Bogan wrote:
why are photographers who do heavy airburshing or what not being rewarded as great photographers, I don't get it. Why is it my fault if you have bad skin or your fat ass won't go to the gym, they want me to spend hours on touching up their body and the won't spend 10 @#!%ing minutes in a gym or take better care of their skin if they are truly a real "model".

Great photographers do get recognized. It comes in the form of a check... we take it to the bank and cash it. We bill this to the client under 'costs and fees.'

Bogan wrote:
why are photographers who do heavy airburshing or what not being rewarded as great photographers, I don't get it. Why is it my fault if you have bad skin or your fat ass won't go to the gym, they want me to spend hours on touching up their body and the won't spend 10 @#!%ing minutes in a gym or take better care of their skin if they are truly a real "model".

This made me laugh soooo hard.. man thanks !! LOL

pamela mars wrote:
the pictures you see in most magazines are touched up pixel by pixel.
that's what i heard-but don't listen to me-i'm just some model.

You are right... the images on magazines are uber retouched...

Shiree wrote:
If photographers spent half the time shooting and learning how to shoot as they do editing images, they might save themselves alot of time and certainly take a better image.

You can dress up a pile of shit.. but in the end its still just dressed up shit.

I guess thats why i can give models their images in hrs instead of months.. I dont own a copy of photoshop never have, that shits wayyyy too complicated, besides i try to be a great photographer not a great graphic artist.

Not a personal attack, just some food for thought.

I tend to agree with this.  What is a photographer?  I like to think I am but there are tons of images around here that I will never be able to produce simply because I am not that good with Photoshop (or the eq.).  So many images today are so digitally tweaked that I am not sure it is even photography anymore.  I guess I am wondering if you were to take some one who makes awesome images with just a camera vs some one who uses a camera and needs some heavy digital post work to create a similar image or to take the image out of snap shot zone is it the same thing?  Where does photography end and digital art begin?  Do we need camera skills anymore or are Photoshop skills the dominant factor in creating fanatstic images nowadays?  Is Photoshop making up for a lack of photographic skills or are we just getting accustomed to seeing heavily digitized images now?  I know it will be a long time before I can create a lot of these super glammed up digital images simply because I have not the computer skills.  It seems to me a large quantity of images now has little to do with camera skills.

Bogan wrote:
RB you think I retouch too much? Wow I didn't think so but I guess I do if you say so.........

What's the goal of your retouching? A better-than-real but realistic look, or an artificial look? Something else? Without knowing that, it's hard to say. Ravens Laughter, Jeffery Scott, and Kassandra-Cassie all use a lot of "retouching", without it typically being an issue; the images aren't--in general--expected to look like a normal photograph. It's not (just) quantity so much as style, direction, and execution.

Bogan wrote:
why are photographers who do heavy airburshing or what not being rewarded as great photographers, I don't get it.

I haven't seen this myself. Is it common in your area?

Bogan wrote:
Why is it my fault if you have bad skin or your fat ass won't go to the gym, they want me to spend hours on touching up their body and the won't spend 10 @#!%ing minutes in a gym or take better care of their skin if they are truly a real "model".

Who is paying whom, and for what?

W.G. Rowland wrote:
So hard to be you..

Here's the argument as it's been stated a hundred times:

- A true photographic ARTISTE would never photoshop an image.  He gets it perfect in the camera.

What I hear:

- If a scene is perfect and the girl is pretty, I can take a good picture.

WG, I have some photos that I have not touched, but it could have been made better by doing so.  Anyone who says they take perfect photos, that can't be enhanced by being photoshoped is full of shit plain and simple.

Mac Swift wrote:

I tend to agree with this.  What is a photographer?  I like to think I am but there are tons of images around here that I will never be able to produce simply because I am not that good with Photoshop (or the eq.).  So many images today are so digitally tweaked that I am not sure it is even photography anymore.  I guess I am wondering if you were to take some one who makes awesome images with just a camera vs some one who uses a camera and needs some heavy digital post work to create a similar image or to take the image out of snap shot zone is it the same thing?  Where does photography end and digital art begin?  Do we need camera skills anymore or are Photoshop skills the dominant factor in creating fanatstic images nowadays?  Is Photoshop making up for a lack of photographic skills or are we just getting accustomed to seeing heavily digitized images now?  I know it will be a long time before I can create a lot of these super glammed up digital images simply because I have not the computer skills.  It seems to me a large quantity of images now has little to do with camera skills.

