Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
The imperfections can also be marks of individuality, show those signs of life that can create senses of narrative, process and association that make an image interesting.

Neil Snape wrote:
As in editing if you mean retouching:

I used to retouch the snot out of pictures.

Frankly for me they loose their honesty, and integrity. If no one can look like the finished product then you are nothing more than a 2D plastic wax figurine.

I posted my avi today. Never opened in Photoshop. IF the light is right, mu etc there really is no reason to retouch that I can see.

As in editing if you mean retouching

Yes 99.99% of the time around here that is exactly what is meant by "editing", and wrongly as that is not what "editing" is.

I posted my avi today. Never opened in Photoshop. IF the light is right, mu etc there really is no reason to retouch that I can see.

That's far too "old school" for most folks on this site. For the "old school" guys they would consider an image a substantial failure if they didn't have it almost completely nailed down in the camera. Nowadays "photographers" seem to think, "Well, I can just fix it in Photoshop" and may spend substantial time doing exactly that but starting out with a photo that would formerly just be "X'ed" out and discarded.

Somehow photography has, in modern terms, transformed itself more into an exercise in graphic art. Whatever it is they they are doing, at some point beyond minor repair work to an image it is no longer photography.

Studio36

Sarah Lynn Modeling wrote:
This is something I've been wondering about for quite some time and would be curious to know.  I can tell, based on the look of some photos I receive back from photographers, that they've worked hard at editing and post-production work.  The colors, lighting and even the look of my skin and hair, is really gorgeous, and there are no imperfections. 

However, some photographers I've worked with seem to either not believe in editing or only do very, very minimal editing such as only fixing the exposure and contrast.  Sometimes, with these unedited photos, I'm very self conscious about them because they show things like fine lines, minor skin blemishes, circles under the eyes, etc.  I guess I just have trouble understanding why someone wouldn't want to edit these things. 

It seems like the photographers I work with are split 50/50 between those who do quite a bit of editing, and those who don't do any at all or very minimal editing.  So I'm just very curious to know, why is that?  Personally I would love it if every photographer edited photos, but maybe there's a good reason why they don't?

Ummm, because professional level retouching is a LOT harder to do really well than it may seem?

For some artists, post-processing/retouching may come fairly naturally, but for a great many quality photographers the whole aspect of digitally manipulating/altering/retouching/post-processing images as you discussed is one more complex skill that is more about computer software proficiency, a retoucher, than being a photographer...

FWIW, editing is the process of selecting photos from a larger collection of images, altering how photos look is post-processing or retouching, not editing (even though a lot of people are lazy or misuse the term).

John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
Part of being a model is looking after your complexion, making sure your hair is in excellent condition. All those items are what make a model professional. That you in fact are as you appear in your portfolio.
If a model does not take care of these then why should I as a photographer spend time and energy repairing the imperfections in post.

"Looking after your complexion" does not always result in good skin.  There are women that spend thousands on skin products, dermatologists, facials, etc, and still have bad skin.  Bad skin is not always something you can just fix if you put the time or money into it.  Even models that usually have great skin will have the occasional hormonal breakout prior to their period.  You can not judge how much time or effort someone puts into their skincare routine based on the way their skin looks.  Some people are genetically blessed, and don't do a damn thing to make their skin look good.  Others spend tons of money and hours of time to try and get their skin to just look decent. 

Having clear skin has nothing to do with being "professional." Blaming a model for her bad skin, assuming she doesn't "look after her complexion," and then using that as an excuse not to do post work is just unbelievable.

Joe WoW Photos wrote:
Better question is, Why do models work TFP with photogs that don't do any or enough post production? 
I have seen many models in my area that have their entire portfolio made up of unedited, basically crappy pics that they should be embarrassed to show.

Why do models work TFP with photographers that couldn't get an image that's in focus and/or properly exposed to save their lives. 

Or one's that try to cover up their lack of skill as a photographer by over editing so the model ends up with a bunch of under exposed, out of focus plastic doll images.

