Timm wrote:

Awesome work (as always).

Thanks for the information.

love love love love love love love love love

Beach wrote:
the makeup artist/stylist is the most important element of good beauty photography

+1,000,000

Sean Armenta wrote:
shooting it is only maybe halfway into it.

retouching plays the most important part.

I find this answer (and others like it) amazing.

Believe it or not, photographers used to capture images like these on film, with no retouching at all. Straight from transparency to separations.

MUA is VERY important. Lighting is critical. A gorgeous model with great skin is essential. Retouching is not.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
I find this answer (and others like it) amazing.

Believe it or not, photographers used to capture images like these on film, with no retouching at all. Straight from transparency to separations.

MUA is VERY important. Lighting is critical. A gorgeous model with great skin is essential. Retouching is not.

Then why does everyone do it, from lowly amateurs to high end pros to beauty / makeup campaigns?

Photoshop shouldn't take poor photos and make them good, but can take good photos and make them fantastic and perfect (to my eyes at least)!

The point is that to achieve the level expected by the market these days, lighting is critical, a good MUA is critical etc... but photoshop work is NOW also critical. There's no point in comparing yourself to a standard 10-20-30 years ago. Fashions and requirements change.

I've worked with models with near perfect skin, but even they don't meet the requirements of the market without at least some post work. Photoshop also gives you the ability to choose a model on more than just skin alone - if I have a model who can express in AMAZING ways but who has imperfect skin, or one with perfect skin who can express OK, I'll take the former.

Julian Wilde Studio wrote:
It all starts with a REAL Beautiful Girl...  -JULIAN

I agree. It's hard to find the right face for beauty shots. For me at least. That's why my beauty book so small. A lot of failed beauty tests :-|

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
Photoshop shouldn't take poor photos and make them good, but can take good photos and make them fantastic and perfect (to my eyes at least)!

I've worked with models with near perfect skin, but even they don't meet the requirements of the market without at least some post work. Photoshop also gives you the ability to choose a model on more than just skin alone - if I have a model who can express in AMAZING ways but who has imperfect skin, or one with perfect skin who can express OK, I'll take the former.

And you've made the point as to why it happens now.

It's cheaper. You can use models that require retouching. You can use photographers who don't light quite perfectly. You can use a makeup artist whose hand isn't quite as fine. And fix it all in Photoshop. Make that good shot great instead of getting the great shot in the first place. Because it is cheap to retouch today.

When Revlon was shooting their campaigns in the late 80s (those shots going straight to separation without retouching), they were hiring the very best models in the business because they had perfect skin and were great models. And the very best photographers, makeup artists, hair stylists, etc. Today, Cindy Crawford's mole would be retouched out.. then it was an integral part of her image. Yes, it could have been retouched out... would have cost more than the whole shoot to do so though. Today? Anybody can have perfect skin (at least in the photographs). When rarity drops, so does price.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

And you've made the point as to why it happens now.

It's cheaper. You can use models that require retouching. You can use photographers who don't light quite perfectly. You can use a makeup artist whose hand isn't quite as fine. And fix it all in Photoshop. Make that good shot great instead of getting the great shot in the first place. Because it is cheap to retouch today.

When Revlon was shooting their campaigns in the late 80s (those shots going straight to separation without retouching), they were hiring the very best models in the business because they had perfect skin and were great models. And the very best photographers, makeup artists, hair stylists, etc. Today, Cindy Crawford's mole would be retouched out.. then it was an integral part of her image. Yes, it could have been retouched out... would have cost more than the whole shoot to do so though. Today? Anybody can have perfect skin (at least in the photographs). When rarity drops, so does price.

I think you've missed the point of my post.

Fixing photography lighting mistakes is not a good reason to do photoshop whatever the situation, but the people we are talking about (in the makeup campaigns) are shooting quality images which end up being very close to the originals - they're just adding extra quality which is impossible to expect from a real life situation. I know my before and afters are on the whole very close. Put it this way, as a 400 wide image you probably wouldn't see a difference between the two.

Crucially, what used to be a 100% shot 10-20-30 years ago by "todays standards" is a 70% image. To get to 100%, photoshop is expected to turn near perfection to perfection. The option wasn't available then. It is now. So people are using it.

