Photographer
markEdwardPhoto
Posts: 1398
Trumbull, Connecticut, US
Then you used too much!!!
I see lots of images out there that have plastic skin and ultra bright eyes. If you are going to edit in Photoshop then do it so it doesn't 'look' like you used photoshop.
Again, don't put out crap just to put something out....
M
Photographer
UnoMundo
Posts: 47532
Olympia, Washington, US
Boy, I got slammed months ago for saying something rash like this; just wait.
Photographer
Prima Facie Photos
Posts: 19
San Diego, California, US
I'm a bloody newbie but even I leave people some pores  (comments on my work welcome)
Photographer
Josue Pena
Posts: 595
Los Angeles, California, US
Wardrobe Stylist
stylist man
Posts: 34382
New York, New York, US
UnoMundo Photography wrote:
Boy, I got slammed months ago for saying something rash like this; just wait. Because flat out proclamation like that are often wrong.
Just because it is true 80 % of the time does not mean the other 20 % would be even considered an exception to the rule.
It is a tool just as a camera is, as is the body, as is makeup and clothing, and lights, it is all how you use them and the look you want.
Max V and Michael Rosen are just terrible image makers.
Photographer
PHOTODAC
Posts: 44
Rutherford, New Jersey, US
To each his own. I have seen some fantastic work done here on MM with obvious PS editing. Everyone has their own style...if we didn't, every processed image would look the same.
Photographer
markEdwardPhoto
Posts: 1398
Trumbull, Connecticut, US
MHana wrote:
Because flat out proclamation like that are often wrong.
Just because it is true 80 % of the time does not mean the other 20 % would be even considered an exception to the rule.
It is a tool just as a camera is, as is the body, as is makeup and clothing, and lights, it is all how you use them and the look you want.
Max V and Michael Rosen are just terrible image makers. Look if you are making the skin look like plastic or taking out the every bit of shine out of the eyes it look like shit and should not be done. I don't care who does it. Its not art it is shit.
M
Photographer
Stephen Dawson
Posts: 29259
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
But what if I want an pop art look?
Photographer
00siris
Posts: 19182
New York, New York, US
Photographer
Jean-Philippe
Posts: 397
Austin, Texas, US
markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Then you used too much!!!
I see lots of images out there that have plastic skin and ultra bright eyes. If you are going to edit in Photoshop then do it so it doesn't 'look' like you used photoshop.
Again, don't put out crap just to put something out....
M Maybe you go and check out what people want like in magazines that sells (like Glamour, Vogue) Check out the cover and come back to me saying.
"If you can tell that you photoshopped... then you can tell" That's it.
They have plastic looking skin but this is what get publish. I read other fashion magazines such as Numero, French Revue where photoshop is down.
Photographer
Josue Pena
Posts: 595
Los Angeles, California, US
markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Look if you are making the skin look like plastic or taking out the every bit of shine out of the eyes it look like shit and should not be done. I don't care who does it. Its not art it is shit.
M there are MANY magazines arround that wont agree with you.....but if you have the absolute truth...well....good luck
Model
Iona Lynn
Posts: 11176
Oakland, California, US
Wardrobe Stylist
stylist man
Posts: 34382
New York, New York, US
markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Look if you are making the skin look like plastic or taking out the every bit of shine out of the eyes it look like shit and should not be done. I don't care who does it. Its not art it is shit.
M That is just your opinion. Over use of photoshop is a problem but the statement as you wrote is wrong in my opinion.
So there.
Photographer
bman
Posts: 1126
Hollywood, Alabama, US
the amount of poor retouching that's out there is simply staggering.
again,
a photographer and or retoucher has to make that decision if they want people to look like china dolls with no flaws or to keep it real.
Photographer
Opus Lily
Posts: 822
New York, New York, US
Josue Pena wrote:
there are MANY magazines arround that wont agree with you.....but if you have the absolute true...well....good luck Care to state the magazines? Don't mistaken what he's saying. He's not saying people shouldn't do retouching. There's good retouching and bad retouching. Bad retouching is when you take the blur in photoshop and apply it all over the face. Which magazine has editorials where the faces of models look like plastic?
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
go look at the magazine rack at your local book store and check yourself.
Photographer
PHOTODAC
Posts: 44
Rutherford, New Jersey, US
Michael Barian wrote:
the amount of poor retouching that's out there is simply staggering.
again,
a photographer and or retoucher has to make that decision if they want people to look like china dolls with no flaws or to keep it real. Great point, and there is a fine line between the two.
I think it always depends on the initial image and how the photog/retoucher sees it...and how he envisions the final product.
