E L Fanucchi wrote:
Try envisioning the final image w PS enhancements
before you take the shot .... and then you are a photo artisan.

E L

Excellent advice!

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.

Exactly.

InDecisivE wrote:
As a model - I prefer not to be edited until i'm paris hilton...

I like looking at a photo and knowing it's still me - for work, and such I understand the "perfect" thing... All my flaws so generously erased...

And I mean little things are good - maybe even out my skin - get rid of "un-necessary" marks... But overall - I want to see what the picture was - not what it was made to be....

Then there are people like Jeffery Scott - who is amazing - and creates making something nothing like it was - who I respect!...

I think I'm just not overly impressed with the inbetween - the "I swear she's a barbie" - I moved her legs, took 2 inches off her waist, gave her doubble D's, changed her hair color, and called her Fee-Fee... Most of that is unnecessary - just get a diff. model -

Fully agree!  Playboy, for example, refuses to accept any and all submissions in digital format.  Polaroids, believe it or not, are preferred.  First generation transparencies (slides) are also good, especially if accompanied by a few 'roids.

Come south to the tropical paradise of Indiana!

byReno wrote:
Well, there are also bad makeup jobs and bad lighting.  How about we address the subject from the prospective of a good image.

I like that.  I have to say that I've seen as much under processed images as I've seen over processed images.

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?

I don't take offense to paintings because they're done by painters, not photographers. Apples to oranges.

VirtuaMike wrote:
I don't take offense to paintings because they're done by painters, not photographers. Apples to oranges.

Do you take offense to George Hurrell's portraits? W. Eugene Smith's Minimata series? Jerry Uelsmann's work?

Vegas Alien wrote:
If you're shooting for realism and want everything to look natural, then yeah, it helps to have makeup, hair styling, etc. Of course you have to get light right.  you should always strive for that. If one fails in the basics of light and photography and tries to fix it in the mix, that will never guarantee a good image. A great image, for me, is the starting point...

I personally use PS and similar tools to finish the image I have in my mind's eye. I don;t think of myself primarily as a photographer, as using the camera is the least of what I do to conceive and create my final images. The ideas, visions (and yes, I can previsualize a final image as I did using the Zone system in b&w), lighting, locations, personalities of the subjects, their attitudes, moods and usage of the image all affect how I am going to process and enhance the final image.

Looking through my portfolio you can see growth, experimentation, minimal post work, definite post work, some images where you just can't tell, and the types and severity of tools used changes as I decide where I want to take my images. I will continue to grow and learn, rather than stagnate and make uninteresting images. I can't paint, I can't draw freehand, but I can take images right the first time and decide whether or not I'll bend them into unreality.

Purists who are anti-Photoshop are not always honest about what a good image can be comprised of.  Look at the work of Michael Rosen, Mikey Boy, Max V, Derek Caballero, GW Burns and especially the amazing Jeffery Scott. They use a ton of post effects, tools and spends hours on their incredible images. All are capable with a camera all on its own, but they each have vision and see beyond reality.

Check out the comments they inspire and the quality of what they do. These guys are making a fine living using digital tools, and if their work isn't evidence that great images can be vastly improved upon from within, I don't know what does. As long as there is creativity and ability applied toward any medium, the results can be beautiful.

Someone mentioned George Hurrell and Jerry Uelsmann. Each spent more time retouching/enhancing single images than most others do in Photoshop on an entire set of images.

I agree, using PS to fix bad work is fruitless.

Excellent post (minus the last sentence of editorial comment!)  Also, OMP has a great, in-depth, article on GW Burns' work.  Worth slogging through!

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!

"Photox: n., First cousin to Botox. Image overly retouched in photo editing program to compensate for flaws in original image or to attain beauty conditions similar to those provided by Mattel on their toy dolls for girls."

Photoshop is most emphatically not just what we did in the darkroom. In the darkroom it's necessary to start with a properly-exposed negative. That is simply not the case with digital manipulation.

There are a large number of "photographers" who are not what they think they are. They are actually very good Photoshop artists, who capture their start point with a camera. As such, they should bear the title "artist" instead of "photographer". They do produce some amazingly good art, it's just that it is Photoshop art instead of photography. Similar, not identical.

My $0.02 worth, which ought to ignite a fire or two . . .

G Katsis Photography wrote:

"Photox: n., First cousin to Botox. Image overly retouched in photo editing program to compensate for flaws in original image or to attain beauty conditions similar to those provided by Mattel on their toy dolls for girls."

Photoshop is most emphatically not just what we did in the darkroom. In the darkroom it's necessary to start with a properly-exposed negative. That is simply not the case with digital manipulation.

