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?

Blurring is the comon practice of people who don't know any better. Don't do it, it's a bad trend and it says I have photoshop but I'm lazy. Dodge and burn is time consuming but it's the best way. Frequency separation for blemish removal is another option. Often people do it too much and make it look bad. If nothing else, I remove blemishes and leave the skin alone most of the time.

I would say its a Mayhem trend more than an industry trend. Lol

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:
Should I be giving models pore-less rubbery skin and highly saturated eye makeup?

As the lawyers say, "Asked and answered." (Go out back and set up a target, run fifty rounds through your 9 mm, and have a snort or two of good bourbon. You'll feel better.)

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

It's all about your aspirations.

Those "blurry" people present their work to the ignorant bunch, and would experience no benefit or praise by doing a good job.

People who are trying to make progress, on the other hand, are presenting their work to an educated public; quality is a must, and consistency and innovation are what puts them on top.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
People who are trying to make progress ... are presenting their work to an educated public.

How did you reach your conclusion that an "educated public" reads the slick glamour magazines? Share a little of your empirical data with us, if you please.

And kindly set Natalia straight while you're at it:

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
The end user makes no difference, this is an industry the end user will never understand. Advertising relies on the ignorance of the end user and fashion doesn't give a fuck. End user? Really? If you focus on the discerning ability of the end user then use a point and shoot, and take a picture of the girl next door at noon.

Peano wrote:

Jakov Markovic wrote:
People who are trying to make progress ... are presenting their work to an educated public.

How did you reach your conclusion that an "educated public" reads the slick glamour magazines? Share a little of your empirical data with us, if you please.

And kindly set Natalia straight while you're at it:

I think jakov meant the brands advertising in the magazine and the magazine editors when he said educated public, not the buyers of the magazine

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

I think jakov meant the brands advertising in the magazine and the magazine editors when he said educated public, not the buyers of the magazine

Anyone can own a magazine. Anyone can own great art(you know those news of people discovering that that dusty old picture they used to jam under the door to keep it open is worth millions...). It isn't worth a thing to them.

Why?

Because not everyone will appreciate it for what it is. And style is nothing more than the right measure of things, yet it takes time to build your critical opinion, and the process is never done.

So, YES I MEANT editors, selectors, publishers, curators, art directors, collectors... because they're the authority figures, and their authority is derived from your faith in their vision of style.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
So, YES I MEANT editors, selectors, publishers, curators, art directors, collectors... because they're the authority figures, and their authority is derived from your faith in their vision of style.

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.

Peano wrote:

But if, as Natalia say, 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.

And that's why there are so few great magazines, and so few great products and art in general. IT TAKES AN EFFORT both to appreciate it and create it. Because most people know no difference. They're not stupid, they just know no better.

Peano wrote:

But if, as Natalia say, 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.

So your under the illusion the end customer actually choses what it buys? Cute

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?

A lot of elitist photographers and retouchers make the assumptions that people that blur things are noobs or have no idea what they are doing

but there is a truth in that some people are actually portraying what they intended to portray.

a lot of people have shit vision. then their camera records something much clearer and frozen on a crystal clear screen.

so they correct it to portray what they are more likely to see and envision when they set out to make a photo

so: a lot of people have shit vision and want to portray that shit

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:
So my last post got scrubbed because the photo I used is too large... fair 'nuff. I'll just use a link, because the detail is still kind of important.

Also, for clarification: It's not my intention to be snarky or insult anyone's portfolio. I'm simply trying to understand contemporary methods. I stopped doing DTP work in 2003, back when it stopped paying $25 an hour in my area. The work I did required a light touch. I was supposed to make the photographer look good- as if no retoucher was involved in the work at all. What I'm seeing now seems to be an influence of over-glamorization and stylization- like we're trying to make our subjects look like video game characters.

Here's the link to the photo that violated size restrictions as a sample:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/508 … amples.jpg

From Left to Right:
Untouched: This is a crop of a photo that Studio LaRouge gave to me. No edits made.

Retouched: This is what I would consider a good retouch (barring backgrounds or other effects if the client requested it. I sharpened the image, brightened the eyes, added some makeup, took out the bloodshot and coffee stains, and reduced wrinkles and other blemishes. I also fixed her nose a little and removed a stray hair that had gotten in her face, gave her a little smirk and raised her eyebrow to give her some personality.

Overworked: I did everything I did in the middle photo, except I used Smart Blur to remove all blemishes and freckles, then ramped up the brightness and contrast to her face. This is what I would consider overworked. Her face looks plastic. I can see the temptation to blur the images, it reduces the amount of blemish reduc work from about 6 steps to 1 step and gives her a creamy texture, but at the cost of character and realism.

