Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
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'.

Actually it DOES mean it's 'less good'.
The only real question is a particular market's tolerance for schlock.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
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'.

Actually it DOES mean it's 'less good'.
The only real question is a particular market's tolerance for schlock.

You hold onto that belief.

Sean C wrote:
I'm going to throw up.

Shoot how you want to shoot. Edit how you want to edit.

If you want to blur, then blur. If you want to do high-end retouching, research it, learn it, do it.

Period.

There is nothing "high end" about it, it's either done right or not.

Is the cake made with fresh, rather than rotten egs "high end"? No, it's just a cake, and the other thing is a mess.

You use blur to get blur.

You use healing to heal, and cloning to clone.

And selective color for selective color...

Blurring in order to smooth the skin is nothing more than a misuse of tools.

P.S. Most photographers are really bad, just like every industry, photography is flooded by bad products, but that is no excuse for you not to give it your best.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Actually it DOES mean it's 'less good'.
The only real question is a particular market's tolerance for schlock.

That couldn't be more incorrect.  While I've never been a fan of Barbi smooth faces,   The bottom line is that "blurring" looks fake AND spending hrs. on a set of photos Layering, dodging, burning, cloning, healing, etc., in effort to conjure up a face 'O  pores, all for the sake of "pores" is merely a different kind of "fake" skin.

Pick your poison as a photographer; either fake skin #1 or fake skin #2.   Both look unlike any face you're likely to see in real life devoid of caked on makeup and the reality of it all is that few people aside for those in in the beauty and related industry(ies) give a hoot which version of fakery you use.

Look at magazine covers at the local news stand.., does it look like hours (or even 5 minutes) was spent on many of those faces? No.  It doesn't.  Why not?  Because most reasonable people don't give a rats nest whether you imputed fake pores or blurred them into oblivion.  They're either going to buy the magazine or not, irrespective of which version of fake skin you chose to lean most toward during your photoshop 'ventures.

Pore fakery is great if you're hell bent on working in certain areas of photography that haven't moved beyond such, but for everyone else shooting to put food on the table, pay the mortgage, and have heat in the home, pouring over one photograph for a great length, is a gross waste of time and a killer to the time-spent vs income ratio.

Striking a balance somewhere in between blurrrrrr and pore-happy keeps you from losing money while sitting in front of the computer when you could be photographing something or someone else or marketing yourself to increase revenues.

Lastly, what's better depends on taste.  I don't fancy blur-to-oblivion, but I also chuckle over pore-porrie as well, because it's just as unnatural.  What's most hilarious is the number of people that consider it "better" fakery, when to most people walking the planet with an actual life and a brain in their head, it's all trivia.

The OP should simply do what makes his or her tail wag and if the OP is getting paid, then do what you have to do to get work without sacrificing (or wasting) any length of your time making "fake" skin, that defies common darn financial sense.

Maybe the OP or someone else will lead the industry away from this worn out practice of fake skin.  It's all getting old and tired.

http://www.listedium.com/top-15-fashion-magazines/
… that Glamour cover of Beyonce'… ((shakes head+ chuckle))

Budding photographers (and some old ones too) look at this "Industry Standard" stuff (skin on-the-face processing) as "better".

Oh please.

Jakov Markovic wrote:

There is nothing "high end" about it, it's either done right or not.

Is the cake made with fresh, rather than rotten egs "high end"? No, it's just a cake, and the other thing is a mess.

You use blur to get blur.

You use healing to heal, and cloning to clone.

And selective color for selective color...

Blurring in order to smooth the skin is nothing more than a misuse of tools.

P.S. Most photographers are really bad, just like every industry, photography is flooded by bad products, but that is no excuse for you not to give it your best.

Using a Hammer to get a screw through wood is a misuse of a tool.  Using ANY tool in Photoshop to get what you want is merely that.  If someone likes the blurrrrrrrred look, and they want to use the blur filter as their primary means of smoothing skin, then that's their business… such might not make my ears wiggle; such might make you gag as well, but Photoshop is merely a program to get what you want done; thinking that there's an official, right, correct, or by-the-book method to get the results that you want using the program is utter ridiculous.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

Using a Hammer to get a screw through wood is a misuse of a tool.  Using ANY tool in Photoshop to get what you want is merely that.  If someone likes the blurrrrrrrred look, and they want to use the blur filter as their primary means of smoothing skin, then that's their business… such might not make my ears wiggle; such might make you gag as well, but Photoshop is merely a program to get what you want done; thinking that there's an official, right, correct, or by-the-book method to get the results that you want using the program is utter ridiculous.

True, but I'm trying to help people here.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
There is nothing "high end" about it, it's either done right or not.
[....]
Blurring in order to smooth the skin is nothing more than a misuse of tools.

Yea, truly, for there can only be one 'right' when it comes to artistic endeavors. All others are false, the tools and techniques to create them are anathema, and should be relegated to the depths of hell.

Or maybe not.

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote:
Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
True, but I'm trying to help people here.

There is a marked difference between helping people and simply telling people they are wrong. I've cited a number of scenarios, provided various examples; you've handwaved them away as not worthy of discussion. Not helpful. Why are they inherently flawed? What about them pushes your button(s) so hard that you can't even listen to them before rejecting them? Answers to that kind of question would be (at least could be) helpful.

Abby Hawkins wrote:
It's a lazy as all hell practice and a deal-breaker for me when looking at photographer's ports (if I see blur all over their faces...gg.)  I'm not here to have pictures of what I might look like through beer goggles.

Speaking of -- anyone see Britney Spears's new "Work" video?  The camera doesn't spend too much time on her face but when it does...holy Glaussian Blur, people.

You are my hero. I wish more models would speak their opinion when they see it.

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?

Not much different then fake pores

Kevin Connery wrote:

Jakov Markovic wrote:
There is nothing "high end" about it, it's either done right or not.
[....]
Blurring in order to smooth the skin is nothing more than a misuse of tools.

Yea, truly, for there can only be one 'right' when it comes to artistic endeavors. All others are false, the tools and techniques to create them are anathema, and should be relegated to the depths of hell.

Or maybe not.

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote:
Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.

There is a marked difference between helping people and simply telling people they are wrong. I've cited a number of scenarios, provided various examples; you've handwaved them away as not worthy of discussion. Not helpful. Why are they inherently flawed? What about them pushes your button(s) so hard that you can't even listen to them before rejecting them? Answers to that kind of question would be (at least could be) helpful.

So there are plenty of bad photographers out there, so we shout say they are a standard for anything?

You can serve rotten meat, it's still not a reference for food.