TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
enmerkar,

I hear you. "It may have been brought up 500 times in your experience, but to me it is the first time. Honestly, if I had known that it would ruffle so many feathers"

I appreciate you saying that...and I believe you.  Thanks for sharing that.   I apologize if I may have made comments based on my own experience of having seen this issue brought up so many times in the last 3 years that I have been on this particular thread.  Same issue comes up often...some people just like to bash and rant and I think that is unfortunate to the art of photography.  Someone like you...I now think you are an honest questioner...I know its been hard...ive been on the recieving end several times too...and its difficult when you are rebutted or people dont understand you because they want to make a certain point they feel strongly about themselves...doesnt make any difference how you feel about it...its the way of the forums ive come to learn.

To your point:  I am amazed at some photographers who seem to have the ability to produce such beautiful images and have them look totally real and ultra beautiful.  I work on my model selection, my mua choice, my lighting fixtures and angles, my lenses, my camera angles, my exposures, my poses, and my photoshop work.  I have taken 3 years of experimentation and practice to get better at producing gorgeous images.  Im a life-long learner type of person.  I started out terrible and I got better...and I want to do better still!  I had a shoot last week that is probably my best yet...but I still learned 3 new things I could do to get better visual quality.  I took all my past learning and applied it to this shoot...and I came up short again...but I now know 3 more things to beat the gremlins away.

It seems like judicious use of surface blur to smooth skin and frequency separation to add back in the skin pores for a more natural look is the way many people are going.  This gives you smooth skin AND pores too.  But its a bit unpredictable and it produces some visible artifacts so you can tell if someone abuses the technique real easy.  Note: Smoothing skin is exactly what MUA's do with their foundation in their makeup...they make all the face colors nearly the same... and they try to hide blotches and blemishes to get a more perfect look.  So a good MUA is critical to good end results.  There are other elements that can be used to get good results.

As a photographer...you have to practice your craft...and be good at all 5 stages of image production to get the great results.  You have to be a constant learner...you have to steal other good ideas and make them yours...you have to scientifically and artistically experiment to see what works best for you and your equipment...and you have to constantly strive to produce that perfect image every time you go out.  If you learn something...that makes you better the next time out.  At some point...you will have mastered your technical and artistic craft better than the next guy...and so now you can go out into the marketplace and compete for the jobs that you would love...BECAUSE...you have paid your dues...you have learned your crafts...you have excelled where others have become lazy or have not wanted to learn the lessons in model selection, mua applications, lighting fixtures, lighting ratios, exposures, iso, posing, camera angles, lighting locations and Photoshop Post Processing.  After you have done all this well...your out of camera image will be about as best it can....then you have to listen to the client and customer on wether they want natural skin or smoothed commercial skin...they are the customer. 

You should learn how to use adjustment layers in photoshop, use clean and transparent curves and masks to do the correcting...and using a black mask with a soft white brush to apply the surfac blur selectively and artistically.  Dont paint everywhere...just where it needs it...and only just enough to reduce the issue.  Do skin pore extraction and add skin noise back in to cover up any cloning or skin smoothing...and then set the final skin color.

There is plenty to learn about this craft.  If you do all the pre-production steps...you will minimize a lot of smoothing need.  If you cant control all the variables in camera...then you will have to balance the application of skin smoothing and skin pores...with the artistic filter that the end viewer (customer) wants to have. 
SO...everything is a tool.  the makeup, the lights, the lens and the photoshop...sometimes you have to use all the tools you have to get the job done well.  When you know how to control each element with predictability...thats the day you become a true craftsman and professional hopefully!

Cheers

I would like to thank you from my heart for your detailed response and your advice. I am considering taking one of your classes. I'll PM you privately concerning that.

I admit I am in a bit of a rush, but I am not lazy. I fell in love with photography and cinemography in high school. I interned in JVC and got paid in cameras. I did an amateur movie with special effects in the 1980's. I enjoyed my photography as well and seeing my images developed. However, due to cultural upbringing, I never considered Photography a career choice nor movie making. I literally put down the Camera and moved on and focused on my writing pursuits. I struggled to get family acceptance as a writer as well. My culture doesn't reward art or literature, sorry to say .

Anyway, now I am turning 40, I've picked up the camera again and picked up my cinemography and movie production passion. I feel like time is running out and I have lots to catch up on. I am not lazy and I work hard and study hard. I like to be  really good in my field and I feel like I came to the party late, so I want to turbo charge my learning. This is the point of asking these questions. I don't want to wait to find out what the best practices are. I want to know now everything I can do to be the best at my craft.  Once, I know, I'll commit myself 300% to it.

