| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2005 05:09:35 PM · #1 |
I was wandering around the internet last night looking at galleries of work by Avedon, Ritts, Leibovitz, etc.... And also Markus Klinko & Indrani. Klinko is the photographer, Indrani is a former model turned digital artist/creative director. As I understand it, Klinko shoots with Hasselblad cameras with Leaf digital backs. They're featured in a number of issues of Digital Photo Pro.
Browsing their site made me think about commercial/celeb portrait photography in general. The idea I suppose has always been to be creative and make the subject look stunning. I look at their work and wish I could do even half what they do (and hopefully the fact that the subject matter is often celebs doesn't influence what anybody- including me- thinks of their actual skill). But by the same token, the whole idea feels wrong and always has to me. Giving people impossibly flawless skin, removing any imperfections... it could be argued that the subjects are no longer even people, they're simply glorified depictions of actual humans. MK&I make no secret of the fact that the images are retouched, apparently they have a full retouching staff and advertise for new retouchers regularly. But...
Casual magazine readers seeing their work don't often look at an ad or a photo of Beyonce and think, "that retoucher did fantastic work". Perhaps the fact that we rarely see the before and after has something to do with how we perceive the work. When I see before and after shots, I always marvel at the skill of the retoucher, more than the photo itself. Here are a couple of amazing retouchers:
Greg Apodaca
Shelby
As much as it seems wrong to me, it doesn't stop me from trying to make my own subjects look as good as possible with the healing brush and hoping to get better at it with practice- but to what end? It really is quite a conundrum.
How do you feel about retouching?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 05:14:47 PM · #2 |
| IMO some of the "retouching" goes way over the top, but hey, it's not photojournalism. In particular, the Greg Apodaca stuff is sooo overdone it's not funny, IMHO. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 05:17:13 PM · #3 |
I remove pimples and other facial blemishes all the time in portraits, so I have no issues about it.
By the same token, you could also say makeup artist are doing the same thing as the retouchers. No one ever said every photo has to be "real".
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 05:20:44 PM · #4 |
It's all subjective but I don't like the overdone look. I personally try to keep the post changes to a minimum but I can understand the other way also. In the end I am trying to capture what was there and post is a way to fix stuff that I got wrong.
As to cleb touch-up stuff, well that is a whole other conversation with other baggage, so if I was in that line of work I would be hitting post heavily too since that is where the demand and therefore $ is now. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 05:26:21 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I remove pimples and other facial blemishes all the time in portraits. |
So do I. Honestly, people respond better to more attractive people, so we do our best to make people (and ourselves) as attractive as possible- whether that be with makeup, Photoshop, or just diet and exercise ;)
With photo retouching, I guess it's a matter of degree- if you remove a pimple from someone's cheek, that's not only making someone more attractive but also removing what could be a distraction that would ruin the photo. This, however is probably more Photoshop art than photography. Not that it's a bad thing!
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 05:33:49 PM · #6 |
Some amazing retouching work in those links! Wow! The "after" pictures are soo much more pleasing to the eye. How shallow are we?
Nice to see that models aren't really so perfect :)
"Oi Naomi, no more choccy binges for you, yer giving the airbrusher rsi"!
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 05:45:25 PM · #7 |
Forget the PEOPLE part of it and look at the PRODUCT shots. Greg's portfolio is extremely useful because he has detail sof his work where you can mouse over the layer sets and see what each layer contains: check out the detail shot on the left, on this shoe, and mouse the photoshop layers palette on that detail section.
Greg Apodaca Shoe
This guy is really, really good...
Anyway, in the broader sense, be aware that these peopel are doing the digital equivalent of what airbrush artists have been doing for a LONG time; there's nothing new here at all.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 17:45:44. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:02:57 PM · #8 |
That work on the shoe was pretty wowsome[TM] alright bear!
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:37:10 PM · #9 |
I have had the same issue at times now that i am shooting for money...
 
The after is certainly 'prettier', but what do we retouch and leave alone?
I have been done some HS seniors, and again, how much to fix? How much until they don't look like themselves?
BTW, that shoe thing is awesome.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 07:02:27 PM · #10 |
Interesting subject. Personally, I don't find skin that is completely smoothed out sexy. It's also a good way to make an image bland or 3d looking if not done right. Now maybe a 13 year old geek who finds video game characters sexy might disagree with that.
To me I think the goal of a retoucher should be to maintain as much detail as possible (especially on younger models who often have very good skin to begin with) while removing the unwanted features and for some excess smoothing/blurring is the quick and dirty fix.
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 19:04:05. |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 10:19:41 AM · #11 |
This is my first post on this site, so Hello everyone :)
If you are going for realism, than, using the wrinkles, dirt, blemishes ect; are beneficial for the photo
When you are photographing portraits, or making prints for those who are vain(like my MIL) the smoother the skin, the thinner they look the better.
My MIL was very upset we didn't have photos of her at the house. Now, I only put up photos if they are given to me. So, she never gave me any, I didn't have any. She came over to watch the kids, so I made sure I had one of her up
Like I said, she is very vain. After having thyroid issues, she has gained a good bit of weight. In her photo, I thinned her out in the neck, arms, waist, hips and thighs. I smoothed her neck wrinkles and gave her an all around glow.
I shot a touching photo of another woman with my daughter. In the photo, her facial lines were very apparent. I blurred them out so they were just barely there. She was so happy with the photo because it was flattering.
The only time that it could be construed as wrong, is if it was done for a contest and such manipulations were not allowed.
People want to see perfection. At least in ads and with models. Photorealism has its place and so does the very plasicky models :) |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 12:14:54 PM · #12 |
I don't care. As long as the photograph looks like a photograph it's up to the photographer to decide what they want it to look like.
Or to client in some cases. |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 01:58:15 PM · #13 |
To get the end result that you, as a photographer, want, you may have to go to many lengths. Invest in expensive lenses or lighting, for example, get up early and travel a long way or, perhaps, spend some time on a photo once it's been taken. This picture, for instance, really made someone happy. It was a candid taken by someone other than me at a recent wedding. They really loved the kids clowning around, but didn't like the fact that there wwere other people in the background.
When I opened my big, fat mouth and stated that I could probably do something with it, they promptly said something to the effect of "Go on then, smart Alec".
The end result was this, which they were rather pleased with.
Now only if I could capture candids as well...
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:04:03 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
How do you feel about retouching? |
I believe it's up to the artist and not the viewer as to how much is too much. The viewer can either like it or not, but the viewer shoudln't dictate the limits to which an artist must adhere.
As someone mentioned earlier, photojournalism is about the only form of photographic art where digital enhancements are restricted. In photojournalism, removing a zit is simply not necessary and shouldn't be done.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 02:19:11 AM EDT.