Mac, photoshop is just another tool, with film we used filters to change things.  Anyone who says they don't want to use photoshop in my opinion, and it is only an opinion, is too lazy to learn how to use it or does not want to spend the money on a editing program.

GRHorn wrote:
Mac, photoshop is just another tool, with film we used filters to change things.  Anyone who says they don't want to use photoshop in my opinion, and it is only an opinion, is too lazy to learn how to use it or does not want to spend the money on a editing program.

Uh...OK.  Please tell me the filters used to create these images https://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=1941  I would love to see you dodge and burn in the ol' dark room to create some of those images--not gonna happen.  I own PS and use it all the time.  I am not lazy about it but the level of skill in PS to create the some of the images in the above link is astounding.  I am a photographer not a photoshopagrapher.  Nothing worng with either but I think the OP was wondering if being a wizard with Photoshop makes you an extraordinary photographer.  I don't think so.  It makes you a great digital artist.  I guess this argument can go on for ever but if the the image wasn't created in the camera beyond some contrast, color, minor re-touches etc. then I believe it it is no longer photography but a form of digital art.  The camera is then just a tool used to capture some of the raw material to be used in creating the final image on the computer.  Is that photography?  I know a guy that can spend upwards of 40 hours on a single image and believe you me it looks nothing like the original capture in the camera http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=345994  Is this now a purist debate?  Perhaps.  All photos need or could use some enhancement afterwards but there are images that cannot be created with the camera alone (and I am not talking about tweaking colors of a sunset and such).  These digital images IMO are no longer a product of photography in a classic sense.  Maybe that is just it.  We need to re-define what is photography which leads us right back to the OP thoughts about being less of a photographer because you aren't a wizard with Photoshop.  I have often felt uncomfortable shooting models that have a ton of heavily retouched images intheir ports because those are not the images that I make.  Do they think that is what makes good photography?  If so, I can't deliver their "quality" of image.  Often times I won't even ask a model to pose if her port is filled with digital art.

DigitalCMH wrote:
This thread will end badly...

Bogan wrote:
I'm sorry you can blame me.....................

ok

Bogan wrote:

RB you think I retouch too much? Wow I didn't think so but I guess I do if you say so.........

I think he is...here's an example.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1030244

Kevin Connery wrote:

Bogan wrote:
why are photographers who do heavy airburshing or what not being rewarded as great photographers, I don't get it.

I haven't seen this myself. Is it common in your area?


Who is paying whom, and for what?

it is very common i live in Miami and i deal mostly with girls who are either in urban industry meaning mags,websites, etc. alot of the models here at least the 1's i come across all ask if you do touch-ups. its almost mandatory. alot of girls here will not shoot with you if you do not touch-up photos. there are guys here that are really good in photoshop but they also alter the body, i try to limit my touching up to just scars and blemishes. i use the burn tool in PS to bring out the make-up more around the eyes and on the lips but thats it. most of the magazines that the models here look to get in at least the 1's i deal with who are in the urban industry all admire the fact the they make their body look perfect. the 1's to blame are Blackmen's magazine, Smooth and Smooth Girl, and King.

DigitalCMH wrote:

I think he is...here's an example.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1030244

that was overdone i must admit

GLB Graphics wrote:
Simple solution....... If you don't Photoshop, tell the model from the get go. They can then choose to accept your terms or find a Photographer that will produce their desired product.

this is easier said than done b/c inwhat i do we want to shoot the popular models that brings us a little fame to say we've worked with the model and that model can easily find somebody to give her what she wants you can not I REPEAT you can not play that game here in Miami you will never shoot anybody at least nobody you wanna shoot.