Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
...genuine curious inquiry...  ...magazine culture...

Enmerkar advertising agencies have created a visual statement that sells... it's about generating a revenue stream... aesthetics; art etc has little to do with this...

As a makeup artist I'm not thrilled with seeing the work of gifted MUA's compromised by post processing but hey, it pays the bills...

Best advice? work for plastic surgeons who do before/after of their work... the game changes a tad then...

btw, why don't you invest time in the MM critique forums to enlighten the folks there... be part of the solution, k?

Yes and Marin nailed this...

If someone really needs tons of skin work maybe find a better model to shoot?...Good skin along with good lighting makes life easy.

+1 Casting not post processing works well here...
All the best on your journey...

ArtistryImage wrote:
btw, why don't you invest time in the MM critique forums to enlighten the folks there... be part of the solution, k?

You are kidding me right? Any time I've posted a photo for critique I got the double thumbs down both for that picture and as a photographer

I don't mind criticism and lots of boos, but if I go around trying to enlighten them I might get a ninja squad sent after me *grin*

Robb Mann wrote:
My favorite thing is when a photographer boasts about the awesome sharpness of a certain lens, and posts a picture of a massively surface blurred model to demonstrate.

Still, everyone has different tastes and styles. If everyone did the same shoots and had the same editing style things would be very boring around here.

I've gotten some seriously blurred pictures using an AF lens that was expensive and I got some seriously sharp pictures using an old and dusty MF lens from the Ukraine. Part of it is skill, but not skill in the sense of walking on tight rope, but skill in managing a camera that isn't designed to help you get sharp pictures without investing thousands in an expensive AF VR lens. Think about how tiny and dark the viewer without the necessary prism and if you try to use lcd screen to judge your photos after then you are relying on a screen smaller than an Iphone. Yikes!

I have now started tethering my camera and sometimes I think I GOT IT when zooming in via the lcd, but when I look at the laptop at 1:1 I realize nope it is still too blurry for my taste. It isn't talent, but vision challenge

All in all - I never boast about my lenses and I have over 50+. I can however tell you that some lenses DO produce better and sharper photos than others under specific circumstances. What I also care about is how accurate is the colors of the skin in the capture. My Angenioux does a great job of that, but my Tamron Macro does wonders for close up portrait sharpness.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
For yourself, keep in mind that there is no one "method" suitable for all skin types or genders. You have to learn a variety of methods. I never edit one person the same way as I would someone else. It's almost always different even if it's only a slight deviation.  When you are editing it's not always the bumps and bruises, sometimes you edit to shape the light on someone's face to enhance bone structure or their eyes or any number of things. It all depends on what you are going for...The only way to improve is to keep learning.

I'll have to study more retouching. I can't say I am comfortable playing with the shape of light on someone's face yet.

By the way, I like this of yours:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/33729427 

The skin capture is excellent.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Not everyone has mastered the subtle use of Diffuse Glow yet.

:spits out drink:

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Not everyone has mastered the subtle use of Diffuse Glow yet.

Laura Ann - Fashion wrote:
:spits out drink:

Ditto that

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Not everyone has mastered the subtle use of Diffuse Glow yet.

Not helpful....but funny!

Jakov Markovic wrote:
More Vogue, less Model mayhem as a referece for quality retouching.

LOL! shouldn't MMer be wanting to be more Vogue Afterall, no one gets paid to put up photos on MM.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Not everyone has mastered the subtle use of Diffuse Glow yet.

True dat. Nor selective desaturation.

Select Models wrote:
Plastic Skin via Photoshop

Impossible here... don't use Photoshop... can't create plastic...

Cause your Chuck Norris of Photography You don't use Photoshop. Photoshop uses you behind the scene to create its magic.

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:

Cause your Chuck Norris of Photography You don't use Photoshop. Photoshop uses you behind the scene to create its magic.

DAMN... excellent summation... lovin it!  Dude, that's genius!...

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Not everyone has mastered the subtle use of Diffuse Glow yet.

Laura Ann - Fashion wrote:
:spits out drink:

I am particularly impressed by the subtle use of selective desaturation (in general... of course)

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
Why is it totally OK to bash someone elses art expression ...?

Perhaps because the original post was what you are mentioning from the start?

Which started with "Please no one take offence to this" and finished with "Again, this isn't a criticism.."

I totally understand that everyone is at a different stage of development, but there was no question about how to improve for which people usually line up to give answers, there was simply a statement, with an underneath agenda of very poor nature (IMHO)...

The same goes with the never ending rants, photographers bashing models, models bashing photographers, rants over rants, which typically mirror more the nature of the emitting party rather than the intended receiver. When people throw rocks up, the rock will fall back... and quite often a small "wake up call" can be helpful as well...