To repeat, we're not talking (well I'm not at least) about taking rubbish and turning it into perfection.

Cindy Crawfords mole is irrelevant. The art director and campaign manager would make a decision on that. Now at least they just have a choice.

The expectations have changed. That's not automatically good or bad but a judgement call based on your view. If your view is that it's bad, fair enough. However, the view from the masses is that a shot from 10-20-30 years ago is now not a 100% shot, nearly regardless of the model, lighting and makeup quality. It requires post production to make it a 100%, on the whole.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
The expectations have changed. That's not automatically good or bad but a judgement call based on your view. If your view is that it's bad, fair enough. However, the view from the masses is that a shot from 10-20-30 years ago is now not a 100% shot, nearly regardless of the model, lighting and makeup quality. It requires post production to make it a 100%, on the whole.

How many of those "great" shots as you call them are winning IPAs, or Smari's, or Lucie's, or APA Awards, or Sony World awards?  Not a whole lot as far as I can discover. On the other hand, those old guys who did capture those images on film (you know, the ones you say were not 100% by today's standards), photographers like Patrick Demarchelier, are managing to win awards. Maybe the difference isn't as much as you think it is. Maybe photographers shooting 8x10 and having to get it perfect on film actually did just that. The Revlon shots I referred to were as good (in my opinion better) than anything I've seen in magazines in the last ten years. They were definitely sharper and printed at higher DPI than anything is today.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

How many of those "great" shots as you call them are winning IPAs, or Smari's, or Lucie's, or APA Awards, or Sony World awards?  Not a whole lot as far as I can discover. On the other hand, those old guys who did capture those images on film (you know, the ones you say were not 100% by today's standards), photographers like Patrick Demarchelier, are managing to win awards. Maybe the difference isn't as much as you think it is. Maybe photographers shooting 8x10 and having to get it perfect on film actually did just that. The Revlon shots I referred to were as good (in my opinion better) than anything I've seen in magazines in the last ten years. They were definitely sharper and printed at higher DPI than anything is today.

As I sit here and read your conversations back and forth with Phil.  It is apples and oranges... Trust and believe retouchers existed 20 - 30 years ago and they were MASTERS at what they did even MORE so than the digital retouchers are now... I was privy to seeing an actual retouch done ON film and in development and it was mind boggling... Which brings us to this point, yeah a lot of the Revlon ads would not be getting the above listed awards, but they were also not shot with that purpose in mind... They were shot (and processed) with trying to earn hundreds of millions of dollars in consumers' revenue and Revlon could honestly care less if they won any awards for photographic excellence.

Standards haven't actually changed or dropped (the masters are still the masters at what they do), just the tools became more available and accessible to the masses.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
On the other hand, those old guys who did capture those images on film (you know, the ones you say were not 100% by today's standards), photographers like Patrick Demarchelier, are managing to win awards. Maybe the difference isn't as much as you think it is.

I'm not saying these people are now poor photographers, as you will see again if you really read my post. They were/are doing perfect photography, as are today's newer masters. However if you place a non processed shot against a processed one you will see a difference. That's why it's done. It's why someone adds an extra $thousands to the budget. Companies commisioning ads make decisions for their business and not because they owe retouchers a living, so they must see an advantage.   

Maybe the difference is more than you think?

Phil Drinkwater wrote:

I'm not saying these people are now poor photographers, as you will see again if you really read my post. They were/are doing perfect photography, as are today's newer masters. However if you place a non processed shot against a processed one you will see a difference. That's why it's done. It's why someone adds an extra $thousands to the budget. Companies commisioning ads make decisions for their business and not because they owe retouchers a living, so they must see an advantage.   

Maybe the difference is more than you think?

I've worked on budgets where the retoucher's bill far outweighed mine... It had nothing to do with my photography, lighting or the beauty of the model... It was what they wanted as a final image.

Kent Johnson Photograph wrote:
I am surprised no one has said it yet..

Medium or large format. I don't care how many pixels they stuff on a little receptor you will never get the tonal subtlety and clarity with a small camera. resolution, maybe but that is only one part of the equation.

...

