NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

And every shoot important enough for an 'unlimited budget' was retouched, as you told us earlier in this thread.

NO . . . only the ones where celebrities would have it in their contracts that they can approve the final images and have them retouched to their satisfaction.

The girl layouts were not handled in that manner.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
NO . . . only the ones where celebrities would have it in their contracts that they can approve the final images and have them retouched to their satisfaction.

The girl layouts were not handled in that manner.

Well, giving every girl layout an unlimited budget sounds like a good way to loose a casino.

However, I am interested to know how pretouching would apply to these images
http://jezebel.com/5693656/how-your-pla … -made-nsfw

What would you have done differently on any one of those images? Use a different model? The very side light that reveals the form of the breasts and stomach muscles also brings out the pores and stretch marks.

I wish more of those red pencil notes were legible but how do you pretouch some of those notes? Nipple or aureole shape, for example.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
What would you have done differently on any one of those images? Use a different model? The very side light that reveals the form of the breasts and stomach muscles also brings out the pores and stretch marks.

I wish more of those red pencil notes were legible but how do you pretouch some of those notes? Nipple or aureole shape, for example.

If you study the centerfolds from the 70's and 80's you'd see that there was quite a bit of clever covering with garments to hide flaws. Creative posing was also key back then.

We also used diffusion to smooth skin and glamorize the models.

We only shot 12 girls a year . . . yet we interviewed and tested hundreds to find those few that could stand up to the centerfold process.

The centerfolds were shot on 8x10. An average or three or more weeks was required to just get that one image. After that photo was approved, then the 35mm images were taken to complete the layout. A typical layout would budget around 50k-75k.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Not quite correct . . . .

The photographers were specialists (only a handful in the world qualified to shoot centerfolds).

The models were all (for the most part) amateurs. The vast majority of the women that we shot for Playboy had never modeled before.

The hardest part of our job was to make inexperienced models look like professionals.

Mr Marcus is the AUTHORITY here when it comes to this topic ... hes the real PRO and knows what hes talking about. I always listen to what he has to say and his work is FABULOUS.

Scott Johnson Studios wrote:
IMO, when they stopped shooting women with clear skin.. the editing became more over the top. But then it's not about the editing for most that are looking at it.. it's more about the woman and the size of her breasts.

When did "editing" become the catch phrase for re-touching.  It seems to have come from those with only the digital experience and don't have the more established foundation that came with prior film use experience.  When we used to edit a shoot it ment we "edited" down the larger number of images to the smaller number of select images.  Professional studios did lots of business with re-touching artists.  If you read down to one of Ken Marcus's statements he makes the statement of "re-touching" for the use of correcting flaws in the image, not editing.

Creative Digital Imagez wrote:

Mr Marcus is the AUTHORITY here when it comes to this topic ... hes the real PRO and knows what hes talking about. I always listen to what he has to say and his work is FABULOUS.

No kidding, "Authority" is an understatement.  I had to honor to study with Ken years ago.  Probably the best week of education in all my photography life.

Janos - wrote:
Sad huh? and women try to compete with this? they cannot... and any man who think he can find himself a wife that looks like this, has no clue...

We live in a world that is mislead with false looks...

*swoon*

Janos is so aweshum! Do you look like yourself?

Guys don't have to stress about looks like womens do, chances are you look the same in person!

Ashley Graham wrote:
Why are people arguing with Ken? By the way, his shots look almost flawless in camera, so I'm assuming most was out of the camera back then. Unlike today where everyone thinks I'll fix it later, the pros and old pros think, why tidbit in ps when I can fix it before going to ps?

Very true Ashley, not everyone has time to sit at the computer trying to fix a problem that should've been corrected before taking the image.  If there are lighting issues, hairs out of place, make up issues, poor posing, why shoot these problems ?  The real professionals take a few seconds to fix before they shoot.  ( I know I'll get beat up for that last sentence)

cinema photography wrote:


Makes me wonder, did they always over retouch? Seeing images from the early 60s they all look way more natural and realistic, not, you know..fake

Yeah. And a lot fuller models, more realistic and believable, ooh and curvy too!

http://freakymartin.com/2008/06/19/play … 31-photos/

I find those girls a lot hotter in bed

lol

Nadirah B wrote:

*swoon*

Janos is so aweshum! Do you look like yourself?

Guys don't have to stress about looks like womens do, chances are you look the same in person!

lol, thanks, I have met quite a few models who look the same in their photos, sometimes people look better in person than in their photos and of course, then there are the models who are so overly ps'ed and look nothing like they do in person. Editing photos for small things is one thing, but some people look NOTHING like they do in their photos in person...

Heather Honey wrote:
my fiance says they used to send negatives to a retouch house, where they would actually paint in negative on the negatives, that's one reason large format film was preferred.

Did you fiance shoot for Playboy?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
There was NO retouching allowed back in those days.

Only the cover was retouched

So the cover was not considered part of the publication?...   Probably the single most important ingredient of the mag...