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
I dont get it.  Some new photographers don't get their exposures just perfect to start withand end up with backlit and very dark muddy images, some photographers do a really poor job at sidelighting and contouring a figure...and for them its art no matter how bad...and yet for newer retouchers its a sin and a crime and a lightening rod  for people who dont like smoothed skin in their present level of development and visual craft.

Why is it totally OK to bash someone elses art expression as they grow at their craft?

Isnt it OK to look at... and appreciate art on display...and not make verbal or forum rants about how poorly this emerging artist is doing...by your own wishes and standards?  Its Ok to think it...or to simply move on...but to make loud and obvious comments in public on someone elses state of their craft...might be considered in lower taste. 

I dont get it...why cant some artists just be at that stage of art development for right now...to be doing as best they can... with what they know right now...and maybe outgrow the phase... and improve in six months possibly...without other people standing around and making loud comments about how this art doesnt meet their own standards for exposure, lighting, focus, composition, cropping or skin smoothness levels. 

BTW, with the 100+ tools available within Photoshop...its not naturally easy to create great looking skin right now with the current state of Adobe's software development.  If skin texture was available within Photoshop...more people would be finding and using it.

I  speak for myself when I say that I didn't start this thread to bash anyone's art and no it isn't ok. I appreciate art in all form and I totally understand that artists evolve. It would bother me if I was learning and someone was bashing me for not being good enough up to their standard, so I wouldn't do this to anyone.

People can be sensitive, which is why I tried to be clear that this  isn't a rant and I am not judging.  I understand that photo editing of people happens in magazines all the time. The retouch artists tug that belly in, remove that scar, etc. It is a magazine and obviously they want the model to be as hot and sexy as possible. It is business.

Where I am lost is when the smoothing the skin gets to the point where it is obviously not real. If it is for artistic reasons then that is fine, but if it is meant to be a regular practice when it comes to *good* glamour photography, then I am curious as to why? Maybe because it is so commonly done these days, my question may have come as a rant/judgment, but the why is a genuine why.  Why is it considered better? I am not asking as far as *my* standards, but as a photographer wanting to improve.  I want to know why is this heavy smoothing of the skin constitutes good practice in photography. I don't want to start doing it just because it is being done all around me. I'd like to know why first...

Which started with "Please no one take offence to this" and finished with "Again, this isn't a criticism.."

Light Feather...I liked your thought and comment of:

"The same goes with the never ending rants, photographers bashing models, models bashing photographers, rants over rants etc.  When people throw rocks up, the rocks will fall back."

I just thought it was a bit less than genuine to bring up the "smooth skin" subject again...and to say that he didnt mean to offend anyone in resurrenting it for the 500th time with another frame around the issue.

To answer the OP...it is wonderful to have a model with great skin, and to have lit it well, and to have your camera original come out like a visual masterpiece...BUT... for many of us...our camera originals come out a bit disappointing and pot marked and a bit TOO real.  We would love for our images to be as near perfect and ideal and as beautiful as possible.  We all love the beautiful paid model images, the 20 hour dodge and burn retouches, and the "Perfect Ideal Image" that matches our own definition of beauty...BUT...many times that isnt what we can afford or know how to do!   SO, we do the best we can...and if we are lucky and well off financially...we use a $1000 the state of the art program like Photoshop that ONLY has skin blur (surface blur) capability for right now...and we wish we could produce idealized images in under 2 hours with it. But we cant.  The only way to get that kind of skin look is to use dodge and burn and spend 5-30 hours retouching each and every skin pore junction to perfection using 400 percent screen magnification.  Hard to do!

So to the OP...the reason you see a lot of Skin Blur is that many photographers would love to have great looking images...but are still struggling...and surface blur is the current state of the un-art with one of the best retouching programs we are aware of.  We are all pedaling as fast as we can to get perfect everything in our images...but sometimes...we have to compromise because we only have 1.5 hours to retouch each image...and we arent that good with Photoshop yet...and it took us 3 hard frustrating years to figure out F stops, shutter speed, depth of field and rim lighting...that was bad enough to perfect and get just right.  Now we need to spend 6 months to 2 years more to figure out how to use the 100+ tools in Photoshop so that our images come out the way we hoped they would be.  We are all on a very steep learning curve with many technical and artistic technologies that need to be mastered to create gorgeous end images.

Cheers. 

I dont mean to be critical either...but we are all at some point "less than the master craftsman stage" in our photographic learning curve.  So hey...how about less threads... and (veiled) criticizms of other peoples art progress and expression.  Work quietly on enhancing your own stuff...and quit yelling at the models, the MUA's and the guys that love nice looking skin that is different from what you like the best.   Lets all relax some and bring down the volume and confusion and finger pointing some...and have some fun producing the best art we possibly can...using the skills we each have in place today.

