Art Schotz wrote:
I’ve 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 anyone’s skin in those magazines…. Except maybe for Brad Pitt.  But that’s another story.

But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyone’s skin is silky smooth?  Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo – 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.

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

Star wrote:
as you work longer and see more photos you will start to train your eyes to really see the differences

Agreement here!

Art Schotz wrote:
I’ve 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 anyone’s skin in those magazines…. Except maybe for Brad Pitt.  But that’s another story.

But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyone’s skin is silky smooth?  Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo – 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.

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!

Art Schotz wrote:
Well, I subscribe to a few fashion magazines, and I gotta tell you a little secret.  There is no texture in anyone’s skin in those magazines…. Except maybe for Brad Pitt.  But that’s 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 don’t want to go to bed with any of his women," he says. "They all look like something from outer space - like they’ve 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, everyone’s skin is silky smooth?  Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo – 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!

Art Schotz wrote:
But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyone’s skin is silky smooth?  Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo – 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.

Art Schotz wrote:
Your opinion please?

I think that the halftone screens they use blow any texture out of the water.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Art Schotz wrote:
But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyone’s skin is silky smooth?  Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo – 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.

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

ward wrote:

Point taken. Shut up and shoot...and cash the checks. lol

That I can wholeheartedly agree with.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

Art Schotz wrote:
I’ve 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 anyone’s skin in those magazines…. Except maybe for Brad Pitt.  But that’s another story.

But my question is why is skin texture so important to us here when in the commercial world, everyone’s skin is silky smooth?  Look at makeup advertisements, at clothing advertisements, at jewelry ads, almost everywhere there is a face in the photo – 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..."

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.

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

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.