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
During the 11 years (1974 - 1985) that I shot centerfolds, calendars, pictorials and editorials for Playboy, there was a policy against retouching anything except the cover (to make sure text would contrast properly and be easily readable)

Our policy during those days was:  Pre-touch, rather than Re-touch


KM

OMG, say its not true!  You mean...  ahhh... get it right in camera????????   AHHHGGGGG!
/sarcasm

Heather Honey wrote:
my fiance says they used to send negatives to a retouch house, where they would actually paint in negative on the negatives, that's one reason large format film was preferred.

and you are 24, probably making your fiancee somewhere in his late 20's, maybe early 30's? so in the 70' and 80's he was...ummm letme do some quick math...ummm, let's see, calculating here, hmmmm, let's see, OK got it, he probably was not quite born yet or less than 5 years old.

and yet your finance knows more than the one guy on MM who actually was there and worked for Playboy at the time frame in question?

got it.

oh, might want to tell your finance they didn't shoot negatives very often, if at all. They shot transparency film.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Not quite correct . . . .

The photographers were specialists (only a handful in the world qualified to shoot centerfolds).

The models were all (for the most part) amateurs. The vast majority of the women that we shot for Playboy had never modeled before.

The hardest part of our job was to make inexperienced models look like professionals.

Ken, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading a quote many years back:
"If you want to see it, light it", referring even to such minute detail as an ash tray in the set.
Was that not your quote?

It just goes the way of imparting attention to detail while making the shot, rather than having to fix a problem after the fact.

Heather Honey wrote:
my fiance says they used to send negatives to a retouch house, where they would actually paint in negative on the negatives, that's one reason large format film was preferred.

In the days before digital, we shot color transparencies (positives), not negatives. Black & White images were rarely used, and those were made from prints that were submitted to the editors, rather than negatives.

KM

Select Models wrote:

So the cover was not considered part of the publication?...   Probably the single most important ingredient of the mag...

Apparently you did not read what I said earlier . . . the cover was the ONLY thing that was regularly retouched because text had to contrast against the background so it's readable. The cover was a one shot item and was not able to be compared to any other image next to it, like an editorial or centerfold layout would be.

OpenMinds wrote:
Ken, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading a quote many years back:
"If you want to see it, light it", referring even to such minute detail as an ash tray in the set.
Was that not your quote?

It just goes the way of imparting attention to detail while making the shot, rather than having to fix a problem after the fact.

Yes . . . that sounds like something that I have said repeatedly for many years.

Heather Honey wrote:
my fiance says they used to send negatives to a retouch house, where they would actually paint in negative on the negatives, that's one reason large format film was preferred.

Just FYI, it's positive. Transparencies or slides.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Apparently you did not read what I said earlier . . . the cover was the ONLY thing that was regularly retouched because text had to contrast against the background so it's readable. The cover was a one shot item and was not able to be compared to any other image next to it, like an editorial or centerfold layout would be.

RIF -- I thought what you said was pretty darn clear -- and lol at the people still arguing as to how it was done.

Silly wabbits . . .

enriquefoto-grafx wrote:
Good going Ken!

And I remember that at the Hollywood Kodak processing plant for Kodachrome, the images had to pass censoring muster.  And that's why many photographers of the genre shifted to Ekatachrome and Fujichrome.

All the best for the Holidays!

EG

An unfortunate fact of life back in the days of censorship

enriquefoto-grafx wrote:
Good going Ken!

And I remember that at the Hollywood Kodak processing plant for Kodachrome, the images had to pass censoring muster.  And that's why many photographers of the genre shifted to Ekatachrome and Fujichrome.

All the best for the Holidays!

EG

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
An unfortunate fact of life back in the days of censorship

Was Kodachrome preferred over Ektachrome and Fujichrome? How come?

terrysphotocountry wrote:
There was a dark room before digital.

Amen!  And it's amazing how little some people appear to know about it, and film and slides and the like. Lol

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
Was Kodachrome preferred over Ektachrome and Fujichrome? How come?

.


Kodachrome was the highest quality 35mm film there was.
Is was virtually grainless and had the finest color rendition of any known film.
It was essentially a black and white film where the dyes were added in the processing. There was nothing that compared to the quality of it.

It was the film that separated the men from the boys!

It was slow . . . ISO 25 and ISO 64

It required absolute perfection in exposure, as there was less than 1/4 stop leeway for error (not like shooting RAW digital, where you can be off by several stops and correct it in PS).

You were either right on, or you were screwed.

This was what was required by all the top magazines (Playboy included).

KM

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
During the 11 years (1974 - 1985) that I shot centerfolds, calendars, pictorials and editorials for Playboy, there was a policy against retouching anything except the cover (to make sure text would contrast properly and be easily readable)

Our policy during those days was:  Pre-touch, rather than Re-touch


KM

Back when models had to have a nearly flawless complexion head to toe. Real, natural beauties.