Sean Baker Photo wrote:
You can get the same result from Portraiture, FS, IHP, or D&B.  Good (or bad) technique does not necessarily correlate with a mastery of aesthetics.

The saddest part of this may be that Lancome was (apparently) happy to pay for the work to be done.  Hopefully it was done "for exposure" .

It's the first ad under the cover of Elle so you know they paid bucks for it

Andreea Cernestean wrote:


This one still looks fake for a skintone, but it looks more golden.

Can anyone confirm what it looks like in the mag? I learned not to trust websized photos.

it looks just like this. Poor girl has orange pores on her upper lip

Andreea Cernestean wrote:
This one still looks fake for a skintone, but it looks more golden.

Can anyone confirm what it looks like in the mag? I learned not to trust websized photos.

Good point.  Below is a rough adaptation, but it looks more like below in print than what's been posted thus far (assuming you have a calibrated monitor & browser, that I don't have a bad copy of the print, and that I'm not 100% color blind today).

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
So to all those stuck up high end retouchers who like to tell me I could not get published in a high end magazine even though I was dating the fashion editor of Elle I like to say, "Lookie here..."

Haha was it stopping you from pursuing that goal?
How long do you think you need now?

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
I am. I think you remember the conversation so Im guessing ELLE and Lancome is off your High End List now

Sure you can call it confirmation bias or you can just say you were wrong

I'm thinking you missed the point. Maybe I wasn't clear.

Quality will lead you to ads work  - Plug ins will not.

I've seen ads done with plug ins.

You can think of it in several ways:

* What evidence do I have the plug in was used? Further more... was it used exclusively replacing every other technique?
I don't know this


** Using the plug in will indeed lead you to ads work

Be my guest. You're welcome tro try it and tell us all about how it went


*** It's an exception

Because I've worked on ads that made me get rid of everything that made the model human. Won't be on my port, of course, and I won't be working with that agency ever again.


My point still stands. I will keep working with manual techniques because I believe it leads to better results and I have my client list to show who agrees with me and its willing to pay for the time spent.
I will keep teaching and telling people about how you can get results manually mimicking the dark room techniques and maintaining image quality.

I don't think this ad shows anything conclusive.

Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing tho... take care

Lanenga wrote:
Haha was it stopping you from pursuing that goal?
How long do you think you need now?

Wasn't a goal. Im basically a legacy and can have stuff published in fashion magazines if thats what I was going for. Im not but I could. You have no clue who I am nor my connections in the fashion world that are so solid that years ago to be told that my images weren't "high end" because I used a plug in. That was a sad statement I thought not because it was made to me but because that is what the person thought. No I'm not out to be published in magazines that require people to ocd on pimples. But I could through a different door that you wouldn't understand

But I digress, this thread isn't about me or the editors of fashion magazines I slept with and worked with. it's about Landcome using a artist who uses PP and the High Enders who claimed that would never happen

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

Wasn't a goal. Im basically a legacy and can have stuff published in fashion magazines if thats what I was going for. Im not but I could. You have no clue who I am nor my connections in the fashion world that are so solid that years ago to be told that my images weren't "high end" because I used a plug in. That was a sad statement I thought not because it was made to me but because that is what the person thought. No I'm not out to be published in magazines that require people to ocd on pimples. But I could through a different door that you wouldn't understand

But I digress, this thread isn't about me or the editors of fashion magazines I slept with and worked with. it's about Landcome using a artist who uses PP and the High Enders who claimed that would never happen

LOADS of words
LOADS of alleged connections
LOADS of magic doors
LOADS of speculations

nothing to show for

Words are cheap

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

LOADS of words
LOADS of alleged connections
LOADS of magic doors
LOADS of speculations

nothing to show for

Words are cheap

SMH, buy the book "Invisible Eden" by Maria Flook or the recently published book by pulitzer prize writer Peter Manso, "Reasonable Doubt" and see who was Christa Worthington who was murdered and who was her long time boyfriend who lived with her and worked with her in NYC. If words are cheap then buy those books and when you finish come back and wink at me about those "magic doors" or "alleged connections" or maybe you will just keep the poison texting to yourself.
But this thread isn't about me it is about lancome using artist who use Pkug ins that High end OCd'er say is impossible

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
But this thread isn't about me it is about lancome using artist who use Pkug ins that High end OCd'er say is impossible

And it's just according to you. I don't see what you see.


FWIW
You made it about you
'I dated someone' wouldn't cut it as "qualifications" in my opinion, but if you want to feel good about that...

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
Wasn't a goal. Im basically a legacy and can have stuff published in fashion magazines if thats what I was going for. Im not but I could. You have no clue who I am nor my connections in the fashion world...

This is true, but I said nothing ABOUT YOU. I asked if that comment was what was stopping you. And now that you KNOW that it is possible to use PP in ads, how long it will take before you show the world that that comment was wrong and misplaced.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
But I digress, this thread isn't about me or the editors of fashion magazines I slept with and worked with. it's about Landcome using a artist who uses PP and the High Enders who claimed that would never happen

No, this thread, the way you started it, is about you discovering that Landcome has used an older version of PP for their ad.
Only later did you talk about a comment someone has made in the past that apparently is still bothering you even though you are so well connected.

Sorry, I don't get it...
But cool to see PP being used, I guess...

Lanenga wrote:

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
Wasn't a goal. Im basically a legacy and can have stuff published in fashion magazines if thats what I was going for. Im not but I could. You have no clue who I am nor my connections in the fashion world...

