|
Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
Why blurring skin is still popular?
It's 2016. There are tons of free tutorials and articles about cloning, healing, frequency separation and dodge/burn. So why blurring skin is still popular? Is it a matter of (lack of) taste? Or am I wrong and this is acceptable technique? Jan 02 16 10:03 am Link While reading your post I was simultaneously being bombarded by a PortraitPro ad claiming to be The World's Best Portrait Software, and showing a hopelessly worked headshot. I think that speaks for itself! Jan 02 16 11:49 am Link Jacek Poplawski wrote: I would like you to name at least 5 professional retouchers who blur skin/ Jan 02 16 12:30 pm Link Tulack wrote: OK, my bad, I was talking about photos from ModelMayhem and 500px Jan 02 16 12:35 pm Link Jacek Poplawski wrote: MM is a professional retouchers page? Jan 02 16 12:38 pm Link Tulack wrote: My point is - why this technique is still popular on sites like MM and 500px. Jan 02 16 12:40 pm Link Jacek Poplawski wrote: I already answer you before. Why do you think MM and 500px any different then instagram an FB? Jan 02 16 12:41 pm Link Tulack wrote: Are you are editing posts? Because this is another time I see more content in your previous message Jan 02 16 12:46 pm Link Jacek Poplawski wrote: Adding 30 seconds later my thoughts instead of creating a new post is prohibited? Jan 02 16 12:49 pm Link taste is influenced by advertising, pop culture and a huge corporate marketing machine. for instance, why is plastic surgery so common in brazil? the things we see every day in every thing around us affect our world view. the ease of photoshop and the prevalent "perfect face" ads have produced people that expect their images to be "perfect". they see over done retouch work everywhere. just as people looking at cell phones over lunch or dinner is common. people find it normal to use cell phones everywhere. yes, plastic skin may be more prevalent - but acceptable to who? it depends on your target audience and your own standards. the most basic consideration besides taste is time. good work takes time - lots more than the average retoucher or client might be willing to pay for a properly done realistic job. that may be the main thing... if you look at the number of "how do i get this look" requests and the number of clients asking for $5 per image work, you can see that it has become a hugely in demand process. Jan 02 16 01:21 pm Link Jacek Poplawski wrote: Those tutorials you are talking about are amateur tutorials. Blurring skin in any way is not professional but amateurs and newbies use it as a quicker way to achieve bad / non professional results. Is up to you which pill you would like to take.. red one for bad or blue for good... :-) Jan 02 16 03:19 pm Link LeonardG Photography wrote: Don't agree.. taste is subjected to what you feed your brain.. call it art, magazines, tv, life, etc. LeonardG Photography wrote: Not true!! US is huge on plastic surgery followed by Brazil so not sure where you got that info from. LeonardG Photography wrote: Agreed!! LeonardG Photography wrote: Don't confuse bad retouching on amateurish magazines with high standard retouching.. you don't see plastic skin in Vogue do you? Do you see plastic skin for Prada/Mac/Gucci? You see more the opposite actually as the trend now is very natural/raw skin. LeonardG Photography wrote: That's just simply not true... Good retouching yes takes time but bad one takes longer as we have to fix it.. Also, good retouching gets paid better than most Ingeniers/doctors/professors/etc lots of money and trust me clients are willing to pay fortunes for good retouching. Just because you don't know it, it doesn't make it impossible. LeonardG Photography wrote: Again, that's non sense.. amateurs get paid $5 per image because they produce $5 quality. Jan 02 16 03:29 pm Link Why blurring skin is still popular? 1) People retouching are lazy. 2) Easy quick solution. 3) Models think they look better. Jan 08 16 09:12 am Link You want to see examples of surface blur? Go to the photography forum and ask people to post pictures of a very sharp lens, like say a 70-200. You will see many examples of plastic skin and photographers denying that the image was retouched. Jan 08 16 09:29 am Link I believe it mostly boils down to lack of taste and not knowing any better. It's either that, or they don't give a shit. Amateurs think "airbrushing" skin means blurring things to make it look smoother. They aren't aware of techniques like Dodge and Burn which when utilized skillfully can improve the appearance of skin while still retaining its texture and be recognized as skin. They believe erroneously that blurring is quality retouching and so continue to do it based on their misconception. I highly doubt that anyone who knows what quality work is would blur skin with the intention to produce a good image. Jan 08 16 09:47 am Link Jacek Poplawski wrote: Tulack wrote: You should type "Edit:" and then add to your post. Jan 08 16 12:37 pm Link CamelliaFlower wrote: +1 Jan 08 16 01:59 pm Link Skin is blurred for many kinds of reasons: - Its Quick and Fast - Its easy to do - There are many free tutorials on it - Many photographers are just starting out and are new to Photoshop...so Clone and Blur are common FIRST tools - When you have 10 images to deliver to your model by next week...then Blurring is one