MelissaAnn  wrote:

John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
Having clear skin has nothing to do with being "professional." Blaming a model for her bad skin, assuming she doesn't "look after her complexion," and then using that as an excuse not to do post work is just unbelievable.

It's not that I use it as an excuse not to do post work, I just make sure that the model has a good complexion before I start.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
Having clear skin has nothing to do with being "professional." Blaming a model for her bad skin, assuming she doesn't "look after her complexion," and then using that as an excuse not to do post work is just unbelievable.

Well -

having clear skin may not be a reflection on a model's professionalism - but it is just as legitimate a qualification for professional work as height and measurement requirements.....

OTOH

I absolutely agree that if you select a model with challenged skin,  this is no excuse for not making the effort to turn out quality images including both good light and proper retouch.....

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
honestly not every photographer is about creating glamour.   Some are less into fantasy and more into realism.....

I go both ways depending on the subject, the concept, and whether the image is really being shot for me or for the model -

when trading,  I try to make sure the model has images that flatter her.  That being said I abhor plastic skin and editing that makes the model look fake.  There are certain imperfections that, though you may be uncomfortable with them,  are beautiful.   I try to find a balance in my editing in this respect...

but the images I shoot for my own use are often more "real".

+10000

Sarah Lynn Modeling wrote:
This is something I've been wondering about for quite some time and would be curious to know.  I can tell, based on the look of some photos I receive back from photographers, that they've worked hard at editing and post-production work.  The colors, lighting and even the look of my skin and hair, is really gorgeous, and there are no imperfections. 

However, some photographers I've worked with seem to either not believe in editing or only do very, very minimal editing such as only fixing the exposure and contrast.  Sometimes, with these unedited photos, I'm very self conscious about them because they show things like fine lines, minor skin blemishes, circles under the eyes, etc.  I guess I just have trouble understanding why someone wouldn't want to edit these things. 

It seems like the photographers I work with are split 50/50 between those who do quite a bit of editing, and those who don't do any at all or very minimal editing.  So I'm just very curious to know, why is that?  Personally I would love it if every photographer edited photos, but maybe there's a good reason why they don't?

Why? Because some of us have no desire to produce images lacking imperfections. I have never met anyone who has perfect hair, perfect teeth, and perfect skin. I'm not interested in trying to manufacture such a person. It's not always about lack of time, effort, skill, or dedication.

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
was this photo edited (retouched)?

Absolutely..to what extent is subjective but the eyes give it away. There is a sharpness to them that's not SOOC.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:

LoL -    I've been doing "everything in camera" - and darkroom - for decades -   

I take the opposite view -  I see too many "fauxtographers" who could not create a decent image in camera to save their a$$  -  they just throw whatever they get into photoshop and try to make it look like something.....

my "balance" on this is pretty much the same as it always has been -  something on the order of 85% in camera and the rest with fairly restrained retouching

those who do not have the patience to learn to "get it right in camera" are and always will be behind those who do in terms of their final production.....   some things - if you don't get it right, or close, in camera, you can't "create" it in photoshop....

Really...old man of the mountain huh. I'm one of those people who doesn't get it right in the camera...house, car and everything else in-between is paid for with photo work.

Don't get me wrong, I cover all of the basics where possible but to say it's all done in camera is phoney.

BTW: I expected you to say at least 95% "in camera"...at 85% your practically a retoucher anyway...just sayin'.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
For the vast majority of jobs, editorial and commercial, the editing is done under the supervision of the art director or client.  They often have folks they like to work with, or trust the photographer's team to do it according to their needs.

As aware as we are about the overt amount of retouching that takes place, the industry for the models, HATES overly retouched images as casting directors want the truth of a model not what she could be with hours upon hours of work.

We do not retouch very much  on purpose other than to convert digital files into a useful final image and take out minor imperfections.  As for testings, If you need vast amounts of retouching all the time, you should not be modeling or someone else should have been cast instead.  Models with heavily  retouched images are not fooling anyone and are instead wasting everyone's time.

