|
Forums >
General Industry >
Of freckles and moles...
I'm curious about people's opinions on this. Models with freckles and moles. I notice that some of the photographers I've worked with tend will occasionally edit mine out. (I understand why of course.) But in a sense I kind of feel like these little marks of color in my skin give it character. I don't feel insulted by any means, I'm more curious. I also know that some people like to photograph models with freckles. So what's everyone's opinion? Sep 26 06 11:39 am Link It's funny, I just asked a model about this. They really are part of the model's look and I think that freckles fit with the types of pictures I take. Unless they request otherwise, I try to leave them in. Sep 26 06 11:43 am Link Well personally, I'm a fan of freckles. Then again, I'm probably biased being that I'm a freckle face myself.  The only time I would alter features like freckles or moles is if it was at the models or clients request. Otherwise, it's part of your look, in my book anyways.Sep 26 06 11:50 am Link Freckles stay. Some moles are sometimes edited out if they draw attention to the wrong place in the photograph. It depends on what the photograph is for, mostly. In pure portraits they should stay. In plasticky glamour they must all go in favor of seamless skin. I'm closer to the portrait genre myself, and seldom make more than a few moles disappear. -Don Sep 26 06 11:51 am Link Don pretty much nailed it. Though I find that depending on how I've lit someone, sometimes freckles look more like blemishes, and in that case they go or are at least minimized. The more commercial the image application, the fewer skin irregularities stay, generally speaking. In portraits I often soften the effect of moles (especially if they're big), the same way I do with deep facial creases, but I don't usually erase them entirely unless specifically requested to. Sep 26 06 11:54 am Link It all depends. If I think it adds character, they stay. Otherwise, they go. And on request of the model. Sep 26 06 11:59 am Link I love a few moles Sep 26 06 12:01 pm Link I'm biased because I have what I call "strategically placed moles" but I personally think they can be sexy at times. Sep 26 06 12:41 pm Link all moles should be removed by surgery before a shoot, all freckles should be dyed out, all hair color should be light brown.. in fact.. why dont we just have mannequins instead of models, they wouldn't flake or show other signs of having personality or individual thought.. Sep 26 06 12:47 pm Link Rofl. I think the only reason any of mine might be a problem is I have like a little line of three small ones under my left eye, that might be distracting. Sep 26 06 12:53 pm Link I remember reading that if it's a permanent part of the model it should stay. Only blemishes or bags under the eyes should be removed. So freckles, moles, scars, etc. should stay according to that logic. I leave it up to the models, though. Sep 26 06 01:59 pm Link If I find the mole distracts from the features of the model, I'll remove it. I've never removed freckles though. Sep 26 06 02:07 pm Link If the mole is a detractor from the shot.... then I pull it. HOWEVER..... I, personally, am NOT interested in using models who all come out of the same mold simply because your work suddenly looks like everyone's elses work! Give me a model who is individual in looks, attitude, with an occasional mole! Best Regards, Z Sep 26 06 02:37 pm Link i had put up a pic on another modeling site for critique... i was really miffed when someone told me the shot looked like something for a dermatolist whatever ...anyway... i have freckles they are part of ME ...i also have a few moles ..i feel if that is all they see then they are MISSING the big picture Sep 26 06 03:19 pm Link I like freckles on a model, and really if you're shooting headshots, taking them out would be a sort of misrepresentation, wouldn't it? Freckles and moles are a part of who the model is...now bags from that party last night? Not so mch. Sep 26 06 03:46 pm Link Sep 26 06 03:55 pm Link Remove moles, freckles are cute though. Sep 26 06 03:59 pm Link As Don said, it's a matter of distraction. I sometimes edit for the model (leaving any moles in place- funny how nobody want their pimples preserved though!) but as for my own copy, I might even remove a tattoo if it was causing enough grief. We shoot for the ideal image, the potential one, and sometimes it's worth a little editing to get there. I don't think I've removed freckles on a color pic, but some b&w conversions in Photoshop tend to wipe out reds, so freckles may vanish on their own- just as they wouldn't show up with infrared film. Sep 26 06 05:23 pm Link Freckles stay. I move the moles around on the face and create interesting patterns out of them. Or stick them all on the tip of the nose. Sep 26 06 08:42 pm Link I like lemmys moles , I have licked them .. some moles are cool but i can understand why in commercial photography a photgarpher would edit them out , they are not exactly the mark of youth and beauty... I have a mole on my elbow , that I am going to edit out of my life.... so it bothers me none.. if a photographer edits it out. I think lemmy would get pissed if photogs editted his moles , it's kind of his trademark. What about third nipples? Sep 26 06 08:47 pm Link Freckles and moles are beautiful. Sep 26 06 08:49 pm Link I've been asked before what, if anything, I wanted edited out of a picture. Generally, just a scar on my right arm...since I wasn't born with it. I think if you're born with it, it should stay, because if you ever do a live job, you can't hide it then! Of course, certain print jobs would call for spots to be