Photographer
Art Schotz
Posts: 2879
Lima, Ohio, US
Iâve been reading forum threads here about being careful in retouching skin in order to maintain skin texture. It seems that most everyone agrees maintaining skin texture in your photos is important. Well, I subscribe to a few fashion magazines, and I gotta tell you a little secret. There is no texture in anyoneâs skin in those magazinesâ¦. Except maybe for Brad Pitt. But thatâs another story. But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyoneâs skin is silky smooth? Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo â and no texture. All this time, I thought our goal here was to improve our technique and vision to create art and to be able to translate that into a commercially viable skill that could support that artistic effort. Your opinion please?
Photographer
School Of Make-Up
Posts: 23
Stockport, England, United Kingdom
Hi, As far as skin goes, I retouch quite a lot, but still maintain the 'natural' skin, i.e. pores etc. Humans don't have plastic skin, but images must still show natural 'flaws'. I hate to see in magazines the perfect skin as this is so fake. Yeah, models on the day will have pimples, open pores which can be removed, but we must still keep it real. Hope that helps, just my 2p worth (I'm British!) ;o) AJ
Photographer
Stephanie M - Photo
Posts: 1258
Camden, Maine, US
Art Schotz wrote: Iâve been reading forum threads here about being careful in retouching skin in order to maintain skin texture. It seems that most everyone agrees maintaining skin texture in your photos is important. Well, I subscribe to a few fashion magazines, and I gotta tell you a little secret. There is no texture in anyoneâs skin in those magazinesâ¦. Except maybe for Brad Pitt. But thatâs another story. But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyoneâs skin is silky smooth? Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo â and no texture. All this time, I thought our goal here was to improve our technique and vision to create art and to be able to translate that into a commercially viable skill that could support that artistic effort. Your opinion please? I've noticed similar things. I mean, one of the people I look up to most in photography, her models always end up with very smooth, silky creamy skin that doesn't look very texturized (at least not on my screen). But I will say that gaussian blur is not the answer. The first "retouching" I ever learned relied heavily on gaussian blur, and looking back the photos suck.
Photographer
S de Varax
Posts: 7313
London, England, United Kingdom
Most of the time in fashion magazines the retouching complements the photography and the model, the texture is fine and most likely shows off the great skin the model already has. The problem arises when people think there is absolutely nothing there and proceeds to blur everything out and just leave the lips and eyes. everything in moderation. /ps I still see fine pores in magazines all the time.
Photographer
ward
Posts: 6142
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The Picture Mill wrote: Hi, As far as skin goes, I retouch quite a lot, but still maintain the 'natural' skin, i.e. pores etc. Humans don't have plastic skin, but images must still show natural 'flaws'. I hate to see in magazines the perfect skin as this is so fake. Yeah, models on the day will have pimples, open pores which can be removed, but we must still keep it real. Hope that helps, just my 2p worth (I'm British!) ;o) AJ I like AJ's response. Most of the over-shopped, over-airbrushed images i see in many of the top fashion magazines seem to be ads for L'Oreal, etc. Though I do see a lot of editorials and fashion creatives that tend to lean to a 'textured' skin look. Just my .99c worth. I'm Canadian, and our dollar sucks. LOL
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
as you work longer and see more photos you will start to train your eyes to really see the differences
Photographer
H5D PHOTOGRAPHER
Posts: 3837
Gig Harbor, Washington, US
Sure skin texture is something I like to have in my shots... I just try to refine it into a smooth flawless surface that doesnt look plastic... I think there is a happy medium that draws from the commercially published worked & the desire we have as photographers to capture all the textural elements in the shot. Thing is when you hand your files over to the retoucher for the Magazine or the Ad Agency they are going to do what they feel works best for their project.... so it doesnt bother me as much as it used to. Funny thing is, when I go to an Ad Agency Meeting they always comment on the great skin texture in my Beauty work... LOL! GO figure!
Photographer
H5D PHOTOGRAPHER
Posts: 3837
Gig Harbor, Washington, US
Star wrote: as you work longer and see more photos you will start to train your eyes to really see the differences Agreement here!
Photographer
Vlad Kryvdyk
Posts: 2025
Chicago, Illinois, US
Art Schotz wrote: Iâve been reading forum threads here about being careful in retouching skin in order to maintain skin texture. It seems that most everyone agrees maintaining skin texture in your photos is important. Well, I subscribe to a few fashion magazines, and I gotta tell you a little secret. There is no texture in anyoneâs skin in those magazinesâ¦. Except maybe for Brad Pitt. But thatâs another story. But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyoneâs skin is silky smooth? Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo â and no texture. All this time, I thought our goal here was to improve our technique and vision to create art and to be able to translate that into a commercially viable skill that could support that artistic effort. Your opinion please? i think its just one the ways most photographers try to look at the small details in order to make themselves sound like they are better.
