Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
We are not talking about weddings

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
That's obvious, as the advice given is flat-out incorrect for that. Yet the advice given is provided as an absolute, without any exceptions even implied, other than being ignorant, don't know better, clueless noobs.

Because this is NOT an event site
This is NOT a journalism photography site

This is a MODEL site, there for including the Wedding or family portrait market is not necessary.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
The individuals claiming One True Way across-the-board are either unaware/ignorant of , or unwilling/incapable of accepting a reality that they don't work in, no matter how many other professional photographers and retouchers occupy it.

We are not claiming One True Way across-the-board - We are claiming that in model related photography:

Advertising
Fashion
Beauty
Editorial Portrait
Glamour/Man magazines (I excluded this market, since SOME TIMES in lower quality magazines, they do that)

The look is NEVER blurred (with very few exceptions such as "artistic intention" and usually is in camera blur)

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I don't put people down because they don't agree with me, I'm firm in my words because I'm not merely responding to the person but to anyone reading.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
See above, though I'm curious as to why you felt it necessary put yourself into that category.

Why not? Someone needs to do it, there's a lot of people working in this field, yet very few sharing the insides of the industry, maybe the pros working in the high end industry just stop sharing in forums because they have to deal with people arguing FROM OTHER FIELDS

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I had a hard time finding the right techniques and standards for the high end markets so I make sure that, at least when they are reading me, they get consistent information.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
As do most, alas, for the techniques are trivial. What is not is the time required to gain mastery of the execution of the techniques, and finding the time to actually execute them in a high volume environment.

It's not, it's impossible to find the time to execute them in high volume environments, they are not meant for that.
But you make it sound as if you don't have a choice. YOU CHOOSE to work in high volume environments, you choose to do weddings or senior portraits.
For those who choose another path, this information is useful.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Why would I speak about another field of retouching other than the one I'm in?

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
I don't know.
Review many posts, however, and you'll see that it's very common for people to claim universal status for a great many bits of advice, techniques, approaches, solutions, etc which are NOT universal, and in fact may only make sense for a very small group of individuals. (That small group, to be honest, absolutely does need to know them.)

That small group had to START as well. I wish someone was doing what I'm doing back when I was trying to learn. It would have taken me 6 months instead of 2 years to learn the skills and about the market.


Blurring being accepted in the wedding/senior,family portrait genre is not because it's a valid style, it's because people don't know any better. Not to mention, they couldn't afford it

It is still valid to claim BLURRING is a result of incompetence - Not on the hands of the photographer/retoucher necessarily but of the client.

Nat - as ever thank you for your contribution and the time you take to construct these posts. I've always found your insight helpful.

Edit> TOTPM 

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
You can make a million images in a month ...

Sounds like you also use "high-end" math.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
You still on't get it and I give up. Blurry has never been and never will be a style.

It's a result of incompetence.

Just like wearing a bad outfit. It isn't a style, you just don't know how to dress.

hat off

+1

Mike Needham Retouching wrote:
lol, talk about toss a grenade. So many casualties it's not funny (of course it is).

Lol, I know... it started as a trends question and has derailed into a borderline rage thread. My question was answered about a page ago. I still like to check back and see if anything productive gets posted, though. Never know...

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:

Lol, I know... it started as a trends question and has derailed into a borderline rage thread.

Not rage, some of us take this profession seriously

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
We are not claiming One True Way across-the-board - We are claiming that in model related photography:

Advertising
Fashion
Beauty
Editorial Portrait
Glamour/Man magazines (I excluded this market, since SOME TIMES in lower quality magazines, they do that)

The look is NEVER blurred (with very few exceptions such as "artistic intention" and usually is in camera blur)

Nothing wrong with that--if it were what was being said. It's not.

What has been asserted--repeatedly and constantly--is that anyone who uses such techniques is
incompetent ("a result of incompetence")
a retard ("used by retards")
"blind"
"foolish"
"like wearing a bad outfit. It isn't a style"
"doing a bad job"
not trying to progress
has no taste
Etc.

Is blurring a good thing for commercial work? Quality glamour? Fashion?  Beauty?  Only in the most rare occasions. But there are legitimate venues, and the people who occupy them do not deserve the approbation you--and others--blindly spew towards anyone whose work isn't in the genre you find acceptable.

It does a disservice to them and to you.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
But there are legitimate venues, and the people who occupy them do not deserve the approbation you--and others--blindly spew towards anyone whose work isn't in the genre you find acceptable.

It does a disservice to them and to you.

If they are here looking for Advice - SINCE THIS IS A MODEL RELATED WEBSITE - I will continue to assume they want to shoot models, publish in magazines, do commercial work.