way to get it done on time - Many people have a real challenging time learning Dodge and Burn - Not many people can afford to spend 4,8,or 16 hours in D+B or other techniques to make a trophy image every time - Its Not a matter of taste many times... Sometimes its time, skill or maybe even choice sometimes - Some people actually DO like the look! Im not sure if their using skin blurring/softening is in bad taste or unacceptable - because people are "Very Diverse" these days - and there is a lot of room in Artistic Expression for all kinds of standards, and techniques, or looks, or progress levels. If we dont appreciate other peoples artistic progress or tastes in Oil or Watercolor Picture Galleries...then we usually just move on...and enjoy other works of art... that better meet our own visual interests and standards. Im not sure I judge, or get upset, or criticize out loud, about art I dont personally like too much... I Just Move On! Jan 08 16 04:10 pm Link I think many people are over thinking this, or letting it bother them. If it works fort he photographer, and the client likes it then why does it bother you? Everyone has a different style/taste, and if a photographer is successful even though he/she blurs the skin in their images WHO CARES! Jan 08 16 04:26 pm Link I hear that Railroad Tracks and Caution Tape and Gas Masks, and Standing in the Middle of a Street are very Popular. Subjectivity. Jan 08 16 04:33 pm Link VMTPhotography wrote: Well it's a forum, this is simply a discussion. Jan 08 16 05:04 pm Link Mark Salo wrote: What else I should in your opinion? Jan 08 16 07:04 pm Link I agree, i have seen here lots of photographers who appreciate more blur skin and oversaturated colors paying too much money for this shit and not appreciate high professional retouchers. Good taste cant be learn you are either born with it or not. Jan 09 16 12:05 am Link Jacek Poplawski wrote: Tulack wrote: Mark Salo wrote: Tulack wrote: Identifying that you have added to your post helps to avoid confusion and is standard forum usage. Jan 09 16 06:44 am Link Mark Salo wrote: And you are here to help everybody to avoid confusion? Getting a girlfriend is a standard usage for people who are so lonely, to intervene two people talk. Jan 09 16 07:48 am Link 95% of girls/people look at the pics on their phone (I've asked) sad but true.. Jan 09 16 05:23 pm Link neoracer wrote: Yeah...I have a desktop computer (I built it, it's my baby > u < ) which I use for retouch work, but most of the time when I am browsing MM I am on my phone. I'm also on a retoucher'a group on Facebook and I usually look at the images there on my phone too. Jan 09 16 08:09 pm Link Because the shelf life on the average internet model is 6 months. She wants to look like someone's overdone photo she grabbed off of instagram or pinterest or what have you. So you give her what she wants, and if she comes back in a year wanting something at the next level then you put in the time and effort. But a new model rarely has the aquired skill set to recognice what is good editing and what isnt, so it makes no sense to put in 8 hours on a photo that she wont like because she hasnt learned to seperate the good from the bad. Just my 2 bits. Jan 09 16 08:37 pm Link neoracer wrote: I think this is very common myth that quality of retouching doesn't matter when you watch the result on phone. Jan 10 16 04:51 am Link Most girls prefer blurred skin, instead of their skin showing: wrinkles, lines, hair, moles, blemishes, mustache, beard, acne etc. Most girls pay $300 - $500 for a photo session ~10 photos. Usually in these packages 1-2 hours of post production is included. So, how would they get high end retouching at these prices? For me high end retouching is starting with 3-4 hours of work per photo and going up...This would make a normal photo session 3x or more expensive. I have 1 year since I started freelancing as a graphic designer and I've found interesting things. Most "domestic clients" are delighted when they see examples for high end retouching, but ...they can't afford even $5 per photo. I know magazines who pay $15 for retouching A4 size at "magazine cover quality" and $5 for smaller photos. I find clients for high end retouch in the advertising area. Budgets are bigger, stakes are higher etc. Jan 10 16 09:43 am Link Jacek Poplawski wrote: +1 I agree. Jan 10 16 01:27 pm Link It's the simplest method there is, short of dragging the 'clarity' slider all the way down. It's also the simplest method that doesn't totally suck, even if it does *mostly* suck, and it can be done with almost any retouching program. If you've got layers, blending modes, and some self-control, it's also perfectly sufficient for showing a client what the finished image will look like in a minute or two. Why does anyone take the simplest or most accessible route? Jan 10 16 08:52 pm Link I'm never quite sure what people mean when they use the term 'Blurring' in this context. Do they mean... 1/ Just simple Gaussian Blur with a skin mask. 2/ Surface blur or Median 3/ Frequency Separation with a Band Stop Layer 4/ Inverted High Pass (similar in effect to the above) 5/ Plugins like Imagenomics Portraiture, Portrait Pro and other automated Frequency Separating plugins/automations. All of the above are techniques involve blurring. Some general observations I'd like to throw in.. When the whole image is blurred, whether