Don Garrett wrote:
I like pores and other natural skin characteristics. If there are blemishes, I fix them with the clone tool, (very careful to clone from the right place, and use a small, soft edged "paintbrush", and do it on a separate layer, in case it needs some other kind of adjustment). I shot a model with very bad skin, (lots of pimples). I took a section at a time, made a layer> via copy of it, and blurred it until it was very smooth. Then I added a little noise, blurred that a very little, merged it down, applied a history brush, until it looked "more natural", then applied a dodge tool to the spots until they were the same value as the area surrounding them. If necessary, I would apply a paintbrush, in the color mode, sampled from surrounding areas. It is in my portfolio, and no one can tell me which one it is. It also looks very natural in a large print.
  It takes a lot longer to describe than to do, although I am an artist, and the time taken on an individual image is NOT important, the final result IS.
-Don

*head spin*

I'll take a shot:

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 52bd24.jpg

Am I right?

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:

*head spin*

I'll take a shot:

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 52bd24.jpg

Am I right?

That is not the one, but I might have applied my techniques to parts of it. (I do at least a little of this techniques to many of my images.
-Don

TMA Photo and Retouch wrote:
Riddell,
Shame on them for not taking 20 hours to retouch that photo...

Unless a retoucher has a very well paid, high end gig, then you don't spend 20 hours retouching.

The real skill is in getting the photo right in the first place, which involves not only a lot of skill in the lighting and the photography, but also very much so the makeup artist, and the choice of model.

If you are just bodging all those steps and then desperately trying to fix in photoshop afterwards and needing to spend a lot of time at it then you are not doing a good job.

Photography by Riddell wrote:
Unless a retoucher has a very well paid, high end gig, then you don't spend 20 hours retouching.

The real skill is in getting the photo right in the first place, which involves not only a lot of skill in the lighting and the photography, but also very much so the makeup artist, and the choice of model.

If you are just bodging all those steps and then desperately trying to fix in photoshop afterwards and needing to spend a lot of time at it then you are not doing a good job.

God, this point of view has been expressed so many times in these forums that it is getting old. I, and others have always responded to it in the following way : "Do it right in the camera, and you get a great image - do it right in Photoshop, after the (proper) capture, and get a SPECTACULAR image". (or some such variation). The camera CAN'T capture an image's potential, EVER. (ANY camera).
-Don

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
Let me take this topic to a different direction...

I'll confess that in the big scheme of things I am new to Photography. I've only began my pursuit of photography around Oct last year...

In light of the discussion we were having, I decided to try my hand on retouching, here is the result:



How much more can retouching improve this image? Would it benefit from skin smoothing?

I believe someone mentioned earlier in this thread that retouching is unique to almost every photo that you'll do. The techniques will be the same, but to what extent that you employ them is really dependent on what you want your end result to be. I've been spending a LOT of time over the last year refining my retouching skill sets and I've come to find that the better you get, you'll find yourself spending a HECK of a lot more time making it seem like you did nothing at all, and your model just NATURALLY shines like that lol. I've finally managed to whittle down my processing time to around 3-4 hrs, and the first 2 is easily spent zoomed in some 300% clone-stamping, healing brush, then the famous Dodge & Burn.

Here, I see that you did a quick edit and cloned out some of the obvious skin blemishes, but didn't do anything about the slight creases around the mouth, neck lines, or crinkles in her chin. Now, if we're trying to capture the essence of her "character", if you will, and not remove those, then I would say at the very least, clean up the whites of her eyes a bit while being careful not to over process them, and then clean up the wrinkle in her chin and creases in her neckline. Also, maybe think about editing out those blue clips in her hair and attacking those crazy "frizzies" on left side of her head where the other light hits them (pretty sure you used two light sources). It's interesting that once you get rid of the abundance of small, contrasting distractions, how much it enhances the visual appeal of the overall image.

Photography by Riddell wrote:
Unless a retoucher has a very well paid, high end gig, then you don't spend 20 hours retouching.

The real skill is in getting the photo right in the first place, which involves not only a lot of skill in the lighting and the photography, but also very much so the makeup artist, and the choice of model.

If you are just bodging all those steps and then desperately trying to fix in photoshop afterwards and needing to spend a lot of time at it then you are not doing a good job.

