|
Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
A little historical perspective on retouching
There has been so much talk of late regarding whether or not retouching images is appropriate and, if so, to what extent. Like a lot of things in photography digital, has exacerbated this. But it should be understood that the practice goes way, way back. So often I read about how "this kind of thing wasn't done back in the film days". Or that, "It was all done in-camera". Or that "sure some dodging and burning was done, but nothing could be done to the extent that it is today." This is patently false. It could all be done, and was. The difference is only the skill set, how accessible that skill set was to the average person and how much mastery of craft one needed to perfect it. Here are two images I scanned from the book "George Hurrell's Hollywood". The are of a photo he shot of screen actress Joan Crawford in 1931. The unretouched version is on the left, the retouched version is on the right.  A lot of this work was "simply" done with a lead pencil. Airbrushing was also used, as was bleaching and other methods. Eventually the "Adams Retouching Machine" came along which helped retouchers attain even better results (such as you see above):  Think of it as the Wacom tablet of it's day. You can still get them by the way... Hurrell fell into photography. Like many of his time, he was originally a painter. It is this skill set that allowed him to retouch photos in ways that others hand't thought of and, use of his techniques, eventually became wide spread throughout the industry, morphing and evolving into the techniques we use today. Jan 29 14 09:17 am Link Old timer Edward Weston used an old wooden box with a old tungsten lamp it it with all his pencils, brushes, and bottles of bleach etc. Much like the Ansel metal box above, just wooden. Saw it at the Weston house and his darkroom. A lot of them did things prior to shooting (Gauze, filters, nylons over lenses, breathing on the lens, gels, etc.) as a form of retouching. Post shooting was push-pull developing as a form of chemical Photoshop. Even making an image B&W is a form of retouching since we see in color, just that it makes it stand out more since we normally don't see it that way. If it were in color, it would probably look like a drug store snapshot and the viewer probably would say "eh. Next." Even some of Ansel Adam's color work was awful and looked drug-storish too. But give him control of B&W and he was a master. So I'd say he pretty much retouched everything he did - one way or the other - as very little of what he printed was seen by anyone through their eyes the same way. His pre-visualization technique was a form of retouching. Trying to get the viewer's attention and hold it is part of the deal. How you do it is the trick - subtle or not. Retouching, or illustrative manipulation, is one way to get there. Wait until the 3D photo modeling and printers turn it into another "It ain't real. It's been retouched" era. Jan 29 14 09:45 am Link How was this possible without computers?!?!  Jan 29 14 10:07 am Link I always enjoy historical treats like these, great to see how the pioneers of yesterday opened so many possibilities for us today. Jan 29 14 10:12 am Link Very interesting. Thanks. Can't you just hear the critiques back in 1931? "Skin looks plastic!" LOL Ronny Jan 29 14 10:26 am Link Delicious.  MODS - can we have this as a Sticky in this Forum? Heehee! Jan 29 14 10:37 am Link Funny, I was just in an antique store yesterday and they had a 1930's/1940's print of a woman. Hard nose shadow, with a soft broad fade at her hairline. Shallow DOF, & she was totally retouched in "Hurrell Style" I did not recognize the studio name though, it was in So Cal. Jan 29 14 10:44 am Link Christopher Hartman wrote: Some people don't even know that it was done! Jan 29 14 10:56 am Link The problem with "old" was that it was difficult and took "some" level of talent for negative work. There were also opaque paint and airbrush methods which, being on prints, didn't require the fine work needed on negatives; which was also the reason for large to medium format shots. You couldn't do negative retouch on 35mm... Then there were the advertising/separation/dot etch specialists - on a different level entirely. Dye and etch has more control - and requires technical skills as well as talent. Airbrush work on prints was the "quick and dirty" way: http://www.amazon.com/Airbrush-photo-re … B0006BU4W2   The issue with opaque paint was, for multiple prints, you must make a copy negative. Unless you have great technical skill a copy negative will increase contrast and be softer than the original. The extra cost and time for that meant most portrait work was done on large negatives. Portrait studios were the main clients for most work. With a computer and photoshop, anyone can "retouch". The skill and judgement to do it right is the main issue. The whole problem with computer work is that it is easy to over do or simply do it wrong. Just like desktop publishing; with cold type or optical type setting - leading, kerning and type color was an art. Once type setting