David Muscroft  wrote:
This is an issue that gets in the way of my llama selection process.

Doesn't get in the way of mine.  Regardless of what a photographer or MUA does to the final photo, if I'm that curious, I email the llama and ask them to send over a clean non-retouched headshot without makeup applied.

If they won't send one, that makes selection easy.  Next!

If they send one, that determines how much work any MUA that I use might have to do, or how much work I might have to do in post, depending on the look desired in the final image.

David Muscroft  wrote:
This is valid even accepting that we all operate on the verge of deception just by striving to create the best images we can.

Every artist since time began has used techniques, be it smudge, pastels or layering on paint.

David Muscroft  wrote:
I’ve very often used a make-up artist to enhance the look of my models (and aid in styling decisions and wardrobe choices) but we all also have the option now of using the various skin-smoothing plug-in programmes that are available.

I am stunned that any serious photographer thinks that the highlights, colors, contouring, etc of a great MUA can be replaced by skin smoothing software or PS editing.  You must not work with skilled MUAs.

David Muscroft  wrote:
A couple of ‘professional’ MUA’s who I came across while trying to find a MUA even show examples of their ‘own work’ on their own sites using obvious skin smoothing  (are they selling make-up services or photo-finishing ?) . Is this deliberate deception or mistaken use of technology ?

The use of considerable skin editing is essential in a few styles, especially beauty and photographs used for advertising makeup.  This is a deliberate style choice consistent in the industry and will often be displayed in an MUAs work.   While some skin editing is clearly bad or over applied, it is hardly a deliberate deception when it is so obvious.

Photo retouching certainly existed before computer editing, even though it is more likely now to be overdone.   You seem not to like that style of photography and editing, so avoid it in your work.  All fashion and model photography aims to create a certain impression of the subject not already presented, so clamoring that is deceptive or false relative to other styles of photography is meaningless.

David Muscroft  wrote:
This is an issue that gets in the way of my model selection process.
As a professional spending large amounts of money on model fees, I spend a lot of time selecting models.
I’ve very often used a make-up artist to enhance the look of my models (and aid in styling decisions and wardrobe choices) but we all also have the option now of using the various skin-smoothing plug-in programmes that are available. These are the ones that we see the evidence of being so over-used on sites. Good models do not need it, most photographers over apply it. Advertisers use it to deceive us ! A couple of ‘professional’ MUA’s who I came across while trying to find a MUA even show examples of their ‘own work’ on their own sites using obvious skin smoothing  (are they selling make-up services or photo-finishing ?) .
Is this deliberate deception or mistaken use of technology ?
Even if such images are supplied by a photographer to the MUA, its still the end user’s duty of care on commercial websites not to deceive, I think ? This is valid even accepting that we all operate on the verge of deception just by striving to create the best images we can.
Last thing….. I am a professional, I don’t post for the fun of it, and I won’t respond to pointless or endless or off-topic threads. I hope the Forum Fairy (or monster) doesn’t run away with this one !

Forum Fairy? Forum Monster? Those are professional sounding words.

you are asking whether to use an MUA or Plug-In ?

hmmm....should you use a Real Model or a Robot?

if you use a Plug-In i'd say you are downright lazy. Same goes for a Robot.

A great model with great Makeup can make a great Photograph. no retouching needed. Also, a great model with no makeup and precise (not a plug-in) retouching can make a great photograph. etc. etc.

Gabby57 wrote:
I don't see anything shocking about the OP's question.  It depends entirely on what you want to achieve, your access to a good MUA and your abilities in re-touch.  Going sans make up or minimal make up would make a shoot go faster if several looks were wanted.

It's not a new question, it pre-dates photoshop certainly.  Some say Hurrell insisted on no make up, others say he didn't, but here is a "before" and "after" of Joan Crawford that definately relied on re-touching more than make up.  There's more than one way to do things, and more than one "old school":  http://fadedandblurred.com/spotlight/george-hurrell/

but was a plug-in used? or was it retouched by hand?

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
but was a plug-in used? or was it retouched by hand?

A good point of course, as Demming said, "there is no such thing as instant pudding."  My reply was perhaps too general, mia copa.

twoharts wrote:
portraiture is no replacement for a good MUA. and if you have a good MUA you may not even need skin smoothing.

i did a headshot for a woman starting her own business the other day and she rejected the version i ran portraiture on (i didn't even use that much). that was a first. she preferred the straight-from-the-camera image.

bravo to her!  bravo!

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:

but was a plug-in used? or was it retouched by hand?

I've yet to see a plug-in that can mimic the work of a skilled retoucher. I personally prefer a good MUA, but have also spent hours retouching images to get them just right. Nothing wrong with Portriature or any other automated plug-in. It's just another tool and how you use it is what counts.

o k u t a k e wrote:

I've yet to see a plug-in that can mimic the work of a skilled retoucher. I personally prefer a good MUA, but have also spent hours retouching images to get them just right. Nothing wrong with Portriature or any other automated plug-in. It's just another tool and how you use it is what counts.

but if you want to have soup i'd recommend a spoon. every time.

David Muscroft  wrote:
This is an issue that gets in the way of my model selection process.
As a professional spending large amounts of money on model fees, I spend a lot of time selecting models.
I’ve very often used a make-up artist to enhance the look of my models (and aid in styling decisions and wardrobe choices) but we all also have the option now of using the various skin-smoothing plug-in programmes that are available. These are the ones that we see the evidence of being so over-used on sites. Good models do not need it, most photographers over apply it. Advertisers use it to deceive us ! A couple of ‘professional’ MUA’s who I came across while trying to find a MUA even show examples of their ‘own work’ on their own sites using obvious skin smoothing  (are they selling make-up services or photo-finishing ?) .
Is this deliberate deception or mistaken use of technology ?
Even if such images are supplied by a photographer to the MUA, its still the end user’s duty of care on commercial websites not to deceive, I think ? This is valid even accepting that we all operate on the verge of deception just by striving to create the best images we can.

I'm trying to work out what the problem is.

Are you saying models are using over processed photos of themselves and it makes it difficult for you to choose them? Maybe choose different models then? If a model doesn't have a natural (real) photo in their book, to be honest, I'd move on straight away.

Or are you unhappy at makeup artists? If they're using overprocessed shots, move on. If they're part of teams using professionally retouched images, generally they've reached a level in the industry where their skills are good and showing that is sensible, not deception.

Or at plugins?

Or skin smoothing in general?

Or all of them?

David Muscroft  wrote:
Last thing….. I am a professional, I don’t post for the fun of it, and I won’t respond to pointless or endless or off-topic threads. I hope the Forum Fairy (or monster) doesn’t run away with this one !

I really don't think you needed to bring this up. But as you did, it's not a forum monster, but the way you originally set out the thread.