There are many other sites for wedding photography/retouching
There are many other sites for Family/senior portraits photography/retouching

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
We are not.

Depending on the market you want to be a part of, instead of wasting your time on amateur's portfolios on MM, check the portfolios of those actually WORKING in such industries.

Client lists - tears - exhibitions - you name it.

Then come back and speak about trends.

X

Lets look at one trend that is the result of retouching and post processing.
And I'm talking about high end work.

With so much retouching many sectors have seen their photography that is so retouched start to look like CG. The result of this has actually tipped some clients all the way to CG.

Look the the Automotive sector. BMW is nearly all CG now.

Plenty of beauty is so damn retouched that it looks like CG.

Two things however are interesting.

Photographers like Peter Lindbergh with little retouching or at least retouching that does not "artificialize" the model are still making the best images out there.

The other thing is what the younger generation out there likes. There is an attraction for fuzzy, grainy stuff and a nostaligic return to retro cameras, bit in the form of old film cameras or new digital cameras that look like old film cameras.

I very much think that a vast part of the imaging business has it's head up their own retouching ass.

Now that said there is a place for brilliant retouching. The best being the invisible kind, but also the illustrative type. By that I mean the type of work where the photography is the base for an illustration of sorts.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Because this is NOT an event site
This is NOT a journalism photography site

This is a MODEL site, there for including the Wedding or family portrait market is not necessary.

I think you are very wrong on this. I think it would be safe to say that there are more people on this site earning a living photographing weddings than there are photographing models.

Also when someone is shooting posed wedding photos they are essentially photographing models. Someone posing in front of a camera is in that instant a model.

Also modelling photography with a pro or semi pro bride and groom for wedding photographers portfolio is model photography.....

Then there's the huge bridal magazine field and representative of the only moment in many women's lives when they will spend big on "fashion".

I find that there is a lot of Holier-than-thou attitude form pro photography and fashion towards other types of imaging.... really rather silly.

Ask any woman what images are more dear to them.... family photos and their wedding or the latest fashion shoot out there...

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
This is a MODEL site, there for including the Wedding or family portrait market is not necessary.

Fred Greissing wrote:
I think you are very wrong on this. I think it would be safe to say that there are more people on this site earning a living photographing weddings than there are photographing models.

Also when someone is shooting posed wedding photos they are essentially photographing models. Someone posing in front of a camera is in that instant a model.

Also modelling photography with a pro or semi pro bride and groom for wedding photographers portfolio is model photography.....

Then there's the huge bridal magazine field and representative of the only moment in many women's lives when they will spend big on "fashion".

I find that there is a lot of Holier-than-thou attitude form pro photography and fashion towards other types of imaging.... really rather silly.

Ask any woman what images are more dear to them.... family photos and their wedding or the latest fashion shoot out there...

I agree with Fred. That was my implied point in an earlier post of a cartoon of someone on a high horse. But that was removed as "not helpful."

What would be helpful is for a mod to speak to the question Natalia raises: Is she reflecting MM's view in dismissing wedding and family portrait markets as not appropriate for this forum?

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:
Now that I'm getting back into retouching, I'm taking a look at a lot of portfolios, and noticing that Blur is the go-to tool for blemish reduc on skin, giving models a robot/mannequin look that I would've previously considered to be a huge no-no in the DTP industry.

Is this a new trend in the industry and I'm just out of touch? There's no way it's the tools that are bad. I'm amazed at how much more capable PhotoShop is now that I'm retouching again. Should I be giving models pore-less rubbery skin and highly saturated eye makeup?

It seems to be a trend everywhere. Have you looked at the magazine covers at the supermarket checkouts?

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:
Now that I'm getting back into retouching, I'm taking a look at a lot of portfolios, and noticing that Blur is the go-to tool for blemish reduc on skin, giving models a robot/mannequin look that I would've previously considered to be a huge no-no in the DTP industry.

Is this a new trend in the industry and I'm just out of touch? There's no way it's the tools that are bad. I'm amazed at how much more capable PhotoShop is now that I'm retouching again. Should I be giving models pore-less rubbery skin and highly saturated eye makeup?

New trend? when did you stop retouching?  This has been going on since I started in 2004.

Peano wrote:

But if, as Natalia says, the end users -- the customers who buy the magazines -- are a bunch of clueless dolts who can't tell visionary art from a snapshot from a point-and-shoot, then what's the point? You're just slaving over images that the consumers are incapable of appreciating. Casting pearls before swine.

Seems like a stupendous waste of time and effort to me ... but, hey, it's your time and effort. It certainly won't be mine.

Consumers CAN tell the good from the bad when they are assembled together.