I never said anything about wanting an "overly retouched image."  A model can't look 100% perfect 100% of the time, that's unrealistic.  For example, I had a photographer take a head shot of me not too long ago and I absolutely adore the image, it's a good shot, but there's just one thing about it, in my opinion, that keeps it from being a "great" shot:  I had been ill leading up to the shoot and thus had bags under my eyes from not having slept well.  And when I look at the photo, all I can see are those bags and it's hard to love the overall shot.  In general, I don't have bags under my eyes, but in that shot, and pretty much every shot that day, I did.  The photographer said he edited the photo, yet he didn't edit out the bags under my eyes.  I'm not sure why that is.  Maybe it was because it's something that stuck out to me but not to him. 

Even models who have perfect skin pretty much all the time sometimes get that rare blemish.  So all I'm trying to understand is why a photographer wouldn't remove that.

William Kious wrote:
There are a variety of reasons...

- Some photographers are "purist" who feel that it should all happen "in camera".

- Some lack the skill (and have no interest in developing said skill.)

- Some lack the software knowledge (or the software itself) to perform more "high-end" retouching.

- Some don't want to take the time for fine fixes.

- Some are just shitty photographers who are more about the shoot than the finished product.

If you're frustrated with the results you get, ask the photographers you work with to outsource their retouching. If they don't want to do that, then request permission to have the images manipulated on your own.

What he said.

Illuminate wrote:

Really...old man of the mountain huh. I'm one of those people who doesn't get it right in the camera...house, car and everything else in-between is paid for with photo work.

Don't get me wrong, I cover all of the basics where possible but to say it's all done in camera is phoney.

BTW: I expected you to say at least 95% "in camera"...at 85% your practically a retoucher anyway...just sayin'.

I believe you -   and not saying this applies to you because I have not had a flick through your work -  but the technical standard of what is published or used commercially today is much lower than in the 60s - 80s, with more emphasis on "flash" than technical substance - in my assessment.  I've done my stint as an editor for a significant publication as well.....

and you would be surprised I think to see how much of creating an image when shooting film had to do with choices of chemicals and temperatures and times and how much D&B and creative work was done in the darkroom.....

a lot of my work depends on applying curves, D&B and cross processing in post -  pretty much analogous to darkroom work really...  but if the basic image was not delivered within a certain fairly narrow range from the camera the final result would not have been possible

To be against post work would make no sense -   but I do get quite a few images that need two or three minutes of basic retouch at most -  that's how I like it, instead of re-inventing the image in post....   but to each his own -  and perhaps to a degree this is an inter generational conflict of viewpoint....

bottom line though is - if you're happy and making money good for you.  Been there, done that, got the T-shirt -  and happy to be shooting for pleasure these days....

Illuminate wrote:
Absolutely..to what extent is subjective but the eyes give it away. There is a sharpness to them that's not SOOC.

ha. the image IS straight out if the camera.

it just proves retouching is irrelevant. only the final image matters.

Sand Angel Photography wrote:
So I wonder...Are those who live by taking their images straight out of the camera shooting in JPG or RAW? I would think that those who shoot RAW would at least want to open it up in Photoshop and get the exposure settings halfway decent since there is more range to work with. I'm not sure I want to trust my camera to get the JPG version of perfectly correct every time. But it seems like there are people who do. I'm not saying you can't, but why give up the extra features of the camera when they are available?

Technically you are "retouching" to a certain extent converting from RAW to jpg, tiff etc.  It's just that the program is making the choices based on a formula.

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:

ha. the image IS straight out if the camera.

it just proves retouching is irrelevant. only the final image matters.

I call BS..but I don't know ya so I'll take your word for it in lieu of a RAW file as proof.

In either case, those eyes are over-sharpened and the fine hairs at the top are artifacting as well. Those are usually dead give-aways, but could just be your sharpening technique for web..

Agreed though, the final image is what matters.