Photographer
Tog
Posts: 55204
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Photographer
UnoMundo
Posts: 47532
Olympia, Washington, US
PS rule 1;
a model face must have NO lines
no pores
no pimples
no scars
no hair
no bumps
no expression
Photographer
DeCola Studios
Posts: 17
Grover Beach, California, US
Just spent a couple of hours turning a drab photo into one I like a lot. Its my current avatar. What do you think?
Model
Iona Lynn
Posts: 11176
Oakland, California, US
Photographer
PHOTODAC
Posts: 44
Rutherford, New Jersey, US
DeCola Studios wrote:
Just spent a couple of hours turning a drab photo into one I like a lot. Its my current avatar. What do you think? Very nice work...and the best thing about it...you can tell no PS was used!
Just kidding....but it is VERY good! Nice job.
Photographer
Josue Pena
Posts: 595
Los Angeles, California, US
LiliOPhoto wrote:
Care to state the magazines? Don't mistaken what he's saying. He's not saying people shouldn't do retouching. There's good retouching and bad retouching. Bad retouching is when you take the blur in photoshop and apply it all over the face. Which magazine has editorials where the faces of models look like plastic? a lot my friend.....but well done
but everybody have their own mouse and tablets to apply wath they want or not in photoshop.......
so again....
good luck!
Photographer
Jean-Philippe
Posts: 397
Austin, Texas, US
LiliOPhoto wrote:
Care to state the magazines? Don't mistaken what he's saying. He's not saying people shouldn't do retouching. There's good retouching and bad retouching. Bad retouching is when you take the blur in photoshop and apply it all over the face. Which magazine has editorials where the faces of models look like plastic? Maybe we should forbid make-up and push bras. I can use photoshop to use someone's perfect skin and map it someone else's face. That makes the person look real. It is still very fake.
Photography is a degrading process. You use soft light to not show imperfections. You use make-up to change the skin texture or even face shape. You change the way things are captured to make the viewer believe that's what it is. All is a masquerade and a cheating process.
Over-photoshopping the skin is ugly and vil (to me). But still, most of the reader don't even realize (did you know that?).
I hate plastic looking skin (and plastic boobies) but there are plenty of people out there that love all that.
I agree with Josue if you think that you have the absolute truth... good thing.
Model
vile_Mab_vile
Posts: 72
Denver, Colorado, US
you know i like some photoshop...cause without it my face...*shudders* lol jk but i have a large scar and its covered up by that...^_^ thank mankind for such creative things
Photographer
commart
Posts: 6078
Hagerstown, Maryland, US
DeCola Studios wrote:
Just spent a couple of hours turning a drab photo into one I like a lot. Its my current avatar. What do you think? The use of Photoshop to assist in the emulation of traditional photography is as much a matter of artifice and social convention as anything else. Up to this point, we've seen some drift toward photo-illustration by photographers, but expect a stampede.
The problem posed by wholesale photo-illustration from one critical standpoint: the photography community has held certain technical characteristics about photographs dear--clarity, low grain, high resolution, high lattitude, etc.--as well as aesthetic or philosophicle ones, including fidelity to the reality excised from time by an exposure. We wanted photographs to look real and allow us to visually experience people, places, and things far removed from our own space and time. All of that goes out the window with photo-illustration, which may be about commenting on the photograph at hand by distinctly altering just a few of its photographic characteristics or making a statement about a subject through collage or heavy filtering--i.e., taking away its singularity or its photographic characteristics as a whole.
The discussion here is not about whether to improve a photograph through digital retouching but how far to take it before the work looks other than photographic. As far as I'm concerned, the case for illustration has been settled and not in favor of fidelity in traditional photography, at least not among "photographers" playing up the illustration potential of the latest software.
Where fashion designers and magazine art directors stand as to how much illustration they'll tolerate in advertising and editorial photography may be something to watch. Where journalism is not primary, I expect to see a lot more hybrid work.
Photographer
Brandon Ching
Posts: 2028
Brooklyn, New York, US
Bollocks! Well then my port must be absolute shit.... errrr, I mean. Yah, Photoshop sucks! My images are straight from the camera and my shit doesn't stink.. ahem. *nervous twitch*
Photographer
Done and Gone
Posts: 7650
Chiredzi, Masvingo, Zimbabwe
Your premise is hysterically funny. I could say much the same thing about cameras, too many people misuse them so all pictures taken with cameras are not art, they are shit. Nice going. While we are at it, too many people post bad threads bashing Photoshop, so all threads posted about using Photoshop are not art, they are shit. You will always see things that don't meet your satisfaction, what if the perpetrator used Paint Shop Pro and you are completely off target?? I'd be willing to bet I could take one of your "perfect" images (nice port by the way) and give it a bit of Photoshop magic and AT LEAST HALF the people who looked at the before and after would prefer the Photoshopped image. The gauntlet has been hurled!!