If this is what the clientele wants, then this is what they can have. I'll do anything to a photo for money. But I just wanted some verification that I'm doing this right, or if I should be turning models into plastic toys instead.

You got your answer and you chose to ignore it.

Why create a forum post if you're already convinced of your own pov?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
You got your answer and you chose to ignore it.

Why create a forum post if you're already convinced of your own pov?

Because I'm not convinced of my own POV. In an aesthetic medium, everything is open to interpretation really, and I'm always willing to accept that what I currently believe is wrong.

If I'm right, fine. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know what degree to which I am wrong. That's what this follow up post is for. I suppose this could go into critique, but I'm more interested in knowing about trends than personal critiques.

Okay... the general consensus here is that blurring is bad. Glad to feel exonerated. However, that does nothing to change the fact that most of the ports I've looked at here on MM seem (from my humble perspective) overworked, and I'm trying to understand why. If the preferred style these days is to work the pores right out of the skin, and unskilled retouchers are using blur to get that look quickly, then that means I'm still wrong and would like to know to that.

Let's say: Blurred = bad, but pore-less = glamourous.
Ok. I know how to come to that look without compromising image quality, but I'd like to know to what extent retouched becomes overworked.

Let's say: Blurred and/or pore-less = bad. Natural look is in.
Cool. That means I can carry on as normal.

Let's say: Pore-less is more important than image quality (ruled out already, I know)
Well, my job just got a heck of a lot easier.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
So your under the illusion the end customer actually choses what it buys? Cute

On the contrary, I don't think they reflect much at all about what they buy.

My point was that "high end" retouchers sweat over details that only they and a few middlemen (editors, etc.) pretentiously regard as "art." If you imagine that one of your L'Oreal ads deserves to hang in an art museum, you're the one under an illusion.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
It's all about your aspirations.

Those "blurry" people present their work to the ignorant bunch, and would experience no benefit or praise by doing a good job.

People who are trying to make progress, on the other hand, are presenting their work to an educated public; quality is a must, and consistency and innovation are what puts them on top.

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.

Mock them if you wish, but they're operating appropriately for their market. Failure to recognize the difference in markets is a serious flaw.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
So your under the illusion the end customer actually choses what it buys? Cute

See above. Who do you think is buying current wedding photos and family portraits? Some art director in some other city? A curator at a museum?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Why create a forum post if you're already convinced of your own pov?

I've wondered that myself, but a lot of people do it. Often putting other people down when they don't agree 100% with their (limited) view of the world.

Peano wrote:
My point was that "high end" retouchers sweat over details that only they and a few middlemen (editors, etc.) pretentiously regard as "art." If you imagine that one of your L'Oreal ads deserves to hang in an art museum, you're the one under an illusion.

That's WHY it's called high end.

It doesn't hang in a museum it gets you paid and doing those brands puts you in contact with the people doing photography worth hanging.

It not that hard.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
See above. Who do you think is buying current wedding photos and family portraits? Some art director in some other city? A curator at a museum?

We are not talking about weddings
This is a model forum. Not an event or journalism forum.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:

I've wondered that myself, but a lot of people do it. Often putting other people down when they don't agree 100% with their (limited) view of the world.

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.

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.

Why would I speak about another field of retouching other than the one I'm in?
Why would I speak about wedding or family portraits?
Why would I speak about anything other than what I do?
That would be an empty opinion.
I don't usually argue from outside with those in the field.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Why would I speak about another field of retouching other than the one I'm in?
Why would I speak about wedding or family portraits?
Why would I speak about anything other than what I do?
That would be an empty opinion.
I don't usually argue from outside with those in the field.

I respect that. But, I will add that excellence exists in all those fields.

So, yes there are bad wedding photographers, and then there are amazing wedding photographers.

They're speaking to the different market, but just like only few wear Dior Couture, only select few are hiring those great  photographers.

To make progress and be any good, you follow the best. Why would anyone be pleased just because there are clueless people out there. There will always be someone better and worse than you. It's your aspiration and dedication that determines the scale.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
But, I will add that excellence exists in all those fields.

Obviously.

But I wouldn't know what you need to be an excellent wedding photographer/retoucher

So I wouldn't argue with people already doing it.

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:
However, that does nothing to change the fact that most of the ports I've looked at here on MM seem (from my humble perspective) overworked, and I'm trying to understand why. If the preferred style these days is to work the pores right out of the skin, and unskilled retouchers are using blur to get that look quickly, then that means I'm still wrong and would like to know to that.

The question is: preferred by whom?

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:
Let's say: Blurred = bad, but pore-less = glamourous.