This is true, but I said nothing ABOUT YOU. I asked if that comment was what was stopping you. And now that you KNOW that it is possible to use PP in ads, how long it will take before you show the world that that comment was wrong and misplaced.


No, this thread, the way you started it, is about you discovering that Lacome has used an older version of PP for their ad.
Only later did you talk about a comment someone has made in the past that apparently is still bothering you even though you are so well connected.

Sorry, I don't get it...
But cool to see PP being used, I guess...

Im sorry you don't get it either. it didn't bother me to a point that it held me back. It bothered me that some people think they own the only way to get into something and telling others "you ain't as good as me to get the work I do." which is wrong all around. If you look at my stuff you can see Im not into getting ads in magazines. But to be told I could not get into high end magazines was wrong to say to anyone. I remember everything

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
I cannot make those who wish not to see, to see. If you care enough then look it up if not, no biggie. As for the Landcome ad I say "I cannot make those who wish not to see, to see...."

I believe you to be the person you say you are, but I just don't see the relationship between your connections and getting published in a magazine using PP

But if I understand correctly, this thread should actually be called "I TOLD YOU SO!"

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

And it's just according to you. I don't see what you see.


FWIW
You made it about you
'I dated someone' wouldn't cut it as "qualifications" in my opinion, but if you want to feel good about that...

Making a couple of post doesn't make it about me. it makes the post about me, not the thread. Can't wait to see what you write next

Lanenga wrote:

I believe you to be the person you say you are, but I just don't see the relationship between your connections and getting published in a magazine using PP

But if I understand correctly, this thread should actually be called "I TOLD YOU SO!"

As the thread evolves you may possibly be right

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
And it's just according to you. I don't see what you see.


FWIW
You made it about you
'I dated someone' wouldn't cut it as "qualifications" in my opinion, but if you want to feel good about that...

Oh and natty I hope this helps you with that statement you made saying it wouldn't make me Qualify. Now this post is about me and lets see what negativity you can bring to it..

From 1996 to 1998 I lived and dated Christa Worthington who was the fashion editor of both Elle and Cosmopolitan Magazines as well as a fashion designer and has 6 books on fashion. At the time of our dating she was one of the first on AOL with a chatroom called "What 2 Wear" and night after night we would help people pick out clothing for special events online. it was sponsored by Cosmopolitan Magazine. Our daily life found us at Fashion parties and "White only" parties in the Hampton held by "Puffy Combs" which at first I thought was a hair care product. We would go to shoots and I would assist in shoots from Anne to other famed and named fashion photographers as well as photographed fashion myself at the time on film which was handed over to Christa at the end of each shoot. I have many images in high end magazine in the 90's.
Christa moved to Cape Cod for a while to be with her dying mother. Our relationship went on hold but kindled each time she came to NY and stayed with me. Then came baby and then someone murdered her on January 6th 2002. Do I need to write any more or do you get it yet?

Maybe sometimes Nat it isn't right to challenge people like you do. Sometimes you just got to leave things alone Nat. Talking about my murdered girlfriend is painful but outside of MM I get respect from the Fashion world that you would not understand. I hope this post answered your digging remarks and that you can refrain from adding any more poison to my posts.

Now where where we? Oh yeah, Lancome uses a artist who used Portrait professional 8 and Elle magazine has it under the cover page

Sean Baker Photo wrote:
OOC, aside from the assertion that the image in question looks like something which could have resulted from PP, how can one actually demonstrate that it in fact was done with PP and could not have resulted from any other technique?

As, all anatomy comparisons aside, that seems to be the crux of this whole thing, I'd be curious how this can be unequivocally proven.

[Hint: I think it'll involve a PSD, and probably unedited photos.]

ah, an example you asking for?

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

ah, an example you asking for?

I'm asking if it can be proven that this image was, without any doubt, derived from PP, and that no other methodology could have possibly produced the results we see in that ad.

I don't think it can be done (I don't think it can be proven, as I think a number of techniques could give exactly that result), but I'd be happy to be wrong just to see the technique for proving it.

Sean Baker Photo wrote:

I'm asking if it can be proven that this image was, without any doubt, derived from PP, and that no other methodology could have possibly produced the results we see in that ad.

I don't think it can be done (I don't think it can be proven, as I think a number of techniques could give exactly that result), but I'd be happy to be wrong just to see the technique for proving it.

would high end retouching produce orange dots on the ear lobes and top lip of her mouth?

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
would high end retouching produce orange dots on the ear lobes and top lip of her mouth?

Imagenomic Portraiture could.

IHP / FS could.

Hell, I've seen folks who so aggressively D&B that they've ended up with results like this (and worse!).

So, yes, I think that a large number of techniques could produce this result.  I'm ready to be proven wrong on the point, though, because again, I'd like to know how to prove that a particular program was used to get the result (assuming that we can't just ask the artist - unless you happen to know them?).

Sean Baker Photo wrote:
Imagenomic Portraiture could.

IHP / FS could.

Hell, I've seen folks who so aggressively D&B that they've ended up with results like this (and worse!).

So, yes, I think that a large number of techniques could produce this result.  I'm ready to be proven wrong on the point, though, because again, I'd like to know how to prove that a particular program was used to get the result (assuming that we can't just ask the artist - unless you happen to know, or to be sleeping with, them?).

SMH- Pretty asshole thing to say considering my girlfriend was raped and murdered. You are being ignored now Sean