To think airbrushing a baby should not be the default position for a photographer

[Ididgoogleit]

We went for a family photoshoot today.
In the review room to choose our photos, one of the staff asked us if a red mark on DD's (7mo) face is a birthmark. I explained no, it's eczema, and she asked if we would like it to be airbrushed out of the photos. We said no. DD has had ongoing issues with her skin for months and more often than not has red, inflamed cheeks. Not that it's actually all that relevant but today, she actually looks a lot better and in the photos it just looked like she had rosy cheeks more than anything. She looked truly beautiful in the photos, just like her.
The person who deals with post-production wasn't in the room so the woman said she'd write a note explaining it was eczema and to not edit it out because otherwise he probably just would do it.

This has really irked me. It's one thing to ask (although that in itself bothers me too because why are you pointing out perceived flaws in my baby. And actually had that been DD3, she's old enough that she would have understood that as criticism of her face and maybe taken it to heart)... but why on Earth is the default to airbrush a baby's face unless told otherwise.

I understand that some people may want to airbrush a temporary issue like a scratch or spot or eczema out and having lived with DD's really complex skin issues for months and months now (she has a paediatric dermatology appointment next week actually) I can understand that some people may want the photo editing to hide that trauma in the longer term, but surely that suggestion should come from the family and not from the photographers. Just say you have the option to make some changes using airbrushing or whatever if you're interested but don't highlight what you perceive as a flaw in my perfect baby and then make leaving her as she naturally as the 'optional' choice.

It’s probably just that more people choose to edit it out than not, I don’t think it has to be a big deal.

They asked you said no, what’s the issue? If they hadn’t asked and you got the pics and then you said why didn’t they airbrush would they have been wrong too?

Well as you say most people want it, probably including many whose babies have eczema who aren’t as sensible about it as you are. I agree with your attitude, it’s like those filters everyone seems to use on every phone photo that enhance the skin and eyes but just look utterly freakish to me.

I dislike the assumption you don't want a record of how they actually look but want a "perfect".

DD2 was born missing her hand, and one photographer when she was about 18 months took the photos carefully to avoid putting her missing hand in the picture. The fact this meant that about a quarter of her head was also missing seemed a good idea to them.
I can't think anyone would have preferred to miss half her head in order to pretend she had two hands.

I was very unimpressed.

I just can't understand why this could possibly be the assumption though. As I said, I do understand why some parents might want to have somethings edited out and I'm not judging anyone for that, it's parental choice, but I can't see why it would be the default presumption that they would do this. Your scenario is I get photos of us back exactly as we are naturally and then I complain that they didn't take their own creative liberty to airbrush whatever they feel out without us ever having discussed it at all..... And that doesn't sound odd to you?!

This is both awful and absurd! I'm sorry this happened as I bet your daughter looked beautiful in the original photo and it would have been very special to have.

Why’s it so hard to believe that it might just be because it’s the most common preference?

She would have looked lovely if it had been her whole face.

They didn't ask me, so I only found out when they sent the proofs.

The fact is that most people who pay for professional photo shoots do expect some editing. Do you want the photographer to remove your spots and dark circles?

And your DD3 wasn't there so no idea why you're bringing her into it!

No I don't and didn't ask for any editing.
I haven't been on a photoshoot before so awas unaware that this is the norm. Apparently I'm wrong. Fair enough.

However..... Why bring my DD3 into it because she wasn't there? You think we went on a family photoshoot and left our 3 year old out of it? She was there, she was in the room. I meant that if she had been the one with the eczema on her face and they were asking us if we wanted to remove it she is old enough to understand what they were saying and easily could have been upset that they were asking us to change her face.

I can understand that. I'm surprised at it but I can understand. I can't understand that it's so the norm that, according to you, it doesn't actually even need discussing and the airbrushing should just happen anyway. How does the photographer know what to change and what to leave? If the photographer thinks someone's nose looks too big does that get changed? If a child's ears are sticking out to they get cropped off? If they feel I didn't brush DD's hair well enough will they somehow straighten it? I just don't get it.

So am I to expect that when we get the photos back there'll be some airbrushing on the rest of us in some way?

It didn't sound like she was there by the way you wrote your OP (which I did think was a bit odd!) but I assume they would have been more discreet if they'd been talking about her face. It would be a good thing to feed back though that they need to be careful about having those conversations when older children are in earshot.

But yes, people typically want to be airbrushed when they pay for a pro photo shoot. And unless you've told them you don't want it, they'll do it to you and your husband

They DID ask you. You were asked. There’s a huge difference between them editing out eczema without checking and reshaping a nose. You are making far more of it than what actually happened.

DS had a tiny red dot on his cheek (strawberry mark) and I loved it. It was very small but super cute to me as it was part of him.

We had some photos done when he was 7 months old and I noticed the photographer had edited the dot out of all of them. I never said anything but I really wish she hadn't. The pictures didn't look very natural of any of their skin, very airbrushed look which made me sad. We haven't been to her since.

Could you not have just asked for the unedited version? They probably still had them.

No wonder people have low self-esteem, being presented all the time with artificial perfection.

This is ridiculous! Your daughter was born missing her hand and will always be missing it. It’s something that makes her unique and of course she doesn’t look any less beautiful without a hand. I hope you got some money back from the shoot?

OP, the eczema I can understand that the default would be to edit it out. I wouldn’t want a scrape, spot or random patch of eczema in the photos to remember forever whenever I look on my wall! It would be different if it was a birthmark or anything that formed part of what she looked like long-term as a child.

Dramalama.

I understand you OP. We’ve been asked twice if we want them to edit my daughters birthmark out of photos (a strawberry mark on her face, about the size of a 10 pence piece) and it’s always infuriated me. It’s her face, she’s beautiful the way she is, and it makes me cross that the default is to change the way she was born for the sake of a ‘perfect’ photo

They asked, you said no, what’s the problem?

This.

We had newborn photos done and the week of the shoot the baby came out in terrible baby acne and had white heads and spots all over his face, so we asked for them to be edited out. The photos wouldn’t of been a reflection of what he actually looked like whilst he was getting rid of these spots. It’s not the end of the world.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. They didn't ask if you wanted the face shape changed or bigger eyes (all possible with photoshop), just the removal of excema. If you'd had a spot and they had asked to remove it, surely that makes sense as the spot last days and the photo will last years?

I don't understand the mindset of anyone who goes for these photoshoots.

I would assume that anyone who's doing it is very focused on their image and how they appear in photos, so it's not surprising they would also assume that everyone should be airbrushed.

Photoshoots like this have never been about reality or a genuine representation of a family group. They've always been a weird, fake, production line of very similar images, so it's not surprising that they now airbrush as a matter of course.

I think spots and temporary blemishes are fine for it to be the norm for brush-ups for professional pictures. I think this is very different to removing something that's a permanent feature of the subject.

There's a photographer near where my grandparents used to live that does nice pictures and when I was there last to take passport photos, I did specify to ask that they remove an acne spot I had at the time. I don't see why a temporary spot I had at the time should then follow me for 10 years as a passport photo.

I also have atopic dermatitis, which gives me sometimes a red rash also around the eye area, and I'd both want and expect to get that brushed out of photographer pictures as well.

I see normal pictures that you take when you're out and about in life as representations of what you look like generally, but photographer pictures as sort of nicer representations. Bit like a low-scale version of having a painting done.

As she asked and didn't just present you with something removed that you didn't want removed, I think this is perfectly fine.