|
Forums >
Hair, Makeup & Styling >
Advertisements not using makeup artists
http://www.mamamia.com.au/celebrities/l … photoshop/ What do you think of latest Versace AD not using a makeup artist for their campaign and doing all the makeup in Photoshop. Will this become a trend. Is obvious that Versace can afford a makeup artist. I wonder why they chose not to use one. The final look could have been easily achieved with makeup. Apr 17 14 06:34 am Link Its interesting to me. Clearly Versace can afford the tip top of the market in regards to make up and retouchers. Doing makeup THIS expertly in photoshop takes years of skill (which of course Versace can afford) - as does doing makeup of Versace quality. I've seen other retouchers do it in photoshop and not have as skilled results. I will admit that as a retoucher, I will tell a mua to NOT cover up large blemishes or freckles as I can easier do the correction (not that a freckle is a flaw but it might be a look they are going for) than correct the correction if there was not 100% spot on blending. Its a fine line of where the skill set will be to achieve the results desired. Apr 18 14 09:01 am Link I'm not sure this is not a big PR stunt. And the before pictures look like she has some makeup on to me. The reason they look awful to me is more expression and the images look unretouched. In one shot her eye is half closed -- it isn't the lack of makeup that ruins the shot for me. Apr 18 14 10:52 am Link I'm honestly not sure why they did this but I can tell you ask a relatively professional retoucher I doubt photographers are just going to start shooing campaigns without makeup. Sure this and that might be able to be faked in post but there's certain looks, in fact most of them, that just can't be replicated realistically in photoshop. Regardless, having something to start with, even if you're going to photoshop the hell out of it later, helps immensely. And really with the cost of retouching (some can go as high as $100 an hour I believe) I can imagine it wouldn't be more cost effective to have someone just do all the makeup in PS as opposed to getting it as close as you can in real life and working from there to save time in post. Maybe Gaga's rates or whatever are so crazy that they didn't wanna spend time on makeup, I donno. Long story short, you guys aren't going to be replaced by retouchers, at least not any time soon as far as I can tell. Apr 18 14 11:32 am Link For a retoucher to do this, they must almost be like a makeup artist- just using a different medium than makeup. But they would need to know how to be experimental with new trends and such. It's kind of like a new emerging type of makeup artist, only much more expensive I presume. I don't think this would ever replace a makeup artist though, because there is something magical about transforming a person and how they feel right on the spot. Talent always feel sexier and more confident in front of the camera when they are done up. It's actually quite courageous of Gaga to brave the camera sans makeup like she did. I'm not sure a lot of people would be comfortable doing the same. Edit: The makeup in the Versace ads is well done, but most of the time makeup that has been applied in photoshop looks very fake and "too perfect" - not in a good way. I'm thinking of ads like Rimmel or Lancome. Or this:  Apr 18 14 02:01 pm Link It's a publicity stunt...Plain and simple. There is NO WAY someone on this shoot "leaked" photos of Gaga with no makeup. Also, they didn't just apply makeup in post, they changed bone structure as well as took away folds of skin etc. As was mentioned, the person that did this had to have editing skills as well as makeup artistry skills, this is a rare find and this is someone that would be more expensive then a makeup artist.. Even really good photo-shoppers have no idea how to adjust makeup properly. Apr 18 14 06:00 pm Link Mary wrote: I don't see retouchers replacing professional makeup artists anytime soon. Apr 18 14 07:27 pm Link KungPaoChic wrote: Celebrities demand it and usually choose who the artist will be...Another reason why I know this was a planned publicity stunt. A big name brand would never dismiss an artist ...pampering on set is something celebrities expect and the cost of an artist is very small compared to the overall cost of the shoot Apr 18 14 09:55 pm Link ThirdEyeMakeup wrote: I think you made a really good point here. I find that models always "get into character" when they have everything read (wardrobe, hair, makeup) and I'm sure seeing the whole package finished right before shoooting helps them understand the concept and perform better as well. Apr 18 14 11:56 pm Link Angie_ Hair_ and Makeup wrote: If the retoucher is an inhouse retoucher then it's a cost effective reason. Apr 20 14 07:09 am Link Mary wrote: There is a portrait photographer who trains her makeup artists to be retouchers Apr 20 14 05:13 pm Link I'm not sure I'm convinced that this is the case, it's hard to make a good comparison because the pics aren't pound for pound - the wardrobe and composition are different, I think an MUA was used on the second set of images... Jun 21 14 11:42 am Link didi_clark wrote: I just looked for where the article says an artist wasn't used.... So why did we all assume an artist wasn't used? The ones with no makeup are probably the tests they did to check lighting before she went into makeup... Jun 21 14 01:17 pm Link ProArtWork wrote: I'm pretty sure an in house retoucher of this quality is going to cost more then the artist... Great retouchers are very expensive Jun 21 14 01:18 pm Link +1 on "where did you get the idea that a mua was not used?" Jun 21 14 01:28 pm Link Lucia Pieroni was the MUA on the Versace S/S 14 See here : http://models.com/client/versace Jun 21 14 03:03 pm Link Not nagging on Versace...but they took the cheap way out. They probably feel like they're too good to do it the old fashion way. I hope this doesn't become a trend because its not fair for people who actually have talent an who have actually spent years perfecting their skill. Jun 21 14 07:38 pm Link |
