Forums >
General Industry >
"Pre-touching" vs. retouching--Photoshop overuse?
Digital photos and Photoshop are all the rage, and rightfully so. However, in beauty photography, Photoshop is hard pressed to overcome a basic lack of, or flaws in, professional lighting, makeup, and hairstyling. Agree? Disagree? Thoughts on the subject? Models, feel free to put in your two cents! Mar 03 06 11:51 am Link Universal Beauty wrote: Are you kidding?? Just look what great things can be done with Photoshop!!! All of the things you mentioned can be overcome. Mar 03 06 12:02 pm Link Universal Beauty wrote: Disagree, in the right hands photoshop can almost overcome anything and literally work miracles. But those people, that have those miracle working skills, are so few and far between that its best to try and get it right at the moment the shutter click. Doing it right the first time means: cheaper, quicker, and easier. Mar 03 06 12:05 pm Link Do the best you can while shooting and then if need be re-touch in photoshop. Dont think because you have photoshop you can take a crap image and make it great . Mar 03 06 12:09 pm Link PlasticPuppet wrote: This cannot be overstated!! Very, very true. Nothing worse than a "retoucher" who knows a little photoshop. Mar 03 06 12:12 pm Link This is gonna be a long thread, for there are a lot of people who use the program, and there are a ton who abuse. I am learning retouching now, and when you catch on to how the program is designed everything comes out cleaner. But there should be more attention to shooting the image right and having an eye instead of so much masking of images. Why not take a picture that can hang on its own merit, not something that was enhanced over time. i can appreciate both sides of the coin and enjoy the program, but it is funny those that think they can shoot, when they can't find their ass with both hands. Mar 03 06 12:15 pm Link Don't forget Paint Shop Pro, which I use. Mar 03 06 12:15 pm Link Hmmm, seems to be a lot of agreement, here, that photoshop is NOT a complete substitute for good photography. Yes, photoshop DOES have the capability to do just about everything, but a camera phone shot of some street urchin photoshopped to look like Cindy Crawford doesn't seem to be the way to do beauty photography! Mar 03 06 12:51 pm Link Universal Beauty wrote: Indeed! Mar 03 06 01:27 pm Link Ian Weintraub wrote: Those pics are an example of what NOT to do in Photoshop to me. Scary plastic kiddies are coming to get you! Mar 03 06 01:35 pm Link Jerry Bennett wrote: the only thing more obscene than the fact that someone would offer up a service like this is the parent who would accept it. Mar 03 06 01:39 pm Link Universal Beauty wrote: Pre-touching -- there is no substitute! The right makeup artist, professional lighting and a top notch hairstylist make all the difference in the world! I used to think I could overcome anything with Photoshop (and I probably could) but why would I want to? Get it right from the start! Mar 03 06 01:42 pm Link Pre-touching: Absolutely!!!!!!!!! That makes the image great! Retouch: to make it perfect or add a personal touch. Mar 03 06 01:46 pm Link Garbage in, garbage out. Mar 03 06 01:47 pm Link Keyronn wrote: Pre-touching: Absolutely!!!!!!!!! That makes the image great! Retouch: to make it perfect or add a personal touch. Mar 03 06 01:52 pm Link Universal Beauty wrote: I agree with you 1000%. Photoshop and "fix it in post" is never a substitute for good photography. Mar 03 06 01:56 pm Link It's not just fashion photography. I feel Photoshop is being drastically misused in photography in general. I've seen shots of scenes and moments that don't exist - sky from one place, mountains from another, a foreground from someplace else. I've seen backgrounds swapped out and the consequent images passed off as photos. I've seen arms and chins and waistlines thinned out, T&A digitally augmented, eyes and teeth overwhitened to the point of glowing, and pores indiscriminately erased. I believe that Photoshop is a great way to work around the technical challenges of photography, just as the darkroom was. I don't believe it should grossly compensate for logistical oversights though. There's magic in seeing everything come together in the viewfinder, but it's artificial doing it on the computer. My work in Photoshop is limited to cloning out what makeup can't fix (acne, bites, scratches, etc), D&B, resizing, and sharpening, with the occasional exposure and panoramic blend. I'm a firm believer in creating via shooting, not from software. Mar 03 06 02:11 pm Link All good stuff, folks. How's 'bout some models ring in on this one, too! Love to hear from you. Mar 03 06 02:19 pm Link What!! No models with opinions on this? Mar 03 06 04:24 pm Link Ian Weintraub wrote: ^^ My thoughts exactly!! Mar 03 06 08:26 pm Link I think it is all in the application. A little goes a long way for some images but personally I do it to suit the concept of the images I am working on. just my 2 