I'd disagree with that unless you're doing fantasy work or glamour/boudoir   

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:
Let's say: Blurred and/or pore-less = bad. Natural look is in.

Depends on what you call "natural"

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:
Let's say: Pore-less is more important than image quality (ruled out already, I know)
Well, my job just got a heck of a lot easier.

If this is what you want to hear, yes. You can make a million images in a month at $1 each and be a millionaire.

The sample image you posted is not a good example, it's badly lit and out of focus.

Maybe you should define your desired/ideal market and we can establish the standards for that market instead of comparing pears to apples.

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:
Okay... the general consensus here is that blurring is bad. Glad to feel exonerated. However, that does nothing to change the fact that most of the ports I've looked at here on MM seem (from my humble perspective) overworked, and I'm trying to understand why.

I think the answer is that you're looking at portfolios from people who are, for the most part, not professional retouchers; that is to say, they don't make their living by retouching alone.  And if they're not having a photographer or art/creative director or photo editor bouncing their work back, it's expected that some will go too far.  Learning when to stop, when it's very easy to make huge changes, is a learned skill.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
The question is: preferred by whom?

I suppose the broadest spectrum of clientele. I wasn't expecting to do this long-term, since I don't really do retouching anymore, but I'm starting to enjoy the work again, and want to find other clients.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I'd disagree with that unless you're doing fantasy work or glamour/boudoir

Mkay. So pore-less has a demographic, but only for specific image types. Duly noted.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Depends on what you call "natural"

The middle example in my image link is what I'd call natural.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
If this is what you want to hear, yes. You can make a million images in a month at $1 each and be a millionaire.

The only thing I'm really interested in hearing is professional opinions: which I'm receiving in abundance. Thank you all for your feedback on this, btw.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
The sample image you posted is not a good example, it's badly lit and out of focus.

Lol, Studio LaRouge is my only client at the moment, and I got it because she called in a favor. I'd consider myself to be a mediocre retoucher, whose experience (dated though it may be) makes up for my education in the field. Good to great photographers won't really benefit from a retoucher like me, but new to mediocre photographers will probably find my work to be the right balance of price and quality. Otherwise, I'd be charging more per hour.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Maybe you should define your desired/ideal market and we can establish the standards for that market instead of comparing pears to apples.

My ideal market would actually be the broadest spectrum of clientele I can get. But that's probably an entirely different subject- and a lengthy and nebular one at that. In short, I just wanted to get my fingers back on the pulse of client trends. I think I've gotten the answers I need.

@Everyone:
Again, thanks to all for the professional feedback!

Michael A Bradshaw wrote:

Mkay. So pore-less has a demographic, but only for specific image types. Duly noted.

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.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
That's why client input is important, and if someone has no idea what they want, they won't help develop your skills.

Naturally. But even though client input is important, there is naturally going to be a large group of people who want similar things. This was a question about trends, not about specific client tastes. I've worked with clients who have extremely dramatic tastes: high saturations, burnt colors and psychedelic digital effects. And I've worked with clients who have reserved tastes, like the client I have now. And I've had some that want a juxtaposition of both: dramatic realism... for instance a life-like reenactment of Jesus walking on water, using nothing but a client-owned picture of an actor dressed like Catholic Jesus, and some stock footage of the Mediterranean Sea. While client input will certainly affect how I edit photos, there will always be a mass majority of clients who are looking for a certain general style, and my perception (at the beginning of this post anyway) was that blurry was the current popular style.

Once again, this post was an inquiry about trends... not specific tastes.

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.

+1

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
See above. Who do you think is buying current wedding photos and family portraits? Some art director in some other city? A curator at a museum?

We are not talking about weddings

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.

To a certain extent, an assertion made earlier, that "it's a result of incompetence" is correct--but not as intended. 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.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
I've wondered that myself, but a lot of people do it. Often putting other people down when they don't agree 100% with their (limited) view of the world.

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.

See above, though I'm curious as to why you felt it necessary put yourself into that category.

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.

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.

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

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.)

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

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.

+1

Absolutely. There's zero chance of it being anything else. No genre could accept it; no market could accept it; nobody competent could ever accept it.

Well, except the myriad professionals who disagree, and are making their living doing exactly what is being railed against.

Examine the width of the brush you are making such broad stroke with, lest you, too, paint someone with colors that do not apply to them.

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.

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.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
Absolutely. There's zero chance of it being anything else. No genre could accept it; no market could accept it; nobody competent could ever accept it.
Well, except the myriad professionals who disagree, and are making their living doing exactly what is being railed against.
Examine the width of the brush you are making such broad stroke with, lest you, too, paint someone with colors that do not apply to them.

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.