removed, but I think for general portfolio work all those natural little spots should stay. Sep 26 06 08:50 pm Link  This is an example of what I'm talking about. The three moles under my eye that make a little curve. I don't think they're dark/big enough to make much of a distraction. I have so many little ones they're more like freckles almost anyway. Sep 26 06 10:11 pm Link I don't like to remove moles or freckles but sometimes an art director says why did you leave that it would look better if you removed the mole etc. Well this is part of the model I feel you are not portraying the model in truth, if she looks that bad with the mole don't shoot her or position her so it doesn't show. So the mole goes with the person I wouldn't change the color of her eyes etc. so why change the way she looks, this is why people hate the fashion world. Sep 27 06 12:11 am Link Elizabeth Tuzzio wrote: I'd remove them because my photos take place in a slightly more perfect "dream world"... Sep 27 06 12:12 am Link I like my freckles :-)))) Be a determined person to photoshop all gazillion off of me... Sep 27 06 12:14 am Link I have a model that's a friend that I see regularly, she has a face full of freckles. What I have discovered is that very fine changes of light and direction of light cause her face either to be very un-freckled and smooth or to have the freckles show up like a face full of very dark freckles. Within the same session just by changing the direction of light or litterally the same shot a half stop smaller the entire face changes. She even has remarked on this and while I am shooting back and white, and film I am really interested in seeing others with shots taken with small changes that exhibit this effect. I have shots of her that there is nothing there, and shots where her entire face is filled. very strange. Sep 27 06 12:29 am Link I'm of the camp that will only remove mole if it is too distracting in the image. Freckles, I love. I found it funny though, when I used a noise reduction program on some of the images I've taken and it actually removed some of the freckles from the model. Sep 27 06 02:50 am Link I have moles on my neck. that have actually been somewhat hidden in some of my pictures. i.e. hands around neck I also have a beauty mark on my left cheek. I once had a photographer photoshop it out but all honesty I think people who have beauty marks are lucky to have them and they shouldn't be edited out thats just my two cents Sep 27 06 03:08 am Link I guess part of it depends on the appearance. Like on my arms and the rest of me I have just a crap ton of little light colored moles. Because they look really more like freckles then real moles, I don't think anyone minds them. Now if they were big and dark, that might be another matter. So I think appearance factors in too. Sep 27 06 08:41 am Link As a kid, I HATED my moles. HATED them. I'd look at myself in the mirror and cry. No one else in my class had moles on their face. We looked into getting them removed when I was about 8 or 10. All of them--the ones on my face, the one on my foot, the one behind my ear... I wanted them GONE. I was told the scarring would be much worse, and that I should "learn to accept my flaws". Yes, that's what the nice dematologist told me, at 8 or 10. That didn't help, and I spent a couple years once I started wearing makeup doing everything I could to make them less noticable. I now realize that they are a part of what makes me unique and beautiful, and I'm glad I never got them removed. Because of this, I prefer my moles be left in tact. After one photographer supplied me with unusable photos (moles edited out) I've started requesting that the photos I receive to use have them left in. I do not mind if the photog wants to edit them out for his/her own use, and I DO understand that for some looks, completely flawless skin is how it should be (though I still prefer to have mole-present images in addition to fully edited ones). But please, leave them for me Sep 27 06 09:49 am Link Jeff Genung wrote: Same person, different lighting. I have to admit, I chose processing that would emphasize the freckles in the one image so maybe not the best example, but kind of along the lines of which you were speaking. Different B&W conversion methods will give you very different effects when it comes to emphasizing or de-emphasizing freckles (digitally speaking anyways, I'm not wise in the ways of film) :-). Sep 27 06 04:20 pm Link Moles should def be removed.. freckles, on the right person, can look really good/cute. Sep 27 06 04:24 pm Link I would be kind of offended if my mole(s) were edited out. They really are a part of my face, and I couldn't see myself without them.....but it would just a regular face in an ad if they did that!!! lol Sep 27 06 04:31 pm Link I think that ultimately it is a matter of artistic objective. If the intent is to create an image that reflects someone's concept of either perfection or an ideal, then everything that is outside that vision comes out of the photograph. (Personally I dislike this approach.) Conversely, if the intent is to capture some aspect of the beauty of a real person on a particular day at a particular moment in time, then every freckle, mole and out-of-place hair stays in. For me it comes down to reality vs. fantasy and I inevitably come down on the side of reality. Sep 27 06 04:47 pm Link I think we've all got our ideals on beauty. Personally, if i can't capture someone for who they are , then i've failed as a photographer. Everybody has their unique characteristics, so why not find their "good side" and run with it? Sep 27 06 06:11 pm Link John Christopher D wrote: Ok but why? Sep 27 06 08:49 pm Link |