and publishing got on the desktop, good work was harder to find. Jan 29 14 10:58 am Link Steven Burnette Retouch wrote: You can also thank Hurrell for the boom arm/stand and the beauty lighting patterns we use today that rely on them. He was the first person to light people in that manner and had nailed a light to a board that was in a permanent position in his studio at the MGM gallery. When Mole Richardson introduced a new, powerful light that was much smaller (fresnel) he realized that he could move it around with his subject, but he didn't have anything to put it on. He approached Strickland, his ultimate boss at MGM and requested what we call a boom arm today, but was told by the grips that no such thing existed. It took a while (C.S. Bull was also at MGM, had a bit of power due to seniority, and didn't care much for Hurrell and often stymied his requests) but eventually, Strickland agreed to have the machinists make one. Jan 29 14 11:54 am Link Carle Photography wrote: An antiques dealer that I routinely do work for and with has just gotten in a signed, limited edition print made by Hurrell of Hedy Lamar. Jan 29 14 11:55 am Link GRMACK wrote: The Adams box vibrates the negative at high speed allowing for more seamless results. I have a friend of mine who still retouches directly on LF negatives and she used one for years. Jan 29 14 06:06 pm Link I wish I could show you one of Hurrell's retouched negatives, the back side the one's I saw looked like pigeons had crapped on them. There were dabs of paint everywhere. To this day I still can't figure out what he was doing. There was absolutely nothing subtle about his touch, but the resulting prints were alarmingly beautiful, just like the Crawford example you linked. Jan 30 14 04:26 pm Link Robert Randall wrote: I have an original copy of Motensen's "The Paper Negative" and have been experimenting with the techniques. I'm thinking of getting an Adam's Retouching Machine just for giggles. Jan 30 14 04:47 pm Link Robert Randall wrote: Sounds like micro D&B that we do now Jan 30 14 04:54 pm Link Jan 30 14 05:18 pm Link J O H N A L L A N wrote: That's right. Laugh lines, for example can be reduced or eliminated with a led pencil. In the photo I posted of Joan Crawford her freckles were all retouched out with a pencil on the back of the negative. Jan 30 14 05:22 pm Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: It's amazing how getting rid of her snarl lines softens the take on her. Jan 30 14 05:55 pm Link I worked for a portrait lab in NY in the 80s.. He had one of these and I would have to use it. I studied retouching earlier at at RIT and they had a few tables with these side by side. Sort of like what the computer stations look like now days. Note that the one I used had 2 magnifying glasses on flex arms. One mounted on either side. You'd adjust them together to get see the fine details. Doping the emulsion side of the neg, keeping your #2 pencil lead sharp, but not too sharp... So many factors to pay close attention to..like any demanding craft.. BTW:I wasn't great at it... Computers are SOOOOo much easier!!!! Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: Jan 30 14 06:21 pm Link print artistry goes back to the daguerreotype and tintype era - painting blush on the cheeks of ladies, painting colours onto clothing in B&W images - and there were a ton of darkroom techniques as well - I would make a reference print and mark it up to guide the final development (d&b etc) and then do some work directly on the print - there is nothing wrong with editing or retouching - *except* when it is "used" to the point that structure is obliterated in service of getting rid of unwanted bits now as far as the public is concerned there are a lot of people who decry the use of editing to create body images that are so unrealistic that they are effectively anti-real-woman propaganda my objection to "retouching" is that many magazines these days do not want "photography" with reasonable corrective editing anymore - the photography has become just a "negative" for the use of retouchers who provide certain styles that are "in vogue" at the time..... from my perspective it has become excessive.... Jan 30 14 06:43 pm Link Fotografica Gregor wrote: Would you consider the work done on the Joan Crawford photograph to be excessive? To me, it depends entirely on the reason for the photograph. Jan 30 14 06:52 pm Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: No - not at all - that is very standard portraiture and does not really alter the essential shape of the face. And in this day and age, a similar edit is not at all difficult to achieve digitally. Jan 30 14 07:15 pm Link So I found a late model, museum quality, Adam's Retouching Machine on ebay that was at $90. I started bidding, just to see where the automated bids were at. Stopped once it hit $200 - I can't justify more than that for a, largely, display piece. Jan 31 14 12:23 pm Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: I got lucky. I was able to get mine on ebay for $10. I need pencils though. That and I need to start shooting with my 4x5 to try the thing out. Jan 31 14 12:50 pm Link |