Photographer
William Herbert
Posts: 408
Bryan, Ohio, US
markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Then you used too much!!!
I see lots of images out there that have plastic skin and ultra bright eyes. If you are going to edit in Photoshop then do it so it doesn't 'look' like you used photoshop.
Again, don't put out crap just to put something out....
M I tend to agree with you.
Some people use their photography as the base and then pretty much DRAW/paint/alter over it with photoshop. For them the picture as taken is not the final product. They turn photograph into a painting/art/illustration.
Photographer
00siris
Posts: 19182
New York, New York, US
Photographer
William Herbert
Posts: 408
Bryan, Ohio, US
commart wrote:
The use of Photoshop to assist in the emulation of traditional photography is as much a matter of artifice and social convention as anything else. Up to this point, we've seen some drift toward photo-illustration by photographers, but expect a stampede.
The problem posed by wholesale photo-illustration from one critical standpoint: the photography community has held certain technical characteristics about photographs dear--clarity, low grain, high resolution, high lattitude, etc.--as well as aesthetic or philosophicle ones, including fidelity to the reality excised from time by an exposure. We wanted photographs to look real and allow us to visually experience people, places, and things far removed from our own space and time. All of that goes out the window with photo-illustration, which may be about commenting on the photograph at hand by distinctly altering just a few of its photographic characteristics or making a statement about a subject through collage or heavy filtering--i.e., taking away its singularity or its photographic characteristics as a whole.
The discussion here is not about whether to improve a photograph through digital retouching but how far to take it before the work looks other than photographic. As far as I'm concerned, the case for illustration has been settled and not in favor of fidelity in traditional photography, at least not among "photographers" playing up the illustration potential of the latest software.
Where fashion designers and magazine art directors stand as to how much illustration they'll tolerate in advertising and editorial photography may be something to watch. Where journalism is not primary, I expect to see a lot more hybrid work. That is a tongueful and exactly right on.
Photographer
Mr Maki
Posts: 633
Tallahassee, Florida, US
I'm an artist. I can photograph, draw, and paint. In photoshop, if I wish to, I can blend all the above... www.makiclan.com 
Photographer
britestoneproductions
Posts: 23
Garden Home-Whitford, Oregon, US
Daniel Coppola wrote:
To each his own. I have seen some fantastic work done here on MM with obvious PS editing. Everyone has their own style...if we didn't, every processed image would look the same. I agree with you
Photographer
Done and Gone
Posts: 7650
Chiredzi, Masvingo, Zimbabwe
Just noting that the OP has wisely edited his comments about art and shit. It does change the context of the replies, mine included.
Photographer
D Freeman
Posts: 490
Fresno, California, US
It's art and there are no rules.
Even if there were though.. *you* wouldn't get to decide what they are.
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
What everyone else said..See ya!
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Then you used too much!!!
I see lots of images out there that have plastic skin and ultra bright eyes. If you are going to edit in Photoshop then do it so it doesn't 'look' like you used photoshop. Or too little, or done too poorly, or done for artistic purposes.
Invisible editing is my general approach, but it's NOT the only valid option. I chose it because it gives me results I like; others choose to take a more illustrative approach. So long as it's not journalism or forensic photography, I see nothing wrong with either style.
"BAD" editing, on the other hand, is a quality issue, not a style or quantity issue.
Makeup Artist
Tracey Masterson
Posts: 553
Shelton, Connecticut, US
Dan Doyle creates fantasy. As does Playboy, Maxim, etc.
It is beautiful and it is unattainable in real life, but it is so pleasing to look at.
Creating art with a camera doesn't have to be pure. Let's try not to hang people because of their style.
I like Renoir AND Picasso.
Model
DawnElizabeth
Posts: 3907
Madison, Mississippi, US
markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Then you used too much!!!
I see lots of images out there that have plastic skin and ultra bright eyes. If you are going to edit in Photoshop then do it so it doesn't 'look' like you used photoshop.
Again, don't put out crap just to put something out....
M What's crap to one person is art to another...... by the way, did I ever tell you that I am actually a highly photoshopped chiuhuaha? True story.
Photographer
FKVPhotography
Posts: 30064
Ocala, Florida, US
Iona Lynn wrote:
http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/can.htm
and who says shit can't be labled as art???? Damn! Art, what is it? It's shit!..LOL
Not long ago I went on some big name artist photographers site and part of his collection is photos of piles of dung with all these "comments" by so called "art critics."
When I just got my brand new out of the box Yashica Electro TL back in 19...you don't want to know.....very first thing I photographed were piles of dog crap. Only because I couldn't get anyone to pose for me and the dog crap was plentiful.
What a surprise! I was an artist ahead of my time!
|
(comments on my work welcome)