Even though I don't shoot in my studio MF or LF, I would have to agree that you need megapixels to really get the detailed files to start with.  From there, it's all lighting, MUA skill, and model skin quality with some photoshopping to boot.

Bruce Talbot wrote:
Funny (yet sad) evolution to the thread.

It's not what was done, it's how we do. Us, here on MM.

Soooooo ........ while Phil trounces Al, I'll post this and note it was shot with a large gridded octodome and silver reflector.

Simple is as simple does, especially when properly thought out.



bt

Dallas J. Logan wrote:
As I sit here and read your conversations back and forth with Phil.  It is apples and oranges... Trust and believe retouchers existed 20 - 30 years ago and they were MASTERS at what they did even MORE so than the digital retouchers are now... I was privy to seeing an actual retouch done ON film and in development and it was mind boggling... Which brings us to this point, yeah a lot of the Revlon ads would not be getting the above listed awards, but they were also not shot with that purpose in mind... They were shot (and processed) with trying to earn hundreds of millions of dollars in consumers' revenue and Revlon could honestly care less if they won any awards for photographic excellence.

Standards haven't actually changed or dropped (the masters are still the masters at what they do), just the tools became more available and accessible to the masses.

I was one of those retouchers. Did lots of work for Marlboro (Philip Morris), a few other clients. All on film (11x14 dupes) The cost of retouching was such that clients rarely retouched if they could avoid it. It was expensive. Significantly more expensive than a reshoot. The Revlon campaign I am referring to wasn't retouched. I know that for a fact. Partly because retouching back then guaranteed a loss of quality (multiple generations of dupes were made using pin-registration systems).I also know that Revlon spent a lot of money to have special inserts printed to go in magazines at high DPI (think it was 600 DPI) to show off those shots. And those shots did win awards as well as bring in millions of dollars of consumer revenue (which is of course why Revlon spent the money for those models, photographers, MUAs, special printing, etc.).

To add retouching today means adding a few thousand dollars. Twenty years ago, it meant adding tens of thousands of dollars (in the case of the Revlon shoot, retouching would have cost more than a reshoot with Cindy Crawford, Patrick DeMarchelier, etc.)... in dollars that were worth a lot more.

Retouching is cheap today. That's why everyone does it. It's available and accessible.

I'm also not saying that is bad. But it isn't essential to retouch to get great beauty photography.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

How many of those "great" shots as you call them are winning IPAs, or Smari's, or Lucie's, or APA Awards, or Sony World awards?  Not a whole lot as far as I can discover. On the other hand, those old guys who did capture those images on film (you know, the ones you say were not 100% by today's standards), photographers like Patrick Demarchelier, are managing to win awards. Maybe the difference isn't as much as you think it is. Maybe photographers shooting 8x10 and having to get it perfect on film actually did just that. The Revlon shots I referred to were as good (in my opinion better) than anything I've seen in magazines in the last ten years. They were definitely sharper and printed at higher DPI than anything is today.

It's that much easier today to capture a great image without the constraints of film contrast.
When I started out I shot beauty on 8x10. My lighting hasn't changed much since that time. Yet I can assure you digital can capture more than enough info for beauty. Getting awards though doesn't really enter into the quality of the original. Ads are done by hopefully the best at what they do. If they have the creative twist to make an award happen.
The OP mind you posted years ago, showed some well crafted contrasty images. Those are best captured on negative film or MF captures as you have more head room for correction. The models and other members all helped to make the picture.

The photographer has a lot of responsibility, but the biggest part is to allow and maintain the production, around the set. The ads were big production, the other pictures in this thread however nice are not ads> the goals different, the fun  very different.

Robert Beynard wrote:

When most MM members will think it looks great you went too far.

Absolutely agreed: if you look at POTD winners, too many times the model skin is overdone in PS!

Jeremy DuBrul wrote:
Ah yes... the dreaded Photoshop Equation.

Let's try to keep this close to the topic of shooting beauty, and not the merits or history of retouching.

In the OP, Gregory Storm wrote:
I want to know what are the best ways of shooting beauty shots.

Kevin_Connery wrote:

Let's try to keep this close to the topic of shooting beauty, and not the merits or history of retouching.

I did