There are a large number of "photographers" who are not what they think they are. They are actually very good Photoshop artists, who capture their start point with a camera. As such, they should bear the title "artist" instead of "photographer". They do produce some amazingly good art, it's just that it is Photoshop art instead of photography. Similar, not identical.

My $0.02 worth, which ought to ignite a fire or two . . .

I'm still looking for someone to make a good case (not just a rant) in opposition to your position.

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

Yes...Those things are called "polished turds."

Some of us prefer to spend more time in production, and less time in post.  Get it right in the camera.

Universal Beauty wrote:
Photoshop is most emphatically not just what we did in the darkroom. In the darkroom it's necessary to start with a properly-exposed negative. That is simply not the case with digital manipulation.

There are a large number of "photographers" who are not what they think they are. They are actually very good Photoshop artists, who capture their start point with a camera. As such, they should bear the title "artist" instead of "photographer". They do produce some amazingly good art, it's just that it is Photoshop art instead of photography. Similar, not identical.

I much prefer being referred to as an artist rather than a photographer.  In fact, that's how I'll be be billed in my exhibition later this year. I've been an artist long before I ever picked up a camera. I did learn to properly expose and shot commercial photography for a few years where color and exposure were critical. Anyone shooting commercial and editorial work knows that regardless of what you produce, there's a very good chance that the "perfection" coming out of your cameras will indeed be retouched by a graphic artist before publication.

Just as Ansel  [usually] exposed his negatives properly, he continued to alter tone, contrast and the overall mood of the image for hours in the darkroom.  Was Ansel wrong when he stopped doing "straight" prints? There were purists who thought he was wrong, but we don't remember their work or names. George Hurrell or his assistants would spend as many as eight hours retouching a single negative to get unnaturally flawless skin. Yep, his lighting was great to begin with, he got proper exposures. But, to sell his talents to the market he was in, he had to deliver a different type of finished product.

So, did those guys NOT get it right in camera? how about Jerry Uelsmann? Why, that bastard manipulates his images and they don't look real anymore.  THANK GOD! He's brilliant and has incredible vision.

It all depends on your intent and the use of the images, so why criticize if someone is doing something you would not?  If the market does not bear what they do, they will not last. If someone is not in your market, why worry about them? Let people explore and go where they are bound.  If you don't like what they do, live to tolerate when it doesn't affect your livelihood. If the guy down the street puts a huge wing on his little car, it may not be what I would do, but I certainly won't ridicule him or react against him.

It's funny how a lot of this conversation is being stirred by some who have not yet learned color consistency or exposure control. The market will bear that out, too.  Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmm..."

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

The pictures on this site have to be the worse example of photoshop work i've ever seen.

photog2b wrote:

The pictures on this site have to be the worse example of photoshop work i've ever seen.

The gloves are coming off!

Vegas Alien wrote:
Koray,
Your work is phenomenal.  I really like your Photoshop battles.  Some outstanding work in there. Reality isn't always as it seems, is it?

reality is a little limited in my opinion...we open our minds and seek the unreal and try to picture it...I dig your work too man, keep it up. we have nothing to worry about.

Universal Beauty wrote:
The gloves are coming off!

IMO  Why not look at them yourself and give your "honest" opinion.  =o)

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... Paint Shop Pro is much more effective in fixing those things.
I like it a lot better than Photo Shop!!
xoxox Jen

RED Photographic wrote:
Don't forget Paint Shop Pro, which I use.

Paint Shop Pro is ALL THAT!! It is the God of Editors! LOL! *grins*
xoxox Jen

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

Ok those images are just Friggin Creepy as all Hades..  I have chills running up and down my spine.. blech.

Most the techniques they used flatened the image to 2d, and turned it from human to something else.  Only thing those are good for is the Crypt Keeper, or Alfred Hitchcock.

DigitalSwede wrote:
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 .

I agree 100%. The only thing that can fix a "crap image" is a re-shoot or a diff tog!!
xoxox Jen

DigitalSwede wrote:
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 .

I agree 100%. The only thing that can fix a "crap image" is a re-shoot or a diff tog!! The editors should only be used to fix flaws, not a complete mess.
xoxox Jen

G Katsis Photography wrote:
Photoshop is most emphatically not just what we did in the darkroom. In the darkroom it's necessary to start with a properly-exposed negative. That is simply not the case with digital manipulation.

I don't know.  Back in the day I seem the remember the term "Push" an awful lot.