Photographer
H5D PHOTOGRAPHER
Posts: 3837
Gig Harbor, Washington, US
ward wrote:
I like AJ's response. Most of the over-shopped, over-airbrushed images i see in many of the top fashion magazines seem to be ads for L'Oreal, etc. Though I do see a lot of editorials and fashion creatives that tend to lean to a 'textured' skin look. Just my .99c worth. I'm Canadian, and our dollar sucks. LOL It really depends on the Advertiser.... of course you are going to see more of the over worked skin looks with cosmetic companies in general as the are promoting their product line's ability to produce flawless looks for the average consumer.... but again it depends on the Advertiser... Clinique tends to have a more organic approach to the photography & less of a blown out lighting setup than say L'Oreal & retain a little more texture.... As long as they keep paying my invoices, they get to call the shots on the retouches!
Photographer
Kent Johnson Photograph
Posts: 1713
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Art Schotz wrote: Well, I subscribe to a few fashion magazines, and I gotta tell you a little secret. There is no texture in anyoneâs skin in those magazinesâ¦. Except maybe for Brad Pitt. But thatâs another story. Depends on the Mag and Editorial Vs Advertising. And the idea that is being implied. Steve Meisel has been going very hard on super smooth skin. So much so that David Bailey in a recent interview singled him out for making all models looking the same (and blamed digital). "The problem is bloody digital," he laments. "It makes all the girls look the same. I mean, [Steven] Meisel is a great photographer, but I donât want to go to bed with any of his women," he says. "They all look like something from outer space - like theyâve been created on a computer. And guess what? They have been." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1924630 … inism.html
Art Schotz wrote: But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyoneâs skin is silky smooth? Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo â and no texture. Depends on the advert. And some models do have amazing skin! The idea with fashion and advertising is 'otherness' Supreme Beauty. Its hard to sell $2.00 worth of Face Goo for $100 with pictures of pimply scrubbers!
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Art Schotz wrote: But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyoneâs skin is silky smooth? Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo â and no texture. Gestalt. Does every aspect of the image contribute to the intended goal? Very few photographs achieve that level of 'perfection', but it's one goal many photographers and other artists strive for. Given that humans see other human faces all the time, and we appear to be hardwired as to how we perceive them, some very little things can be jarring. That can be skin that looks (inappropriately) artificial just as much as it can be skin that looks (inappropriately) flawed.
Vlad Kryvdyk wrote: i think its just one the ways most photographers try to look at the small details in order to make themselves sound like they are better. It could be self-serving hype to "make themselves sound like they are better". It could also be that some people's sensitivities and eyes are more experienced. I've had students show me two extremely differently processed faces and try to convince me they're the same, when it was obvious from 10 feet away that the two 8x10 prints were done differently--one from a magazine, one from the use of a blur filter. Even when the differences were pointed out, they would often maintain that they were the same--the difference in image texture, the difference in skin texture, the difference in facial structures...all apparently invisible.
Photographer
London photographer
Posts: 1499
London, England, United Kingdom
i find when i have retouched skin it often looks texture less unless you zoom into it anyway, and i do no blurring! that is cheating!
Retoucher
The Photo Retoucher
Posts: 199
Look a bit closer. While you may not see huge pores, there is atleast a bit of noise and texture to the skin.
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Art Schotz wrote: Your opinion please? I think that the halftone screens they use blow any texture out of the water.
Photographer
Vlad Kryvdyk
Posts: 2025
Chicago, Illinois, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
Art Schotz wrote: But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyoneâs skin is silky smooth? Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo â and no texture. Gestalt. Does every aspect of the image contribute to the intended goal? Very few photographs achieve that level of 'perfection', but it's one goal many photographers and other artists strive for. Given that humans see other human faces all the time, and we appear to be hardwired as to how we perceive them, some very little things can be jarring. That can be skin that looks (inappropriately) artificial just as much as it can be skin that looks (inappropriately) flawed.