subtly or more strongly, it can look perfectly good. It can just make things a bit softer, ar create an appropriate atmosphere. It's when ONLY the skin is blurred that things can start to look unnatural. It seems obvious that peoples initial reaction to pictures of themselves are personal (do I look good) rather than aesthetic or technical. Impartiality is not an option when viewing yourself, and most people would rather have a bad picture that makes them look good, than a good picture that makes them look bad Regarding how things look at different viewing zooms - there is a real issue with images where Frequency Separation plus Band Stop is used (Basically this is where the High and Low Frequencies are separated and then the Low frequency component is further blurred to remove small detail irregularities (grunge)). This Band Stop process is automatically applied by skin smoothing plugins. At ideal zooms, the High Frequency content of the image is clearly visible, and the eye interprets this as natural and very smooth skin. But when the zoom factor is such that the High Frequency content is less sharp, the image can look too blurred. This is to do with how image pixels relate to screen pixels. For example zooms of 100% 50% 25% etc, will show the High Frequency content clearly, whereas with other random zooms there can be a significant rounding-off, both arithmetically and visually. Also, when viewing Band Stopped images at smaller sizes, you often reach a scale where you can no longer clearly see the High Frequency component and they look over-blurred. There is little or no transition - you are suddenly staring at the Band Stop component, with no visible High Frequency detail to make it look believable. So if you do use skin smoothing plugins, particularly if you're batch processing, beware of the effect of zoom factor and the intended output scale of the image. It's best to check in advance. Jan 11 16 12:12 am Link At the resolutions allowed on mm and other sites it doesn't make that much difference, especially if it isn't a face only shot. Jan 11 16 12:50 am Link Obviously a hot topic, some posts being rather harsh. All the Youtubes, FB’s, 500px, Instagram, MM etc reflect what many people do, not best practice, or what is possible today. You actually still do see the “skin smoothing” effect on some magazine covers, and those make me cringe. I personally do not like using the skin smoothing tool. Do I still use it? Yes, sometimes, in moderation. Today’s digital cameras and lenses are brutal, in the sense that they show everything. When you zoom into a model’s face, generally you can count eye lashes and skin pores. I am by no means a retouching expert, but I try to preserve the “quality” of the skin of the model. At the same time remove temporary imperfections like pimples or rings under the eyes, and reduce features like birthmarks. This can be done with cloning or object removal tools, playing with feathering or opacity. And if that gives you the results you want – why not use the skin smoothing tool? Jan 13 16 08:18 pm Link I would say that it's still popular because honestly, it's what a lot of people require. They do want that look, it may look fake to you or me, it looks right to them. I lost count of the times when people contacted me saying "I want a natural look" and when I asked for a reference image I was pointed to blurred, no-texture skin examples. Do I invest time in trying to explain to them they should keep skin texture etc.? No. People will like what they will like. Jan 15 16 01:09 am Link At this point I think everyone is talking about different things. Original poster was wondering about skin blurring. Skin smoothing does not necessary mean skin blurring. Skin smoothing can be achieved with other techniques, like dodge and burn. However I feel lile someone has to say it: just because you use dodge and burn that does not mean you are doing high end retouching. I've seen photos ruined by dodge and burn. After all these are just tools and techniques. I avoid to post on these matters because art is subjective. As long as a person is happy with any effect... i see no problem with it. There is no right or wrong in art. Have fun!  Jan 15 16 09:35 am Link Pall Kris Design wrote: This! Jan 18 16 03:49 am Link I'm a photographer, not a retoucher. I do TF work with models. Years ago most models had clear complexions, (since that's how they earned their $$$). Now even models that are paid, don't always have perfect skin. I can't afford to pay a retoucher so I will blur blemished skin for a better look. Is that the right way to do it - NO. But it is quick and easy and since I'm not paid for my photography and not adept in photoshop, it's what I sometimes am forced to do. I look at models portfolios and see a lot of retouching has been done on some. If they looked like their images, I would be thrilled. If you would like to photoshop my images for free, please pm me. I would love it. Yes there are a lot of tutorials and I wish I had the time to go through them all to learn. It's not being lazy, it's that I have so many things going on in my life. Jan 18 16 09:54 am Link If I want to see blurry skin, I just put off my glasses ;-) Fasten than any plugin :-p I think it is because people try to mimic certain looks, but have no clue about which tools to use. At least I didn't know, back then... Jan 21 16 05:28 am Link |