Vegas Alien wrote:

I much prefer being referred to as an artist rather than a photographer.  In fact, that's how I'll be be billed in my exhibition later this year. I've been an artist long before I ever picked up a camera. I did learn to properly expose and shot commercial photography for a few years where color and exposure were critical. Anyone shooting commercial and editorial work knows that regardless of what you produce, there's a very good chance that the "perfection" coming out of your cameras will indeed be retouched by a graphic artist before publication.

Just as Ansel  [usually] exposed his negatives properly, he continued to alter tone, contrast and the overall mood of the image for hours in the darkroom.  Was Ansel wrong when he stopped doing "straight" prints? There were purists who thought he was wrong, but we don't remember their work or names. George Hurrell or his assistants would spend as many as eight hours retouching a single negative to get unnaturally flawless skin. Yep, his lighting was great to begin with, he got proper exposures. But, to sell his talents to the market he was in, he had to deliver a different type of finished product.

So, did those guys NOT get it right in camera? how about Jerry Uelsmann? Why, that bastard manipulates his images and they don't look real anymore.  THANK GOD! He's brilliant and has incredible vision.

It all depends on your intent and the use of the images, so why criticize if someone is doing something you would not?  If the market does not bear what they do, they will not last. If someone is not in your market, why worry about them? Let people explore and go where they are bound.  If you don't like what they do, live to tolerate when it doesn't affect your livelihood. If the guy down the street puts a huge wing on his little car, it may not be what I would do, but I certainly won't ridicule him or react against him.

It's funny how a lot of this conversation is being stirred by some who have not yet learned color consistency or exposure control. The market will bear that out, too.  Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmm..."

One of these day I am going to track you down, buy you a beer and sit down and chat.

byReno wrote:

One of these day I am going to track you down, buy you a beer and sit down and chat.

Magic words: buy me a beer. I have some free time the last week of March.

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 live by photoshop for sure. But, at the same time, I'm not foolish enough to believe that it can do all things. Afterall, it wasn't until Photoshop CS that a simple raster rectangle could be drawn - go figure.

In any case, Photoshop should NEVER be meant to use as a replacement wadrobe, make-up, or anything else. I the modeling world, It's correction power is sufficient

00siris wrote:

In any case, Photoshop should NEVER be meant to use as a replacement wadrobe, make-up, or anything else. I the modeling world, It's correction power is sufficient[/quote wrote:

i don't necessarily agree... i think photoshop should be used to it's full extent when called for.  it is a money and time saving tool -- clients would rather spend for a pro retoucher than pay for a reshoot.  also, sometimes it is more cost effective to use photoshop than it is to accomplish something in-camera.

take the automotive industry for example.  a lot of the studio car shots used for ads and brochures are now CGI.  it's cheaper to hire one tech guy to draft the car in a computer than to hire a photographer + crew + studio + post production + other expenses.  and that CGI car can now be dropped into any environment, from print to TVC, in any color the client wishes.

all beauty retouching goes beyond the corrective stage.  it's aim is fantasy-like perfection.  nothing to do with reality.  all advertising photography has nothing to do with reality.  the only branches of photography that deal with reality is photojournalism, medical, and forensic/legal photography.

i don't understand the hesitation to use the technology and tools that are available to us.  these are simply means to accomplish the final vision of the artist or the client.  whether you do it with a 4x5 view camera or an H1 with an imacon back... does it matter?  whether that sky was really there when you shot the image or you dropped it in later in photoshop...does it matter if that was the final image you wanted or saw in your artistic vision?  i guess you could wait all year for that perfect sky to appear, but it may never come.

Sean Armenta wrote:
i don't understand the hesitation to use the technology and tools that are available to us.  these are simply means to accomplish the final vision of the artist or the client.  whether you do it with a 4x5 view camera or an H1 with an imacon back... does it matter?  whether that sky was really there when you shot the image or you dropped it in later in photoshop...does it matter if that was the final image you wanted or saw in your artistic vision?  i guess you could wait all year for that perfect sky to appear, but it may never come.

Well, you and I are kinda on the same page - There's certainly no hesitance to use technology to it's fullest potential. Like I said, I live by photoshop and am proud of it. I'm arguing that we ought not use it for the simple reason that we are able to. This is especially true in the modeling world.

Why would a designer take the time to create an outfit just to have it artistically recreated in the world of abstract virtuousity? Doesn't make sense. But if the greens and blues are not quite captured correctly or if a model got the right pose but is a bit disproportionate from the perspective or something like that, then we go in and make the corrections.

CGI is a bit different because the goal is to actually create the world that we see. A photographer's job is to capture a moment from a world that already exists.