Neil Snape wrote:
As in editing if you mean retouching:

I used to retouch the snot out of pictures.

Frankly for me they loose their honesty, and integrity. If no one can look like the finished product then you are nothing more than a 2D plastic wax figurine.

I posted my avi today. Never opened in Photoshop. IF the light is right, mu etc there really is no reason to retouch that I can see.

+1 ... For the most part.

I still retouch my images, but I am doing less and less with each shoot. I am beginning to develop a fondness for images that are more raw and natural.

studio36uk wrote:
That's far too "old school" for most folks on this site. For the "old school" guys they would consider an image a substantial failure if they didn't have it almost completely nailed down in the camera.

Yeah, but on film, I can shoot you with PANF, FP4, HP5, Tri-X, T-Max, APX, or one of countless other films (and that's just black & white), "nail it down in the camera" perfectly every time, and every image would look different - some films (and/or filters over the lens) could even hide "imperfections" in the surface of your skin where others would enhance them.

I could shoot you on a dozen rolls of the same film, develop them all differently, and again have each final result looking different, even if they were all equally nailed in the camera.

You don't really have that option with digital.  The only place you can do that is in post.  Even if you do nail your exposure in the camera.

Would you let some guy in a lab in Japan who has no idea what you want to shoot tell you what film you were only ever allowed to use in your film bodies?  That's what people do with digital when they don't do any post processing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.  It suited millions of tourists and snapshotters just fine in the film days.  They just buy whatever roll they get given at the lab they develop their prints at (which automatically corrects for their exposure errors).

And that's without all the darkroom tricks previously mentioned.

Sarah Lynn Modeling wrote:
This is something I've been wondering about for quite some time and would be curious to know.  I can tell, based on the look of some photos I receive back from photographers, that they've worked hard at editing and post-production work.  The colors, lighting and even the look of my skin and hair, is really gorgeous, and there are no imperfections. 

However, some photographers I've worked with seem to either not believe in editing or only do very, very minimal editing such as only fixing the exposure and contrast.  Sometimes, with these unedited photos, I'm very self conscious about them because they show things like fine lines, minor skin blemishes, circles under the eyes, etc.  I guess I just have trouble understanding why someone wouldn't want to edit these things. 

It seems like the photographers I work with are split 50/50 between those who do quite a bit of editing, and those who don't do any at all or very minimal editing.  So I'm just very curious to know, why is that?  Personally I would love it if every photographer edited photos, but maybe there's a good reason why they don't?

1. Some are "purists"
2. Some are not capable
3. Outsourcing the retouching may be cost prohibitive.

Review a photographer's work in as much detail as possible before agreeing to a shoot.  Either see their printed work or those with enough resolution to see the details that are important to you.

I do very minimal retouching because I'm NOT an artist.  Sometimes I wish I could do some of the fantastic perfecting that others do but I'm often complimented on the natural look I provide.  I do, however, clean up blemishes and other minor enhancements.  You see my work to see what I mean.  And if there is anything that you think should have been fixed, feel free to point it out to me and I'll explain why I didn't.

Neil Snape wrote:
As in editing if you mean retouching:

I used to retouch the snot out of pictures.

Frankly for me they loose their honesty, and integrity. If no one can look like the finished product then you are nothing more than a 2D plastic wax figurine.

I posted my avi today. Never opened in Photoshop. IF the light is right, mu etc there really is no reason to retouch that I can see.

YES YES YES!!!!! Minimal retouching in my newbie opinion is optimal. Your comment is spot on!

William Kious wrote:

I have mixed feelings about this practice.

Why would I give a trade client any more/less effort than a paid client?

Don't look at it as less effort, but MORE value.

you can buy a Mustang anywhere from about $20k to well over $50k.

However, you shouldn't be showing HIGH END work and delivering low end results.

If I had anything professionally retouched, I'd make sure that whoever is reviewing my work that they understand that that/those image(s) required extra retouching that comes at additional cost.