cents:) Mar 03 06 10:04 pm Link Okay, model opinion....I think that photoshop can be overdone definitely. Depending on how/what is done. Sometimes it can, in my opinion, make the photo look neat if it doesn't change the complete image of the model. I do not like when it is used to make a model look like a barbie doll/fake or plastic. It is used in magazines all the time to make the model look "clean." But a little can go a long way. I agree, if it isn't great when you take the picture, don't try and make it great by photo shopping it. Just my opinion... Mar 03 06 10:18 pm Link VirtuaMike wrote: Photoshop is just a tool and like anything, it can be abused. My average web edit undergoes 20-30 minutes of Photoshop whether simply retouching or compositing (which is why I got into PS in the first place, for composites and manipulation). Sometimes I spend 2-3 hours per image, double that if I'm editing for print/portfolio. Mar 04 06 12:41 am Link I don't like too much photoshop and my agent doesn't either. Mar 04 06 12:42 am Link Here's a different twist on photoshopping. What if you're requested to significantly alter someone's appearance (e.g. make them thinner, make boobs bigger, etc.) Mar 04 06 12:48 am Link Keyronn wrote: That's why you only get booked off your polariod. LOL Mar 04 06 12:49 am Link Keyronn wrote: Hmmm... maybe they shouldn't be modeling or they're not the right girl for the job? I tell my models, "I'm an artist, not a magician." Mar 04 06 01:06 am Link Brandon Ching wrote: Just make them throw up their breakfast in the bathroom before you shoot. It will save you time in post production editing. LMAO Mar 04 06 01:22 am Link Diana Moffitt wrote: Is that what that smell was? Mar 04 06 01:25 am Link Diana Moffitt wrote: Diana.. I'd book you off a mug shot! (that was a compliment btw) ~ Mar 04 06 01:26 am Link Keyronn wrote: Ok I'll send you the photos from LA County Jail. Don't worry they are updated mug shots....just shot 2 days ago. LOL Mar 04 06 01:33 am Link Diana Moffitt wrote: Perfect! Now I can finish my "Models in Prison" series. LMAO Mar 04 06 01:36 am Link VirtuaMike wrote: Whatever. Before there were cameras, you had to use paint (some of us still do). You're saying you take offense to paintings that aren't photorealistic portraits? Mar 04 06 02:01 am Link easyonthe eyes wrote: I couldn't agree more. It's all about time. Whatever allows me to use my time more efficiently.. that's the route I go. But there are times when I insist on doing all pre-touching... sometimes just to see if it can be done. Mar 04 06 02:11 am Link Photoshop is only a tool. Like any body, lens, or otherwise, it can be misused. You can butcher a print in the darkroom just as fast as you can mess up a .jpeg in PS. However, your creativity is expanded exponentially. That alone is worth something. We're all in it for the art, and if photoshop helps you get your visions out there, go for it. If pretouching is your thing, go for it too. Just note; photoshop can save you when you don't have your 5000 watt kit out in the field with you and you are forced to shoot in less than perfect conditions. Mar 04 06 02:24 am Link love this post. original question was beauty!!! i'm guilty of over retouching but it's practice. i know personally that the beauty images used in national and international campaigns are retouched for hours and hours with 1000s of dollars being spent on post. thats the biz. it's fantasy! a product of companies willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on 1 as near to perfect image as they can achieve. someone mentioned these retouchers being few and far between. so true. i'm always looking for one. still haven't found them. Mar 04 06 02:27 am Link Diana Moffitt wrote: Excellent!! First mention of Polaroids, arguably the worst photo medium still in existence, but essentially impossible to alter. Playboy will NOT accept digital photos of any sort and even views prints with suspicion. For Playboy submissions, I shoot transparency film on Hasselblad and throw in a few 'roids to show that the film was first-generation, with no "enhancements." Mar 04 06 06:13 am Link Ok,,these are my thoughts...Photoshop can make a good image better but can never creat a good image out of a bad one..Even with digital all the basic rules of photography still apply..Exposure,,composition,,tonality,,colour,,lighting etc and it helps if you have a good looking model too!! All these elements are done "in camera"..Photoshop can then be used to enhance the image.. I don't usually do much to my images post processing..A bit of sharpening,,cropping if need be,,levels,,and cloning out the grubby bits.. Mar 04 06 06:54 am Link JTP_Digital wrote: This seems to capture the majority position of models and photographers on this thread. Someone care to take a different position? Mar 04 06 07:24 am Link Try envisioning the final image w PS enhancements before you take the shot .... and then you are a photo artisan. E L Mar 04 06 07:28 am Link |