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
Please no one take offence to this. I was going over the contest winners here on MM and I noticed that most of the models skin has been seriously altered by photoshop retouching. I understand some touch up here and there, but they don't look real any more. This isn't a judgment or a criticism as I've done the same sometimes. What I am curious about is WHY is this plastic/doll face considered 'GOOD'? Is this an influence of magazine culture or what is driving this trend? What is wrong with moles, skin pores, and just natural human skin? Is this what goes for as GOOD glamour photographs? Again, this isn't a criticism, but a genuine curious inquiry..

The majority of those images are "extreme" examples of retouching. It's not like that for the majority of mainstream images. Nobody buys a fashion magazine to look at people with the same flaws we can see walking down the street. It's simply an ideal, fantasy..whatever.

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
Why is it totally OK to bash someone elses art expression as they grow at their craft?

There is a very major difference between someone expressing their art and someone with no skill whatsoever just pressing a couple of buttons and doing a few totally automatic things with no tate whatsoever.

For example a young child may scrawl away with with crayons, and that child is a learner but clearly expressing art. Even with minimum skill a child will choose to use diffferent colours or to scribble more on one side of the paper or press harder with the crayons.

There are many ways of expressing art.

But taking a poor quality photo simply by pressing a button with everything done automatically for you and then processing that image by applying more automatic filters is not art.

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
LightFeatherRetouch
I also like your thought and comment of:

"The same goes with the never ending rants, photographers bashing models, models bashing photographers, rants over rants etc.  When people throw rocks up, the rocks will fall back."

I just thought it was a bit back-handed to bring the smooth skin subject up again...and to addisionally say that he didnt mean to dis anyone in resurrenting it the 500th time.

*sigh* Please don't attribute a nefarious intent to my inquiry because the subject keeps coming up. It may have been brought up 500 times in your experience, but to me it is the first time.  I am not the devil because I had a question on something that wasn't clear to me and wanted to understand better. I am sorry this issue is a sore spot for some people here, but let's not project. Honestly, if I had known that it would ruffle so many feathers, I would have kept my mouth shut.

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
To answer the OP...it is wonderful to have a model with great skin, and to have lit it well, and to have your camera original come out like a visual masterpiece...BUT... for many of us...our camera originals come out a bit disappointing and pot marked and a bit TOO real...and we would love for our images to be as near ideal and as beautiful as possible.

I am in the same boat. Perfection doesn't exist and we all can agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My curiousity is on whether this is part of a general practice of good photography. What I am getting from you is that the goal is to have an ideal sense of beauty that isn't TOO real.

Ok, artistically, if this is the vision of the artist, if it is what tickle their happy bone then by all means it is a wonderful thing. If this is their ideal goal of beauty then again by all means. My question here is as a photographer looking to be competitive does this mean it is something I have to embrace for my work to be considered good?

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
We all love the paid model images, the 20 hour dodge and burn retouches, and the "Perfect Ideal Image" that matches our own definition of beauty...BUT...many times that isnt what we can afford or know how to do.  SO, we do the best we can...and if we are lucky and well off financially...we use a $1000 the state of the art Photoshop program that ONLY has skin blur (surface blur) capability right now...and we wish we could produce idealized images in under 2 hours.  BUT...the only way to get that kind of skin look is to use dodge and burn and spend 5-30 hours retouching each and every skin pore junction to perfection... after starting over on the image 6 times... because we are terrible at 400 percent magnification D+B.

I'll admit I didn't even know about this process of dodge and burn to fix skin pores until this thread. It is how little I am educated as far as the process of retouching and it is something I intended to remedy promptly. Hence my line of inquiry...

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
So to the OP...the reason you see a lot of Skin Blur is that many photographers would love to have great looking images...but are still struggling...and surface blur is the current state of the un-art with one of the best retouching programs we are aware of.  We are all pedaling as fast as we can to get perfect everything in our images...but sometimes...we have to compromise because we only have 1.5 hours to retouch each image...and we arent that good with Photoshop yet...and it took us 3 years to figure out F stop, shutter speed, depth of field and rim lighting...and with 100+ tools in Photoshop...it may take us more than 6 months to get past the obvious thing to do.

Cheers. 

