Would it have been that bad?

smash

Was editing some photos recently from a friends wedding and on a close up of the bride I was removing some blemishes and suddenly my wife said "you can't do that". Only then I realised I was removing a mole from her face. But would it really have been all that bad?

Paulw

It's down to personal taste.

Some like to be cleaned up, while others like accurate images.

Something like a mole though, can be part of the person, part of their character, and if removed from an image would be obvious and wouldn't be a true view of the person.

smash

Paulw wrote: »

Something like a mole though, can be part of the person, part of their character, and if removed from an image would be obvious and wouldn't be a true view of the person.

I did think of that, but I don't think it would have been an obvious edit. The mole is flesh coloured so it's not very noticeable in person but it caught a shadow in the photo.

Misstaken

Personally for a wedding I wouldn't but if I'm doing beauty shots then i will, depending on the shot and what I'm going for.
For a wedding, it's just retouching for a "normal" person so they might well be insulted no if you were take it out? Just my two cents.

Promac

We had this exact thread a while ago. The outcome was something like - if it's a spot or temporary blemish then clone away. If it's permanent then ask the subject.