Don Garrett wrote:
God, this point of view has been expressed so many times in these forums that it is getting old. I, and others have always responded to it in the following way : "Do it right in the camera, and you get a great image - do it right in Photoshop, after the (proper) capture, and get a SPECTACULAR image". (or some such variation). The camera CAN'T capture an image's potential, EVER. (ANY camera).
-Don

Photography by Riddell wrote:
@ Don

So do you not believe that you need to get it right in camera first, and then give it a polish?

Or do you subscribe to the theory of 'just shoot, it doesn't matter what your settings are or your photographic skill, its all down to photoshop'

That is not what he is saying. No more than Ansel Adams would have spent a bit longer with the camera and left the processing up to Wal-Mart.

pellepiano wrote:
I made a test to see what would happen with the image. I did some cloning and d&b and used Refine Edge to extract her. ( lot of things left but was interesting to try ).

Photography by Riddell wrote:
@ Don

So do you not believe that you need to get it right in camera first, and then give it a polish?

Or do you subscribe to the theory of 'just shoot, it doesn't matter what your settings are or your photographic skill, its all down to photoshop'

If you had actually read my post, you'd know the answer to this question.
-Don

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
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.

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
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.

Hi Enmerkar, I just wanted to respond to the two quotes above and I think this is part of the problem.
For real world practices, look at magazines and industry blogs that fit the genres you are interested in.

I would advise against using MM contests as your sole method of measure about what constitutes "good practice".

CHAD ALAN wrote:

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
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.

Hi Enmerkar, I just wanted to respond to the two quotes above and I think this is part of the problem.
For real world practices, look at magazines and industry blogs that fit the genres you are interested in.

I would advise against using MM contests as your sole method of measure about what constitutes "good practice".

I consider myself more of a fine art photographer. I look to make art, but art like all things is subjective. A picture that turns my crank  can turn around get tomatoed when shown for critique by other photographers.

I like sultry and nude work (who doesn't) and I am currently working on my portrait skill. My wife is a makeup artist who specializes in bridal, but I haven't done weddings, and I am not sure if I'd like to do them.

The advice given to me by a local pro is not to compete with the local market as a I am a foreigner and instead bring in the $$ and invest in a large studio space specializing in nude shoots. He said there is a demand for something like this is in this part of Asia, but none of the locals has had the balls to open a studio where group nude shoots are being offered to perspective photographers. This, however, seems to rely more on social and networking talent and a big bank account vs any photography talent.

Photography by Riddell wrote:

Unless a retoucher has a very well paid, high end gig, then you don't spend 20 hours retouching.

The real skill is in getting the photo right in the first place, which involves not only a lot of skill in the lighting and the photography, but also very much so the makeup artist, and the choice of model.

If you are just bodging all those steps and then desperately trying to fix in photoshop afterwards and needing to spend a lot of time at it then you are not doing a good job.

This is the most common misunderstanding of retouching and use of photoshop.

Retouching is NOT about correcting poor photography but about enhancing good photography.

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
Thank you very much Pellepiano. You just made my sister-in-law happy. She is single by the way, so better watch out

The right picture is more artistically and visually pleasing than the left. There is no doubt it is much improved pictographically. ......However, is this what the clients want? Do they want to look idealized and maybe 10-20 younger? I am trying to understand how far can we go as photographers in our digital retouching before a client goes 'hey that isn't me!'.

You answered your question in the first part of your statement... . The answer is yes..

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
However, is this what the clients want? Do they want to look idealized and maybe 10-20 younger? I am trying to understand how far can we go as photographers in our digital retouching before a client goes 'hey that isn't me!'.

Yes, it is what clients want. If all they wanted was a snapshot, which they could do themselves at home, they would't be paying, they would do it themselves.

And yes, I am yet to shoot a woman, who does not want make-up and some retouch, because she is truly in love with her eye bags (now the quality of the retouch is the thing that matters).

A photographer who seriously wants to get into business needs to develop their own style and way of doing things, in general people don't "buy" portfolios with random stuff all over the place, because they don't know what they will be getting. Yet, you will never be able to please everyone, because everyone is different. You will need to find your own market segment(s).

The basic process of image creation consists in:

1) Get an image as close as possible to what you want to take it to. Lights, framing, concept.

2) Enhance it with your own way and style of doing things, to imprint your distinct style and vision through post work...

Both of these steps require a long learning curve, lazy people won't go far. Many spend their life bitching about how others use enhancements, when it's snapshots straight out of cam that are cool, while at the same time bitch that models flake, clients don't want to pay, and so on...