Dont mean to be critical...but we are all at some point "less than the master craftsman stage" in our photographic learning curve.  So hey...how about less threads... and (veiled) criticizms of other peoples art progress and expression.  Work quietly on enhancing your own stuff...and quit yelling at the models, the MUA's and the guys that love nice looking skin that is different from what you like best.  Lets all relax some and have some beautiful fun! LOL

Well my wife is a MUA, so don't worry I wouldn't be yelling at her any time soon You are telling me that the process of smoothing involving a blur is to get that smooth skin quickly without having to worry about every single pore and to avoid the many hours. It is a technological and potential skill limitation. Thank you for the answer as it helped me understand your position and the process better.

The  explanation as to why it is being done as a matter of idealized beauty and artistic inclination is something I would not argue with nor judge. I think this is a bit like my IR discussion with a friend of mine. I showed her a picture I've done in IR and her response was I don't like it, because it isn't real. Her position was that there is no tree that looks like that in real life. She went on to point out that photography is about realism and I fell back on artistic license as my defence. This may very well be the same situation then.

Since I posted this thread I submitted two pictures to the MM contest, one which was a portrait involving makeup, but zero photoshop retouching. The other one to the 18+ nude contest and had been through the hands of a good retoucher and digital artist. The skin has been a  smoothed and realism toned down in favor of digital art. The portrait lost miserably and the winner was a heavily retouched image. In the 18+ contest, my retouched image fared better, but the winner was a nude image with zero retouch and the photographer had managed to lose a foot in the composition.

I admit I am still a bit confused. I can tell you what *I* think is good practice, but I can't tell you why a particular picture is getting more 'votes' then another. As an artist, I produce what *I* like and what tickles my sense of beauty and perfection. As someone looking to compete in the professional world, I need to know what is considered 'good' practice out there, so I don't end up handicapped professionally.

It is 5:00 AM my time, so I hope I am making some sense without OFFENDING anyone...

Photography by Riddell wrote:

There is a very major difference between someone expressing their art and someone with no skill whatsoever just pressing a couple of buttons and doing a few totally automatic things with no tate whatsoever.

For example a young child may scrawl away with with crayons, and that child is a learner but clearly expressing art. Even with minimum skill a child will choose to use diffferent colours or to scribble more on one side of the paper or press harder with the crayons.

There are many ways of expressing art.

But taking a poor quality photo simply by pressing a button with everything done automatically for you and then processing that image by applying more automatic filters is not art.

I am curious what you think of the Afghan Girl picture. Do you think it has been digitally altered or is straight out of the camera?

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
Riddell,

I agree with you.  Taking auto pictures and applying auto filters is not very artistic for some of us crafty masters.  I would hope the child with his crayons may some day progress to ink pen, pastels, oils or even digital art as he grows and matures in his ability to produce acceptable art.  For someone to just take auto pictures and auto actions...they must be real lazy, un-craftsman-like, rank amateurs.

I would certainly hold back some, however, in my public verbal criticizm of my child at age 3...just because he can only produce 2 crayon colored scribbles right now.   I might even hold back on making snide remarks... or making public criticizms of him... because of his "annoying simplicity" in producing 2 crayon images.  He must have a total disregard for the kind of 10 crayon art that I like the best.  He should be making pictures exactly like me...the way I like it the best.   Someday that lazy, button pushing, 2 filter, scoff-law, idiot, kid of mine might even grow up to produce some really nice stuff some day...if he doesnt get squashed early on by some loud, critical advocates of "clear skin only allowed here" art.  They ought to have a law against using filters and actions and publishing such pictures...the world would be a much nicer, beautiful place...if only they would make art just like me.  I think we should start another thread on "Down with inexperienced persons using actions and surface blur".  It just isnt right that others are not up to my kind of speed... in not liking "that kind of" look. It doesnt matter what stage they are at now... or what they might eventually become. The look should be banned.   Shame on them for not taking 20 hours to retouch that photo...shame on them for wanting to produce pictures quickly because they have 10 more photos to do tonight before midnight.  Shame on these cave-men type of artists...they must be rank hobbyists, or inexperienced learners, or amateurs, or truly lazy people.  They should all be masters exactly like me.

Yikes! Who has time to spend 20 hours retouching a photo unless WELL PAID to do it? Never mind...forget i asked.

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
BTW...our hearts and our concerns go out to you Enmerkar and to your peoples...We wish you God Speed in accomplishing all your restoration efforts.

Thank you. As a foreigner living here in the Philippines, it is pretty devastating to see the effect on the local population and knowing that the loss of life could have been prevented. All in all, I am surprised the toll wasn't much higher considering the type of construction being used. Too bad the government is too corrupt that it is likely that 80% of the donations will not make it to the people here. The filipino people are really awesome folks and they are the masters of selfies They LOVE photography and since most can't afford the equipment they rely on their phone to produce their personal portraits.