|
Forums >
General Industry >
Excesive photoshop work in USA...
Hello,I've been in NY recently. I live in Spain,Ive been modeling for some years and have worked with photographers in fashion and commercial. The first thing I noticed wen I got to NY was the magazine covers.Too much photoshop work on them,sometimes they loose all the life or human apereance and look closer to toons than persons. I see great pictures here on MM from american fotographers but i think in the quest to perfection too many people falls in overuse of photoshop. Here in Spain a good photographer,or a good retouchin job on a picture is the one you cant even notice. I think overuse of photoshop doesnt help anybody. First it doesnt help the model because...ok the pic and skin tone looks perfect but the photoshop work is so obvious that anybody looking at the picture would doubt and wonder if you are in fact that beautiful.Which part is you and which part is photoshop? Surely a less perfect clean shot would sell you better. For the photographer,if you need too much extra postproduciton work it doesnt says too much of your ability to get a good shot without it, that sends a message of doubt on your talent as a photographer. The same for the make up artist. So my opinion is photoshop is great depending onthe type of photography,its ok for commercial print and maybe cosmetics where very close face shots are needed but the less the better. Of course is needed but the trick is not make it noticible.A portfolio that si too much photoshoped does not a favor,its always good to have natural looking shots too Here in Spain even Vogue editorials etc etc...with the guys they use very littel photoshop and with girls they do it so good that you cant tell theres photoshop but the pictures are fashion high fashion pics and girls keep their natural beauty. I think its worth it to focus on a good make up work and a light assistant instead of rely on photoshop that much. What do you think? Remember Real life is beautiful! if you go too far from reality you loose that imperfection but you loose that beauty too Nov 13 06 12:32 pm Link You won't get anything but wholehearted agreement from me! It's not just in America though. There are markets in Europe where they're too fond of overusing Photoshop as well. Look at German magazines. Here in Croatia they use it much too much (and badly) as well. Nov 13 06 12:33 pm Link Spain, Italy, France, Germany, England, or the US... a model wading so deeply in to the photoshop vs. unretouched debate is funny. Nov 13 06 12:34 pm Link We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the photoshop started kicking in. I remember saying something like "I feel like I'm overdoing cleaning up her zits, maybe you should take over.." And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like photographers, all swooping and screeching and criticizing the image. And a voice was screaming: "Holy Jesus! Who are these goddamn animals?" My retoucher had taken his shirt off and was pouring beer on his chest to facilitate the inebriation process. "What the hell are you yelling about?" he muttered, staring at the monitor with his wraparound Spanish sunglasses. "Never mind", I said, "their opinions mean nothing to me!" I left him to his retouching. No point mentioning the photographers, I thought, the poor bastard will hear them soon enough. after HST (re-used from a previous rant of mine) Nov 13 06 12:36 pm Link Stay in Spain and you'll have nothing to worry about. Well..... except maybe for a train ride or two. Nov 13 06 12:36 pm Link Is it really done that differently overseas? How interesting. The only publication I get from abroad is French Photo, and most of the shots that make it in there are airbrushed and processed within an inch of their collective little lives. Nov 13 06 12:39 pm Link For the love of all things beautiful and human, this stuff has to come to an end, frankly... Nov 13 06 12:39 pm Link James Jackson wrote: Why? Nov 13 06 12:40 pm Link Sita Mae Edwards wrote: That's a "photo" magazine. Filled with techy tricky stuff. Always has been, that's nothing new. Nov 13 06 12:40 pm Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: I'm new, cut me some slack. My question was genuine. Nov 13 06 12:41 pm Link This wasnt an antiamerican post in no way.Just somethign I found different.Of course I like clean perfect beauty shown on some pics,they seem perfect pictures I was jsut sayin it doesnt make a favor to anybody have a complete portfolio of too much photoshoped pictures. just my opinion.later' Nov 13 06 12:44 pm Link Bob Randall started all this shit. He should go back to film. Nov 13 06 02:44 pm Link your point is rather mute,no matter how much or how little photoshop is used,it is never suppose to show that it has been retouched.It might be better if you restated it as there is to much bad photoshop being done. Nov 13 06 10:07 pm Link It's a different standard of beauty. For the people who love fantasy and superhuman effects, go with photoshop, for those who love the zits and pores, go without. There are so many cultural and social issues that feed and result from this phenomenon that trying to address it on a forum is absurd. If you don't like it, don't work with photographers who use lots of photoshop. Problem solved. Dec 07 06 09:17 pm Link Personally, I can't stand all of the bad photos that could be helped a LOT by the use of PhotoShop. I'd rather stare at a photo that's been completely redone in PS than one that could use more than a little face lift. Dec 07 06 09:34 pm Link MEWanoDesigns wrote: i agree. sometimes even good photos too, ive done shoots where i was not the only photographer and the other persons photos turn out ok but seem unfinished. its like someone who spends time to get lighting just perfect then takes wonderfull exposures. processes film and goes in the darkroom and just prints without checking to see if contrast filters are needed. sometimes a simple adjustment can make a good image great... in any case my general feelings towards people who have something against photoshop work are that they simply dont