Universal Beauty wrote:
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!

Are you kidding?? Just look what great things can be done with Photoshop!!!  All of the things you mentioned can be overcome.
LOL

http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homes … uch1a.html

Universal Beauty wrote:
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!

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.

Patrick

EDIT
PS - In the wrong hands, it can make the most beautiful thing look clownish

PlasticPuppet wrote:
PS - In the wrong hands, it can make the most beautiful thing look clownish

This cannot be overstated!! Very, very true. Nothing worse than a "retoucher" who knows a little photoshop.

Universal Beauty wrote:
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! 

Indeed!

Ian Weintraub wrote:

Are you kidding?? Just look what great things can be done with Photoshop!!!  All of the things you mentioned can be overcome.
LOL

http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homes … uch1a.html

Those pics are an example of what NOT to do in Photoshop to me. Scary plastic kiddies are coming to get you!

Jerry Bennett wrote:

Those pics are an example of what NOT to do in Photoshop to me. Scary plastic kiddies are coming to get you!

the only thing more obscene than the fact that someone would offer up a service like this is the parent who would accept it.

Universal Beauty wrote:
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!

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!

Keyronn 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!

Pre-touching: Absolutely!!!!!!!!!  That makes the image great!    Retouch: to make it perfect or add a personal touch.

Roger all that!

Universal Beauty wrote:
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!

I agree with you 1000%. Photoshop and "fix it in post" is never a substitute for good photography.

However ...

For those who know the basics of art and color-theory and know how to utilize such corrective capabilites in Photoshop, you can cleanly compensate for nearly any photographic imperfections in color and exposure.

Here are some before/after Flash animations I've done to show some of my retouching. Some are dramatic. Some are subtle. But all were done in Photoshop:
http://www.ericmuss-barnes.com/photogra … Retouching

Ian Weintraub 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.

^^ My thoughts exactly!!

VirtuaMike wrote:
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.

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.

I look at photography as an art which is the mindset I have when shooting and editing. If I wanted "real life," I'd have stuck to photojournalism. Photography for me is an expression and Photoshop helps me achieve and share that vision with the world.

Keyronn wrote:
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.)

That's why you only get booked off your polariod.  LOL

Keyronn wrote:
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.)

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."

Brandon Ching 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."

Just make them throw up their breakfast in the bathroom before you shoot.  It will save you time in post production editing.  LMAO

Diana Moffitt wrote:

Just make them throw up their breakfast in the bathroom before you shoot.  It will save you time in post production editing.  LMAO

Is that what that smell was?

Diana Moffitt wrote:

That's why you only get booked off your polariod.  LOL

Diana.. I'd book you off a mug shot!  (that was a compliment btw) ~

Keyronn wrote:

Diana.. I'd book you off a mug shot!  (that was a compliment btw) ~

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

Diana Moffitt 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

Perfect! Now I can finish my "Models in Prison" series. LMAO

VirtuaMike wrote:
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.

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?

Composites have always been around, they're just easier to do now. I've seen everything else you mentioned long before the digital revolution, sometimes for valid artistic reasons, sometimes ludicrous http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homes … uch1a.html -style visual taxidermy.

Back on topic, I've spend thousands of hours in Photoshop, and I've come to believe that just about anything is possible... but is it worth it? Sometimes a few minutes in the studio or location can save you hours of PS work. Sometimes 30 seconds in PS can save you hours at the shoot. I think shooters newer to digital imaging haven't done the math to estimate which is which, and rely too much on what we in the music business call "fixing it in the mix". Here, as there, it's usually not just better technique, but easier to get it right the first time.

Maybe it's a fad, or maybe a sign of worse to come, but people in the business learned to only trust the Polaroids long before Adobe was a household name.

Me, I'm not even sure I believe the moon landing...

easyonthe eyes 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?

Composites have always been around, they're just easier to do now. I've seen everything else you mentioned long before the digital revolution, sometimes for valid artistic reasons, sometimes ludicrous http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homes … uch1a.html -style visual taxidermy.

Back on topic, I've spend thousands of hours in Photoshop, and I've come to believe that just about anything is possible... but is it worth it? Sometimes a few minutes in the studio or location can save you hours of PS work. Sometimes 30 seconds in PS can save you hours at the shoot. I think shooters newer to digital imaging haven't done the math to estimate which is which, and rely too much on what we in the music business call "fixing it in the mix". Here, as there, it's usually not just better technique, but easier to get it right the first time.

Maybe it's a fad, or maybe a sign of worse to come, but people in the business learned to only trust the Polaroids long before Adobe was a household name.

Me, I'm not even sure I believe the moon landing...

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.

Diana Moffitt wrote:
I don't like too much photoshop and my agent doesn't either.)That's why you only get booked off your polariod.

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."

The time-management, cost-benefit post was also spot on!  Hours and hours spent on photoshop fixing things that could have, much more easily, been avoided by composition, hair styling, makeup, and professional lighting is not a wise use of time--which is money.  On the other hand, photoshop can easily correct, quickly, minor imperfections that are VERY difficult to mask with makeup and lighting.

Great posts, guys and dolls! 

JTP_Digital wrote:
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..

This seems to capture the majority position of models and photographers on this thread.  Someone care to take a different position?