It could be self-serving hype to "make themselves sound like they are better". It could also be that some people's sensitivities and eyes are more experienced. I've had students show me two extremely differently processed faces and try to convince me they're the same, when it was obvious from 10 feet away that the two 8x10 prints were done differently--one from a magazine, one from the use of a blur filter. Even when the differences were pointed out, they would often maintain that they were the same--the difference in image texture, the difference in skin texture, the difference in facial structures...all apparently invisible. it depends on how its been processed if its been to the point where it is clearly visible something is amiss then that is a problem but because skin texture doesn't show when you go with a magnifying glass, who cares? yeah you can go over everything with a fine tooth pick comb and find an issue , nothing is perfect if you worry about every detail then why bother? seriously i used to work for a company as a security camera installer, one of the other coworkers was really obsessive about details, had to measure everything out, was a waste of time really.
Photographer
ward
Posts: 6142
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
MarcFotoGrafiK wrote: As long as they keep paying my invoices, they get to call the shots on the retouches! Point taken. Shut up and shoot...and cash the checks. lol
Photographer
Art Schotz
Posts: 2879
Lima, Ohio, US
ward wrote:
Point taken. Shut up and shoot...and cash the checks. lol That I can wholeheartedly agree with.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
Kevin Connery wrote: It could be self-serving hype to "make themselves sound like they are better". It could also be that some people's sensitivities and eyes are more experienced. I've had students show me two extremely differently processed faces and try to convince me they're the same, when it was obvious from 10 feet away that the two 8x10 prints were done differently--one from a magazine, one from the use of a blur filter. Even when the differences were pointed out, they would often maintain that they were the same--the difference in image texture, the difference in skin texture, the difference in facial structures...all apparently invisible. it depends on how its been processed if its been to the point where it is clearly visible something is amiss then that is a problem but because skin texture doesn't show when you go with a magnifying glass, who cares? yeah you can go over everything with a fine tooth pick comb and find an issue , nothing is perfect if you worry about every detail then why bother? If one person can consistently and reliably see a difference from across the room, and the other can't see it, is it still safe to say "who cares"? There was a clear and visible difference that didn't require a magnifying glass or a fine toothed comb. It simply required an experienced eye. There were a half-dozen other people who could see it at arms-length--yet the student still claimed they were the same. A better question is: who is your audience? Can you rely on your clients to be colorblind, or should you take care to choose your color palette carefully? Can you rely on your clients to be inexperienced or should you take care to do your retouching to the standards appropriate to the level you were hired to perform? Can you rely on clients overlooking things that others have reported just because you don't consider them important details, or because you can't see them without a magnifying glass?
Vlad Kryvdyk wrote: seriously i used to work for a company as a security camera installer, one of the other coworkers was really obsessive about details, had to measure everything out, was a waste of time really. Who cares, indeed? Why bother aiming for perfection when half-assed is so much faster and easier?
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Kevin Connery wrote: Who cares, indeed? Why bother aiming for perfection when half-assed is so much faster and easier? Yes, but you should see all the half-assed even in magazines!
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Andrew Thomas Designs wrote: Yes, but you should see all the half-assed even in magazines!
Alas, once the eye has been developed, it's hard to avoid. I warn students about this, too.
Photographer
Art Schotz
Posts: 2879
Lima, Ohio, US
Thank you guys. This discussion provides an interesting perspective. Primarily, the fashion mags I'm referring to are W and V. Yea, go laugh. But I get more photo info looking at the pics there than in any photography magazines and don't get overblown by camera store ads. Even the photography in the ads in these magazines is amazing. V is oversized and published on glossy paper. I think the resolution there is pretty good for a reasonably widely published magazine. And W is oversized but on normal magazine stock and not nearly so apparently high resolution. Yea, my eyes are old and relatively inexperienced, but what I see is what I see. Some of the top (commercially) photographers in the country and Europe are published in these mags. What am I missing?
Photographer
Vlad Kryvdyk
Posts: 2025
Chicago, Illinois, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
Kevin Connery wrote: It could be self-serving hype to "make themselves sound like they are better". It could also be that some people's sensitivities and eyes are more experienced. I've had students show me two extremely differently processed faces and try to convince me they're the same, when it was obvious from 10 feet away that the two 8x10 prints were done differently--one from a magazine, one from the use of a blur filter. Even when the differences were pointed out, they would often maintain that they were the same--the difference in image texture, the difference in skin texture, the difference in facial structures...all apparently invisible. it depends on how its been processed if its been to the point where it is clearly visible something is amiss then that is a problem but because skin texture doesn't show when you go with a magnifying glass, who cares? yeah you can go over everything with a fine tooth pick comb and find an issue , nothing is perfect if you worry about every detail then why bother? If one person can consistently and reliably see a difference from across the room, and the other can't see it, is it still safe to say "who cares"? There was a clear and visible difference that didn't require a magnifying glass or a fine toothed comb. It simply required an experienced eye. There were a half-dozen other people who could see it at arms-length--yet the student still claimed they were the same. A better question is: who is your audience? Can you rely on your clients to be colorblind, or should you take care to choose your color palette carefully? Can you rely on your clients to be inexperienced or should you take care to do your retouching to the standards appropriate to the level you were hired to perform? Can you rely on clients overlooking things that others have reported just because you don't consider them important details, or because you can't see them without a magnifying glass?