Post work is not about blurring images to smooth skin. Skin smoothing and texture are an option from the photographer, which needs serious time, skill and knowledge to create what they see as their vision. It requires learning and at the end of the day it is not possible to please everyone at the same time.

LightFeatherRetouch wrote:
Yes, it is what clients want. If all they wanted was a snapshot, which they could do themselves at home, they would't be paying, they would do it themselves.

And yes, I am yet to shoot a woman, who does not want make-up and some retouch, because she is truly in love with her eye bags (now the quality of the retouch is the thing that matters).

A photographer who seriously wants to get into business needs to develop their own style and way of doing things, in general people don't "buy" portfolios with random stuff all over the place, because they don't know what they will be getting. Yet, you will never be able to please everyone, because everyone is different. You will need to find your own market segment(s).

The basic process of image creation consists in:

1) Get an image as close as possible to what you want to take it to. Lights, framing, concept.

2) Enhance it with your own way and style of doing things, to imprint your distinct style and vision through post work...

Both of these steps require a long learning curve, lazy people won't go far. Many spend their life bitching about how others use enhancements, when it's snapshots straight out of cam that are cool, while at the same time bitch that models flake, clients don't want to pay, and so on...

Post work is not about blurring images to smooth skin. Skin smoothing and texture are an option from the photographer, which needs serious time, skill and knowledge to create what they see as their vision. It requires learning and at the end of the day it is not possible to please everyone at the same time.

It makes sense. I think I got the reverse impression due to living in Vancouver. MAny of the women around me repeatedly railed against the negative impact on women's self-esteem from the media. They made sure to point at all the evil magazines producing photoshopped models and images. The mantra was 'retouching' is evil and gives women unrealistic expectations. It has been in my mind that the only clients for these glamorized images are indeed magazines and digital artists. Since I am not shooting for magazines I convinced myself that it isn't something I need to worry about.

The discussion in this thread has gotten me to re-evaluate my thinking.

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
It makes sense. I think I got the reverse impression due to living in Vancouver. MAny of the women around me repeatedly railed against the negative impact on women's self-esteem from the media. They made sure to point at all the evil magazines producing photoshopped models and images. The mantra was 'retouching' is evil and gives women unrealistic expectations. It has been in my mind that the only clients for these glamorized images are indeed magazines and digital artists. Since I am not shooting for magazines I convinced myself that it isn't something I need to worry about.

The discussion in this thread has gotten me to re-evaluate my thinking.

One thing is the philosophical stuff people talk about. The other is reality of what people want and pay for... they are rarely the same...

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
They made sure to point at all the evil magazines producing photoshopped models and images. The mantra was 'retouching' is evil and gives women unrealistic expectations.

Those females are usually hypocrites who buy THOSE SAME MAGAZINES

Purchase the same make up
Buy the same brands
Get BOOB JOBS

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Those females are usually hypocrites who buy THOSE SAME MAGAZINES

Purchase the same make up
Buy the same brands
Get BOOB JOBS

Aren't you feeding those very same women by the use of retouching.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Aren't you feeding those very same women by the use of retouching.

No, they feed themselves.

I retouch for people who actually appreciate the photographic content of the magazines.

The idiots who buy a product and then complain about it are not my target.

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 plastic skin look is disgusting and it's sad that people think this kind of severe retouching is what makes a good fashion photo. There's nothing wrong with pores and natural human skin.

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.

Clone Brush, "Protect Texture" (I think it's called", having a high-res mousie & a steady hand. I don't smooth skin, I just shoot with a longer focal length (within reason, depending on what I'm shooting). For example, 85mm+Headshot=red-zone city. To be dramatic! I use my 135 f/2, or 150 2.8. Below are a couple images from 2012, D3 at 200mm (beige jacket) and 170mm (red top & hat). I did not smooth skin then, nor do I now. It suits some styles of model/people photography - particularly with some Retail clients! - but not the genres I prefer to shoot.

 

NOTE: Please understand, I am not inferring that smoothing skin means someone is weak as a photographer. It suits some genres (Glamour), and it suits some people's styles/looks of their work. (They might consider selectively raising contrast, only to the skin not lips/eyes/etc in the faces & bodies?) Not everything can be done in photoshop, and many if not *most things have a surreal/false look to them. A very "photoshopped" look. IMHO.

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
BBM# 24C79149
DBImagery Toronto (Website)
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
   
“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive.