Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
An auction at Christies shows a bunch of heavily marked up centerfolds Link NSFW 18+
Photographer
Fred Ackerman
Posts: 292
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Fred Ackerman wrote:
Airbrush! Exactly, plus dodge and burn and all the various techniques of the day. There was always a good "color man" involved. We were pretty capable before Photoshop. It was just done differently and took a little longer in the lab.
Photographer
Alluring Exposures
Posts: 11400
Casa Grande, Arizona, US
And there was no "undo" when you made a mistake. You had to start from scratch every time! ei Total Productions wrote:
Exactly, plus dodge and burn and all the various techniques of the day. There was always a good "color man" involved. We were pretty capable before Photoshop. It was just done differently and took a little longer in the lab.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
Exactly, plus dodge and burn and all the various techniques of the day. There was always a good "color man" involved. We were pretty capable before Photoshop. It was just done differently and took a little longer in the lab. Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote:
And there was no "undo" when you made a mistake. You had to start from scratch every time! Alas, don't I know!
Photographer
Scott Johnson Studios
Posts: 3353
Wausau, Wisconsin, US
IMO, when they stopped shooting women with clear skin.. the editing became more over the top. But then it's not about the editing for most that are looking at it.. it's more about the woman and the size of her breasts.
Photographer
Phototaker1
Posts: 37
Deerfield Beach, Florida, US
Photographer
Leonard Gee Photography
Posts: 18096
Sacramento, California, US
Some airbrush, if large area correction was needed; but mostly etch & dye work. You can't dodge & burn in the darkroom with the kind of detail you need. There was always the last resort - dot etching. Lots of work for print was done on the separations. It had more control since you had four color layers.
A fine brush, good eyes and talent were the indispensable tools.
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
During the 11 years (1974 - 1985) that I shot centerfolds, calendars, pictorials and editorials for Playboy, there was a policy against retouching anything except the cover (to make sure text would contrast properly and be easily readable)
Our policy during those days was: Pre-touch, rather than Re-touch
KM
Photographer
BodyartBabes
Posts: 2005
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
During the 11 years (1974 - 1985) that I shot centerfolds, calendars, pictorials and editorials for Playboy, there was a policy against retouching anything except the cover (to make sure text would contrast properly and be easily readable)
Our policy during those days was: Pre-touch, rather than Re-touch
KM Retouching was expensive, and people were not willing to accept the altered realty this new generation is. People were supposed to look like their pictures, and vice versa. And, retouching was supposed to be INVISIBLE, not glaring.
Different world, and why some models *are* in demand, and others aren't. Just like the photographers who can do it in camera, eg: pre-touch. I like that.
Scott
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
Seattle, Washington, US
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Chuckarelei wrote:
Scitex. Scitex didn't come into play until the 1980's, and even then it was used mostly for the covers and not for the Playmate layouts.
Photographer
Phillip Ritchie
Posts: 1105
Costa Mesa, California, US
I just look at a 1970 Playboy the paper it is printed on does not show much detail , it has a soft look ,so I think that helped
phillip
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote:
It's called a DARKROOM. I used to work with this guy a lot in the 80s. He was one of the pioneers of pre-digital special effects photography.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
What did Playboy do before Photoshop?
They used professional photographers and professional models.
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
What did Playboy do before Photoshop?
They used professional photographers and professional models. Not quite correct . . . .
The photographers were specialists (only a handful in the world qualified to shoot centerfolds).
The models were all (for the most part) amateurs. The vast majority of the women that we shot for Playboy had never modeled before.
The hardest part of our job was to make inexperienced models look like professionals.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
They took their time on these shoot productions and worked on every detail.
Photographer
Left Coast Sunshine
Posts: 4
Boston, Massachusetts, US
First, get absolutely as much as possible right in-camera.
Then burn&dodge, airbrush, spotting brush, razor blade, all the fun stuff.
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Seagull Graphics wrote:
First, get absolutely as much as possible right in-camera.
Then burn&dodge, airbrush, spotting brush, razor blade, all the fun stuff. WRONG !!
There was NO retouching allowed back in those days.
Only the cover was retouched and on rare occasion, a special layout of a celebrity.
Playmate layouts and features were not retouched.
KM
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
WRONG !!
There was NO retouching allowed back in those days.
Only the cover was retouched and on rare occasion, a special layout of a celebrity.
Playmate layouts and features were not retouched.
KM So no retouching was worth the trouble and expense unless it was an image for which retouching was worth the trouble and expense.
If it was just a photo of the Girl Next Door she was allowed to look more like the girl next door.
If it was Herb Ritts in 1987 shooting Brigitte Neilsen then out came the red wax pencil.
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_ … 64565931b1
Photographer
ArtisticVisions
Posts: 1012
Nashville, Tennessee, US
vaseline on the lens to make it softer????
Photographer
HungryEye
Posts: 2281
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
ArtisticVisions wrote:
vaseline on the lens to make it softer???? That was Bob Guccione's trademark approach at Penthouse.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
HungryEye wrote:
That was Bob Guccione's trademark approach at Penthouse. You mean Earl Miller, right?
Photographer
glamourglenn
Posts: 865
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, US
i love this.
folks arguing with the ONE guy on MM who was actually there.
everyone else in the thread, did you work for Playboy?
seeing no other hands up except for Ken, I'll go with him for providing the correct answer.
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
eroticzone wrote:
i love this.
folks arguing with the ONE guy on MM who was actually there.
everyone else in the thread, did you work for Playboy?
seeing no other hands up except for Ken, I'll go with him for providing the correct answer. Ken said there was retouching all the time. He just said it in a roundabout way.
He said the covers were retouched, as well as celebrity layouts.
Every issue had a cover, didn't it?
Photographer
glamourglenn
Posts: 865
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, US
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Ken said there was retouching all the time. He just said it in a roundabout way.
He said the covers were retouched, as well as celebrity layouts.
Every issue had a cover, didn't it? then that is the correct answer.
Photographer
Sungoddess Studios
Posts: 5191
Keyport, New Jersey, US
I used to be an airbrush expert. I spent 2 years learning the techniques.(not including the classes I took and high school internship under John Rand.)
Photographer
Sungoddess Studios
Posts: 5191
Keyport, New Jersey, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
WRONG !!
There was NO retouching allowed back in those days.
Only the cover was retouched and on rare occasion, a special layout of a celebrity.
Playmate layouts and features were not retouched.
KM for once Ken, you were misled. Even back in the 40's plate masters had their way with our photos. Look even at the first few issues of playboy. yes all the plates were tampered with. as the auction of proof pages with the notes for the retoutchers confirms.
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
So no retouching was worth the trouble and expense unless it was an image for which retouching was worth the trouble and expense.
If it was just a photo of the Girl Next Door she was allowed to look more like the girl next door.
If it was Herb Ritts in 1987 shooting Brigitte Neilsen then out came the red wax pencil.
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_ … 64565931b1 Herb Ritts was not a Playboy photographer. We published the finished work that he delivered. Playboy was not involved in the production of his shoots or his prints.
Color transparencies shot of Playboy models expressly for the magazine were not subjected to retouching.
We were working under the concept of: Reshoot rather than Retouch
KM
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Sungoddess Studios wrote:
for once Ken, you were misled. Even back in the 40's plate masters had their way with our photos. Look even at the first few issues of playboy. yes all the plates were tampered with. as the auction of proof pages with the notes for the retoutchers confirms. The images were all subjected to the printers renditions of what they thought our photographs should look like. Most of this was done without any imput from the magazine at all. Dot-etching was beyond our control.
If I interpret this thread correctly, it was about the kind of retouching that came from airbrushing and the other techniques that were available back then.
I remember getting into a shouting match with the manager of the printing company that published Playboy when they took a beautiful, subtle image that was a white-on-white set with a pale model, and added color to it thinking that the photographer (me) made a mistake, and they were 'correcting' it.
This was unusual.
The general rule was that everything had to be on the original transparency or we'd go back and reshoot it.
BTW . . . All of the examples shown in the OP are recent centerfolds (recent meaning since the invention of digital retouching and Playboy's lack of money). Things are different these days from where they were back when Playboy had money and there were no good options for retouching.
KM
Model
Mz Nova
Posts: 2608
Portland, Oregon, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Herb Ritts was not a Playboy photographer. We published the finished work that he delivered. Playboy was not involved in the production of his shoots or his prints.
Color transparencies shot of Playboy models expressly for the magazine were not subjected to retouching.
We were working under the concept of: Reshoot rather than Retouch
KM I don't Ken, I think they might be right on this. They were there. You weren't 
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
We were working under the concept of: Reshoot rather than Retouch
KM The marked up editors' notes are on auction at Christies. I only chose Herb Ritts because his was marked up by an editor and it was from 1987, which is pre-photoshop and back when Scitex / Hell-style high end digital was much more expensive, but used.
How do you account for the explosion of retouching on every Playboy centerfold from the invention of Photoshop, on?
They suddenly stopped using Playboy-tradition-savvy photgraphers? Or it got cheap enough to do?
Photographer
SANCTUAIRE
Posts: 8061
Tampa, Florida, US
Fred Ackerman wrote:
Airbrush! Ahh yes this is the answer.
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Mz Nova wrote:
I don't Ken, I think they might be right on this. They were there. You weren't When making a period film it used to be cheaper to have a crew scour the neighborhood and remove all the TV antennas and satellite dishes from the country manor rooftops.
I remember a crew holding up an entire shoot for a half hour while they picked some stray litter out of a field.
Guess how that sort of thing gets handled now?
On a case by case basis by whichever way is cheaper.
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
The marked up editors' notes are on auction at Christies. I only chose Herb Ritts because his was marked up by an editor and it was from 1987, which is pre-photoshop and back when Scitex / Hell-style high end digital was much more expensive, but used.
How do you account for the explosion of retouching on every Playboy centerfold from the invention of Photoshop, on?
They suddenly stopped using Playboy-tradition-savvy photgraphers? As a result of new technology, and dramatically reduced budgets, centerfold layouts are shot in a matter of days instead of weeks.
The years I am referring to are pre-Scitex
Once Playboy lost it's casino in London, the whole organization was reduced to a fraction of what it once was. Budgets were slashed and quality was forsaken.
When I was shooting for them, we had 'unlimited budgets' to produce pictorials and centerfolds.
KM
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
When I was shooting for them, we had 'unlimited budgets' to produce pictorials and centerfolds.
KM And every shoot important enough for an 'unlimited budget' was retouched, as you told us earlier in this thread.
Photographer
Northern Sights
Posts: 186
Soldotna, Alaska, US
It was lighting and technique mostly. It is so easy now with Photoshop that we all get a little rapid in our shoots but in the day we used lighting to achieve the effect we wanted. Not as much was done in the darkroom as people with digital cameras like to think.
|