When you're trying to sell a product, you want a very professional looking ad.  If you're selling lipstick and a competitor is also in that same magazine, people will notice the shit hack retouch job over the pro work.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
You've never shot a wedding or retail portrait, have you?

Their clients are what you call "the ignorant bunch, and you're correct: they would experience no benefit or praise by using a time-consuming method, and they would either have to raise their rates substantially or go out of business.

I'm wondering just how true this is.  I think the typical consumer is smarter and more aware than people realize.

They are likely easier to trick or just be in a place of ignorance.

If you show most people a photo of themselves and one with what most of us would agree was a horrible gaussian blur of a mess vs a fashion magazine quality retouch, I suspect virtually ALL of them will choose the fashion quality retouch as being the best for their wedding.

But when you show them the $25 retouch fee versus the $2,500 retouch fee, they are going to settle for the more affordable.  People typically accept what they can AFFORD.

If they are presented with NO OPTIONS.  And they are only going to be shown the gaussian blur images...well, ignorance is bliss.  And if they have poor skin etc, they'll be happy to have pretty pictures that hide the flaws, even if done to the extreme.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I'm wondering just how true this is.  I think the typical consumer is smarter and more aware than people realize.

They are likely easier to trick or just be in a place of ignorance.

If you show most people a photo of themselves and one with what most of us would agree was a horrible gaussian blur of a mess vs a fashion magazine quality retouch, I suspect virtually ALL of them will choose the fashion quality retouch as being the best for their wedding.

But when you show them the $25 retouch fee versus the $2,500 retouch fee, they are going to settle for the more affordable.  People typically accept what they can AFFORD.

If they are presented with NO OPTIONS.  And they are only going to be shown the gaussian blur images...well, ignorance is bliss.  And if they have poor skin etc, they'll be happy to have pretty pictures that hide the flaws, even if done to the extreme.

I think that many, when taking the position that consumers can't differentiate quality from schlock, are confusing the consumer being able to recognize quality versus their ability to articulate why.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Because this is NOT an event site
This is NOT a journalism photography site

This is a MODEL site, there for including the Wedding or family portrait market is not necessary.

Fred Greissing wrote:
I think you are very wrong on this.

I disagree with you. I think her assessment is dead on.

This is MODEL MAYHEM.  Whatever your skill level.  Whatever your goals are.  The number one intent of this site is to connect Photographers and models and other contributors such as make up artists, stylists, retouchers, etc.

That doesn't mean wedding photography and other non-model issues cannot be discussed.

I think the examples you mentioned play into her assessment more than being proof that she's wrong.

Sure, you an hire models to act as a bride and groom.  But if you want to try and be the best wedding photographer and show your work prospective clients, then you should show the highest quality of work you are capable of delivering.

If gaussian blur work is the best you can do, then that is what you should show.  But if you want to elevate your work, then you should consider having very talented retouchers as part of your team.

There is no reason, other than possible costs, that a couple's wedding album cannot look like it's right out of a fashion magazine.

of course, for a retoucher to provide that look, they'll need quality photos as well.  You want high end, everyone will likely need to be high end.

Peano wrote:
What would be helpful is for a mod to speak to the question Natalia raises: Is she reflecting MM's view in dismissing wedding and family portrait markets as not appropriate for this forum?

My take is that it's not that they are not appropriate, but that it is irrelevant.

Retouching is retouching.  Just as photography is photography.

And in both, there is scale from poor quality to high end quality.

I think everyone should try to make an effort to produce the best quality product you can provide when you're working with clients.  it doesn't matter if it's a wedding client or a high end magazine cover.

Pick ANY high end photographer that gets on magazine covers.  I doubt that if they were talked into do a wedding, they'd half-ass it because it's just a wedding and the client is different.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Ask any woman what images are more dear to them.... family photos and their wedding or the latest fashion shoot out there...

That's why they spend loads of money on everything related to the fashion culture?
From magazines to designer's bags

Ask any of those woman if they rather be in their family album or in the cover of Numero shot by Mert & Marcus (After explaining to her who they are of course)

Christopher Hartman wrote:
New trend? when did you stop retouching?  This has been going on since I started in 2004.

Around 2006. And I wasn't doing glamour, pinup or anything like that. In fact, I mostly worked on text books, pamphlets and flyers for universities, marriage counselors and non-profit organizations. So the clientele had strikingly different demands than private studios have.

Stolen Fate Design wrote:
I don't think it's a trend. Not a popular one at least. I've had a few models that actually prefer that look. Hell, I've seen girls that have had so much plastic surgery they look like dolls. Models like that "glamor shots" fuzzy, warm look over the entire image.

It's simply based on preference.

