dread those candid unretouched candid photos of myself, I love to take selfies. I adore my cell phones camera and use it a lot. But I prefer to mostly use my Canon digital camera on my tripod that can be set to continuously shoot in any interval I set it to — until I make it stop, that is. Either way, I love to take selfies of myself.

I believe most of us are critical of ourselves and more than likely dislike how we look in photos. We usually cringe when we notice the imperfections in our selfie images, even for those perfectly trained professional models! — especially when comparing ourselves to others.

We see a 3D image of ourselves in the mirror and a flat 2D picture full of imperfections. When we open our images on our cell phone or computer, we have a flat, 2D picture. The 2D photo takes away many distinct features that make us who we are, and at this point, all the flaws become more visible and distracting.

I will take hundreds of photographs just to end up with a handful. Because, moving my face or body just a millimeter to the left or right, up or down, changes the composition and lighting drastically.

From a photographers point of view, a camera will typically capture those unwanted skin rednesses, acne or enlarged pores. There may be some dark circles under the eyes. Personally, I’ve had open-heart surgery which left a 9-inch scar on my chest. I don’t retouch my ugly scar or try to get rid of it totally, because, it’s part of who I am. But what about harsh lighting that creates deep shadows in my eye sockets or deepening the shadows of my chest scar? Or, what about temporary blemishes or something stuck in my teeth that I didn’t realize was there before I took the photo and otherwise love the composition of that particular photo? Speaking of composition, what about those photos you love but have a tree in the background which looks like it’s growing out of your head, that you simply didn’t notice during the original capture? Or a posture you think is unflattering but otherwise absolutely love the smile on your face?

These imperfections whether minor or major can be easily diminished in a Photoshop® type editor. When I retouch my personal images, it’s not to make these flaws totally disappear, because, they are also an essential part of my distinct look. But should they be the center of attention for the viewer? I think not.

It’s totally acceptable to soften skin tones, to remove those small veins or deep shadowed wrinkles in the eyes, or making the whites of the eyes whiter. It’s okay to remove imperfections that will disappear anyway, such as pimples. It’s okay to alter the composition or to remove those things no one actually pays attention to in person, yet are distractions when you look at a photo. Are we to simply accept those distractions when we have alternatives? Again, I think not.

What I do is make my photos less distracting, so that my beauty can emerge and shine as realistic as possible in the 2D world. I want to look as beautiful and realistic in the photo as I did after I took the time with my makeup, hair, and clothes. Nothing more, nothing less.