understand it. another thing that i feel must be pointed out is that you have to produce the image to the standards or desired look that the group or individual the picture is for want, the photographer is not always to blame for the amount of retouch that is done on a given image. Dec 07 06 09:45 pm Link Photoshopography Rocks! Dec 07 06 09:56 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: 2nd that motion. Dec 07 06 10:05 pm Link WTF photography with an "f"? and why the f**k can't anyone distinguish between mooooooot and mute? What a crazy mixed up world full of idiots. RB Dec 07 06 10:27 pm Link Film is beautiful, its real man. Dec 07 06 10:33 pm Link RBDesign wrote: Photography is spelled with an f in Spanish. Dec 07 06 10:34 pm Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Gawd, did you see (probably not - you have better things to do with your time) the piles of PS that was done to all the photos in ANTM? They didn't look like photos any more, they looked like a video game. And these girls were hot, so they certainly didn't need that. Dec 07 06 10:36 pm Link Back in the '50s and '60s I recall that the European magazines were much more airbrushed - and badly so - than those in the US. There is nothing new about this. Dec 07 06 10:49 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: Certainly not. I'm a lot more attuned to it now, and can spot it in older photos. Some of it was pretty obvious, even in 'news' photos. Dec 07 06 10:57 pm Link StarlaMeris wrote: Maybe so but here is a wakeup call, she is in the US and she is typing english. If I were in Mexico or Spain and typing spanish maybe "f" would be OK, If I were in the UK maybe colour would be OK or lense, or how about no "z" WTF. Dec 07 06 11:02 pm Link RBDesign wrote: Well... except the fact that the "she" is actually a "he." Maybe we can just discuss the topic at hand and not worry so much about nit-picking grammar. Dec 08 06 12:36 am Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Oh sheesh. What does this really mean? Dec 08 06 12:46 am Link I agree with the photoshop rant...The models start to look very artificial...Oh, Bob, and about the little "train ride" dig...How would you like it if people made jokes about our beloved "twin towers"? Dec 08 06 12:47 am Link Until recently, all my images were printed in a DARK ROOM. Ilfochromes mostly. Unfortunately, Ilford filed bankruptcy, and I've had to move out of that technology. As I've had my website online since 1995 - starting with the first Nikon slide scanner - I've had some time with Photoshop. I can tell you, learning that program is like shooting at a moving target. Keeping up with Photoshop is a full time job. My observation is that many shooters now believe that Photoshop has reduced the need to capture high-quality originals ... that image issues can be fixed in Photoshop. I think many shooters have gotten sloppier - and the problem is, even when image errors are digitally correctable, they don't know the software well enough to do it well. A poor original corrected by someone who is mediocre with Photoshop is going to produce poor results. However, I would have to point out that how an image is USED makes a difference. I would expect a fine art print to be perfect - exactly as its creator intends it to be, anyway. Images done just for the internet - how perfect does a 72 dpi image have to be, anyway? And photojournalism... those guys didn't care when they made Condi Rice look possessed for Time magazine (or Newsweek...?) Use matters. Having acknowledged that - Ansel Adams noted that you need a decent image to start with, to get a good print. The final prints that everyone knows so well were giving their drama in the darkroom, but he had good stuff to work with or those master prints would not have been possible. Even now, the best way to get a good print is still to TAKE a good image. But when CORRECTION is needed, (just as someone else said) the digital correction should be invisible - and doing that right requires a lot of software skill. Just as with darkroom prints poorly developed, an image with poor digital correction reflects on the photographer's needs and skills, and what he's willing to accept as a final print. Dec 08 06 01:23 am Link what is it with the love it or leave it mentality. do you realize that 300 million people out of 7 billion is just a drop in the collective bucket. grow up already!! oh, and OP, send me some Spanish magazines please! Dec 08 06 01:26 am Link But will God replace man's need for Photoshop? Dec 08 06 01:33 am Link Your attempts at irony are tired and exhausted. Dec 08 06 01:40 am Link RBDesign wrote: People are trying to have a real discussion here. Lay off the personal attacks. Dec 08 06 01:43 am Link I hope this Spanish photographer used photoshop...  Dec 08 06 01:47 am Link David Brinkman wrote: yes, 72 dpi.........For my art, the average user will see it at 72 dpi, and perhaps 800kb. As for my photoshop usage, I am trying to get to that spot where at least some of the imperfections show through while still making my pictures feel like a "fantasy". Dec 08 06 01:50 am Link Star wrote: That is an amazing image. THAT is the way I like to see PS used... It's art that could not have been done by camera alone. Dec 08 06 01:56 am Link David Brinkman wrote: While I use Photoshop in a lot of my work, I do agree with much of this. The bottom line is start with the best possible "negative" as possible and take it from there. I think the OP was referring more to Photoshop being used to the point of making people look like plastic as opposed to real people. This has somehow become an industrial standard it would seem; much of what I see printed in magazines has way too much Photoshop retouching applied. Of course, this has changed little since the days of 8x10 film in Hollywood studios. Dec 08 06 02:02 am Link RBDesign wrote: Pat Thielen wrote: Well, that and the fact that the OP's stated location is Madrid, not in the US. Which makes 2 out of 2 assertions incorrect. Dec 08 06 02:14 am Link Star wrote: I dunno. They look like f Dec 08 06 02:24 am Link |
