I'll give my take on photo manipulation, and the 3 levels of it: The first level is what I would consider a normal part of real photography. This is just upping the exposure or reducing the contrast on an entire image, or cropping or zooming; stuff one can do in the Photos app on OSX without any real photo manipulation software. The second level is Lilia's work here: adding hues, tones, effects, etc. Even adding or removing bits of the images counts as second level. And this is the most controversial because it makes beautiful art, but a lot of people pretend they didn't manipulate their photos, and that these are the originals. That's why there was backlash to your photos: people thought you were claiming they were unedited. the third level is like Eric Johansson's art: using Photoshop to combine several, dozens, or even hundreds of photos and images into one piece of art. In conclusion, image manipulation software is a great tool to improve photos, but it needs to come with honesty.

Love these before and afters, your editing is sublime, the completed portraits are simply amazing, love each and every one!

I think they are beautiful photos. Some had too much editing for my taste, but it's just my personal preference.

I think a photograph "stops being a photograph" when the picture looks unreal-- like making the moon look five times larger than normal, for example. Let me be clear that such an image would still be art, but a photograph, edited or not, reflects the real world. I don't think making things pop or editing out a fence with extra flowers makes it not a photograph. I do agree with some of the comments that the reds are a bit much, but that's a matter of preference and style. I would say "it's too much for me," but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not a photograph anymore.

One thing I can understand complaints about, is that they're children, they don't really need beautification. But the skin changes in these photos are subtle enough that I have no problem. Could be bias. My dad is a professional photographer, and never removes anything like acne or skin spots on Photographs of me despite carefully touching them up in Photoshop. IMO, Photoshop is important for touching up photos as long as they don't do something drastic like how some Cosplayers and "ulzzang" (selfies for face beauty) Photoshop their face to look unrealistic like thinning/sharpening their nose, enlarging eyes, thinning jaw, unnaturally-whitened skintone, etc... Then try to pass it off as their "real self". Or how magazines for celebrities or fashion can Photoshop their bodies to be much thinner than they really are without the natural skin folds from being in certain poses. At that point it becomes more digital art than photograph.

I'm not a photographer by any stretch, but that's what I think: far too many things these days are artificial. Both men and women use ridiculous amounts of make up and body and hair products and the photos get further edited to the point where they look more like wax figures than real people. I suppose you can call it a form of "false advertising." For example look at these two photos of an older woman- especially notice her hands- in the second one you can barely see her knuckles. Elizabeth-...407192.jpg Elizabeth-...407192.jpg To me personally editing is fine as far as making the photo brighter/ darker and adding some saturation for richer colours. More than that and I think the author needs to just say he edited the photo as a kind of warning that it isn't an accurate representation of reality. Putting the original and the edit side to side is also a good idea and I like the way you have done it.

This is an interesting topic. I used to experiment with photomanipulation as the media itelf, years ago. My goal was not to make the photos look pretty, it was to make them look weird on purpose, or collage, or to make them look like paintings/drawings. Through various filters, selection, objects, masks etc. That's digital art, not when you enhance the colours to make the photos closer to your vision. Afterall... The eye of the camera is different from our eyes. While on the topic of retouching pictures, I draw a lot using coloured pencils. After scanning, they usually look pretty rough, so I tend to do a littoe retouch to make them look more clean. What do people say about that? That my drawing skills aren't true? Tsk tsk Thank you for this article, I've been tired of all the hatred towards a tool.

As a seasoned photographer, it is about capturing the mood and feel, which requires enhancement. What I say to every single client is - "I want to capture the way the world sees you, not how you see yourself." Because perceptions are quite different between the subject's view of him or herself, and how they are actually seen by everyone else.

If you want a 70's effect, use Instax (old Polaroid): shoot and print as it is. Yours is manipulation, but these pictures are better than the original with colours well balanced. So, why not?

Hello Lilia, your composition and balancing of the subject matter in every shot is well executed! You are also very skilled at create seamless composites, however, and this is just my opinion, it seems that your strong suit is creating less dramatic environmental portraits, like the first entries. I feel like the last shots are a bit heavy handed and could benefit from trying a different approach. Think of changing tactics when retouching like changing vantage points while shooting, every shot is vastly different. Give it a shot, you may be surprised by what you find. All in all, great work!

Lilia, Personally I think ALL your photos are just beautiful... You've been able to bring such a warm & caring quality to all of them...I don't know of anyone who wouldn't love to have such a loving memory ! Please keep what you are doing!

These are beautiful Lilia! I wish I had the skills to edit this way, often times a photo just doesn't have the depth of what you see when you take the picture. You are able to really enhance the crispness of the subject with a background of gorgeous colors.

Beautiful work, I personally think professional photography, most times, is about the enhancements, your work is amazing.

There is a sickness in the creative community, I call it creative elitism. New grads usually graphic designers or journalism school kids getting into marketing feel entitled to creative work and shun anyone with a different background. These people are toxic AF, run from them.

You might be better off to consider why this "controversy" is an issue for you. If it is the end result that matters, why the before and afters? Why does it matter why some people don't like your work or don't consider them to be photographs? Are you doing photography? Yes, but some are clearly composite images. Someone once defined a photograph as a capture of a particular viewpoint at a particular moment in time. If you follow this definition (as I do) then composite images are not photographs as the viewpoint of a composite image does not exist. Personally, and FWIW, I don't consider photography to be Art, but I think your work looks gorgeous. Isn't that all that really matters?

I do post-processing on my images. When asked if I Photoshop them, I say, "Yes! the human eye sees things so differently than the camera can capture. I manipulate the image so it looks like what I saw, rather than what the camera recorded."

I'm a photographer. I remember the days of no "Live-view". We dealt with manual lenses too, but nowadays its a WHOLE NEW WORLD. Very good work. I have heard of people swearing against any photo-manipulation at all. These are truly beginners for ALL OF US manipulate our stuff now! Thank God for the photo-finishing revolution!

Great work

Photography is a visual art - this is like arguing that Da Vinci is 'real' art and Monet isn't.