Vlad Kryvdyk wrote: seriously i used to work for a company as a security camera installer, one of the other coworkers was really obsessive about details, had to measure everything out, was a waste of time really. Who cares, indeed? Why bother aiming for perfection when half-assed is so much faster and easier? ah yes spending hours upon hours making sure every goose bump is right and so forth. no i dont pay attention to detail when that is not necessary. i work smart not hard. i dont half ass it no you are just taking it to one extreme or the other and not the middle ground. 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.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Vlad Kryvdyk wrote: ah yes spending hours upon hours making sure every goose bump is right and so forth. no i dont pay attention to detail when that is not necessary. i work smart not hard. i dont half ass it no you are just taking it to one extreme or the other and not the middle ground. Not at all. You asserted you needed a magnifying glass and examination using a "a fine tooth pick comb" to see something that was stated to be visible from 10 feet away. (Check the post; you even quoted it.) Not addressing something that visible is a half-assed approach. If you can't see the difference and don't believe it exists, simply don't waste your time worrying about it, or trying to convince people who can see that difference that it doesn't exist. If or when you fail to obtain or retain clients who CAN see that difference, you may want to try to figure out how to see it. Until then, ignore it; telling others who can see it that it doesn't exist just isn't a very effective use of your time. I sometimes wonder if it's like trying to demonstrate certain color differences to a color blind individual; no matter how well it's explained or pointed out, it's beyond their ability.
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. Why not claim that it takes 6 months or 6 years? Surely you could find a better strawman argument than that one. It's also a separate issue from retouching, though there are some similarities. In both, learning the basics is easy, while mastering them isn't always so simple. Mastering either requires more than learning some numbers: one does need to have the ability to 'see', and that typically comes over time. Differences that are subtle to some are obvious to other--and invisible to still others.
Retoucher
Barbara Hall
Posts: 53
Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
Art Schotz wrote: Iâve been reading forum threads here about being careful in retouching skin in order to maintain skin texture. It seems that most everyone agrees maintaining skin texture in your photos is important. Well, I subscribe to a few fashion magazines, and I gotta tell you a little secret. There is no texture in anyoneâs skin in those magazinesâ¦. Except maybe for Brad Pitt. But thatâs another story. But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyoneâs skin is silky smooth? Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo â and no texture. All this time, I thought our goal here was to improve our technique and vision to create art and to be able to translate that into a commercially viable skill that could support that artistic effort. Your opinion please?[/quote I don't see much texture either!I just retouch to what people want and so far I have had no complaints lol.Most women I retouch want perfect skin,they don't care if it looks unrealistic.A recent edit I did just won $5000.00 in a NZ photo contest...I liquified the arms and legs on it,and Guassian blurred the shit out of it.Out of 800 hundred entries it won Lmao!It took all of ten minutes to edit...other pics I've done D and B have taken five hours up and never got near the same reaction.
Photographer
Digital Dragon
Posts: 420
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
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.
Photographer
toan thai photography
Posts: 697
Montgomery Village, Maryland, US
I still see skin texture in fashion magazines. I don't expect to see skin texture in a editorial shot whether half body, full body or high key shots. I see skin texture in most make up ads and even in jewelry ads. It would be useful if the OP post the scans of these images he is talking about.
Photographer
Harry Lang
Posts: 195
Los Angeles, California, US
On a somewhat related note, Complex made a little mistake by posting an image of Kim Kardashian pre-retouched and then later posted up the correct image after realizing what happened. Some caught the mistake and you can see where they cleaned up her thighs. http://animalnewyork.com/2009/03/comple … ardashian/
Photographer
Vlad Kryvdyk
Posts: 2025
Chicago, Illinois, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
Vlad Kryvdyk wrote: ah yes spending hours upon hours making sure every goose bump is right and so forth. no i dont pay attention to detail when that is not necessary. i work smart not hard. i dont half ass it no you are just taking it to one extreme or the other and not the middle ground. Not at all. You asserted you needed a magnifying glass and examination using a "a fine tooth pick comb" to see something that was stated to be visible from 10 feet away. (Check the post; you even quoted it.) Not addressing something that visible is a half-assed approach. If you can't see the difference and don't believe it exists, simply don't waste your time worrying about it, or trying to convince people who can see that difference that it doesn't exist. If or when you fail to obtain or retain clients who CAN see that difference, you may want to try to figure out how to see it. Until then, ignore it; telling others who can see it that it doesn't exist just isn't a very effective use of your time. I sometimes wonder if it's like trying to demonstrate certain color differences to a color blind individual; no matter how well it's explained or pointed out, it's beyond their ability.
