Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
you really think when you are artificially changing skin or doing something with it on a computer its not going to look fake then id suggest you re-think that argument. it all looks flawed if you alter skin in the computer.

You can't have it both ways. You can't insist that you had to examine it with a magnifying glass and "a fine tooth pick comb" to see the difference and then turn around and say all computer retouched skin looks flawed.

A given photographer's inability to recognize certain editing artifacts doesn't make those flaws non-existent.
A given photographer's inability to edit invisibly doesn't mean that nobody can do so.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
i have heard from photographers that a professional lighting shoot takes 6 weeks to setup, that in my opinion is bs and much like when you have tutorials that go over every finite detail of the skin.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Why not claim that it takes 6 months or 6 years? Surely you could find a better strawman argument than that one.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
no strawman arguments here, in fact i think you were in that thread when that was said.

You honestly believe that a photographer, model, makeup artist, hairstylist, and art director are willing to wait 6 weeks for the lighting to be set up?

I need to get some clients and models who are that patient!

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:

i gave my suggestion as the way i think is the best, you get angry about it. no need, if you don't think it is the best way then just ignore my suggestion.

my whole suggestion was based on my own experience where the people didn't really look into the finest of details. i just choose not to put time and effort into details when they won't pay off. my photos have never called me to retouch the skin.

who says i am angry?

KKP Retouching wrote:
There's a difference between a smooth, silky texture in a magazine photo and no texture (blurred) skin on many MM photos.  Most of those photos like the makeup photos in magazines DO have texture, it's just a very good one.

That clears up my question real suddenly.

While there doesn't seem to be the same sort of skin texture you or I have in those fashion photos, the skin does look silky and smooth. 

Certainly not blurred.

And that's the difference?

DE Studios wrote:
I think the difference is flawless skin as apposed to plastic skin.  Even on most of the worst shots that make it into a publication if you glance at the image it doesn't look incredibly fake and blurred.  Yes noise is used a lot to simulate skin texture but if done right your average person isn't going to notice and they are probably going to wish they had skin like that.  If you scan around MM enough you will see the difference.  As photographers we know what a picture normally looks like straight out of camera even with professional lighting, great models, and a great hair and make-up team.  So we can see the editing a lot easier than the average Joe.

x2  Although sometimes when shooting for a private client they will actually ask for the plastic skin! Yuck!