Again, though, it's not the popular one. Almost all the photographers/models I've dealt with abhor blurring. I can't say for certain because I don't know exactly what you've seen, but when I browse and come across it, 99% of the time that method was done because the person had no idea how to do it better.

That's the vibe I've been getting. It seems that a radiant, low-texture look is popular in glamour, fantasy, or some art images, but that's a narrow demographic, so I don't have a lot of interest in that. When I look at most large-circulation magazines though, I see a more natural look, with light touches on the "airbrushing" just to get rid of acne and reduce the effect of wrinkles and bags. And for pin-up (modern or classic) all of that plus a little bloat here and tuck there to get some dramatic curves.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Consumers CAN tell the good from the bad when they are assembled together.

I doubt it when on a model/photographer dedicated site like MM people can't tell good from bad.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Dodge and burn is time consuming but it's the best way.

Or alternatively, models could start taking better care of their skin and ensuring that MUA's do a great job.

BillyVegas wrote:
Also, dodging and burning on your main layer is likely not that great of practice either.  Generally better to create a new layer, paint with very light (white) or very dark (blackish) and then change the layer to soft light.  Same affect but photoshop kind of autocorrects for you... You can also change the 'tolerance?' so it will only make already lighter areas lighter, and same for dark.

What most of us call D&B

http://nataliataffarel.tumblr.com/post/4551849530/

Fred Greissing wrote:
I think you are very wrong on this. I think it would be safe to say that there are more people on this site earning a living photographing weddings than there are photographing models.

Sure, maybe you're right, but as far as I know the main purpose of this website isn't to reach out this kind of photographers. Wedding or family photography is just a different field with different habits. The kind of habits you cannot apply in beauty/fashion industry, otherwise you'll transform a beauty/fashion image into something it wasn't meant to be.

Anyway, I don't feel like I have the necessary autority to jump into this debate, but Natalia, I want to thank you for being here and giving (what I consider to be) top notch advices. Some of us really appreciate your effort and sharp arguments.

Jakov Markovic wrote:

You don't get poreless images in P.S. I mean you do if someone is doing a bad job.

You reduce the appearance of pores through lighting and make up. Than you "finish off" the image with retouching.

If you don't have a clearly defined concept from the start that you'll stick to, the whole point of your work is lost. Everyone in the chain of command has to be involved in order to get relevant result.

You don't start painting a hand, then you think it's not turning out well, so you smudge it and make it look like flower, because flower is easier. That's not a good approach to anything.

+You can do anything with a computer today, but you'll never arrive if you don't know where you're going. That's why client input is important, and if someone has no idea what they want, they won't help develop your skills.

Shallow depth of field has a great deal to do with how pores willl be represented in an image.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

That's why they spend loads of money on everything related to the fashion culture?
From magazines to designer's bags

Ask any of those woman if they rather be in their family album or in the cover of Numero shot by Mert & Marcus (After explaining to her who they are of course)

I'd be shocked if all of them gave the same answer.

BillyVegas wrote:
Blur on subject should only be used by people that know what they're doing.

I suspect pretty much everyone who uses it believes they know what they're doing. Some of them repeatedly brag about how good their retouching is, when it's blurred almost beyond recognition. From my standpoint, they don't know what they're doing. From theirs--and, if they're to be believed, their models love the look--they do know what they're doing.

As for the other issue, I'm not going to argue that blurred images aren't crap. Neither will I argue that they are. What I was trying to convey was that blanket value judgements that ignore context are inherently flawed, even if they're correct in some contexts.

Bizarre example question: Who in their right mind would design a fuel tank that's so it doesn't work very well when turning right? (It's a blanket statement masquerading as a question.) The answer, of course, is a designer who knows that by doing so he can design a tank that works much better when turning left...and in NASCAR, such a design decision was made by rational individuals; doing otherwise would be foolish. (NB: fuel cells changed things, but the example was true for many years.)

A declaration that "It's always [something]" is almost always wrong. Even when speaking to specialists. Posting in a forum for users of PhaseOne digital backs that 'all digital cameras today can capture in 16-bit' is correct for Phase One MFDBs, but it's not correct for 'all digital cameras'. When there's no added value to the use of (false/incorrect) universal imperatives, one finds it puzzling why they're used.

Christopher Hartman's comments regarding consumers shows some of the reasoning involved for using 'bad' technique: in that context, the options are: not retouched, cheaply retouched (quick and dirty), or relatively horrendously expensive. For most consumers, the third is impossible/impractical (cost of one image being more expensive than all the other photographic coverage, and quick-and-dirty is usually far preferable than the other practical option.

Blurring will give results that are intrinsically less realistic, absent near-heroic measures to counteract it. That doesn't mean it's universally less 'good'.