Why not claim that it takes 6 months or 6 years? Surely you could find a better strawman argument than that one. It's also a separate issue from retouching, though there are some similarities. In both, learning the basics is easy, while mastering them isn't always so simple. Mastering either requires more than learning some numbers: one does need to have the ability to 'see', and that typically comes over time. Differences that are subtle to some are obvious to other--and invisible to still others. 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. here is the best way: get an MUA and don't retouch skin on a computer. if there is such as a bruise or acne clone stamp it and give slight blur (40% hardness) to it. no strawman arguments here, in fact i think you were in that thread when that was said.
Photographer
toan thai photography
Posts: 697
Montgomery Village, Maryland, US
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. here is the best way: get an MUA and don't retouch skin on a computer. if there is such as a bruise or acne clone stamp it and give slight blur (40% hardness) to it. no strawman arguments here, in fact i think you were in that thread when that was said. it doesn't look fake if done correctly on the computer. why can't someone use a different medium to alter things? you use a make up artist. why things gotta be done your way? personally, i wouldn't use clone stamp to take out a bruise.
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
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. um, no.
Photographer
Vlad Kryvdyk
Posts: 2025
Chicago, Illinois, US
toan thai photography wrote:
it doesn't look fake if done correctly on the computer. why can't someone use a different medium to alter things? you use a make up artist. why things gotta be done your way? personally, i wouldn't use clone stamp to take out a bruise. when did i say things have to be my way? please point this out.
Photographer
toan thai photography
Posts: 697
Montgomery Village, Maryland, US
Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
when did i say things have to be my way? please point this out. let me rephrase: just because you think your suggestion is the best way-- "get an MUA and don't retouch skin on a computer. if there is such as a bruise or acne clone stamp it and give slight blur (40% hardness) to it," someone else will come along and offer a different approach. don't give an advice starting with "here is the best way..."
Photographer
Vlad Kryvdyk
Posts: 2025
Chicago, Illinois, US
toan thai photography wrote: let me rephrase: just because you think your suggestion is the best way-- "get an MUA and don't retouch skin on a computer. if there is such as a bruise or acne clone stamp it and give slight blur (40% hardness) to it," someone else will come along and offer a different approach. don't give an advice starting with "here is the best way..." 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.
Photographer
K E S L E R
Posts: 11574
Los Angeles, California, US
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. here is the best way: get an MUA and don't retouch skin on a computer. if there is such as a bruise or acne clone stamp it and give slight blur (40% hardness) to it. no strawman arguments here, in fact i think you were in that thread when that was said. Thanks your thread made me Rofl. Good morning start
Photographer
Fotticelli
Posts: 12252
Rockville, Maryland, US
Missoni Retouching wrote: Look a bit closer. While you may not see huge pores, there is atleast a bit of noise and texture to the skin. Good point. Smooth skin is great as long as it doesn't have that Elvis on black velvet painting quality to it.
Photographer
Black Russian Studio
Posts: 1431
New York, New York, US
I saw a lot of unrealisticly smooth and perfect skin in major mag ads, but don't recal seeing any print ads where model has no texture in skin at all. Maybe its because my eyesight is perfect and I don't need any glasses
Photographer
Michael Crouch
Posts: 457
San Diego, California, US
Dude, want my thoughts on post... Your post is as much your artistic style as your lighting or your composition.. Find a style that you love.. Keep doing what you love, yes it should be slightly influenced by your observations of marketability.. But more importantly it should be your art. You will then begin to find people who love your style and hire you because of it
Photographer
Stock Photo Showcase
Posts: 471
Arlington, Virginia, US
Less about why and more on how - I asked in a different thread about smoothing rough skin and have been trying to absorb Christy Schuler's lesson on both smoothing the skin and restoring its actual texture. In her narration she discusses a "current" school of thought that retaining the skin's texture is supplanting a dominant technique of totally smoothing the skin. That tutorial and its series of photoshop techniques are at: http://www.christyschuler.com/retouching.swf under "tutorial" To be honest, I couldn't see the color flaws she was editing out, but the lesson helped me and I'm trying to repeat it 4 or 5 times to internalize the processes.
|