Question about my opinion on skin processing

Gventure

I know what they say about opinions but here goes anyway - But before I do, let me state that I think people's faces are wonderful subjects - each face is different and full of character and substance and I just love a well photographed real face. I think if a face is obvioulsy processed to the point that is almost looks like a painting - where the depth and character of the subject are gone and its place is a computer generated skin colored "patch" - well, I think the processor went too far - we've lost the subject and manufactured a "perfect" model. Does anyone else agree? I see so many people photos here where the subject's face is clearly not their face but rather a computer processed likeness yet everyone raves about how great the shot is. Don't get me wrong - there is talent abound here - I am learning a great deal and I enjoy the site. I guess my question is - is my opinion in the minority - is it acceptable to basically paint a face? Is there a difference these days between a photographer and processor?

Please don't take this personally or be a wise guy (or girl) - I am not trolling - I am seriously curious as to your opinion on the level of processing that we see.

Thanks, G

ilbcnu

I am just learning the computer processing as came from film background and faces where what they were- with the exception of burning, dodging and a few other things during development. But, I did recently shoot a young woman with acne and she wanted it processed out if possible. I think it has to be an individual shoot by shoot. If they want something removed or "fixed" I am going to try my best to do that. I wouldn't just do it on my own usually unless it was something very minor.

sweet caroline

I usually only process out temporary marks and blemishes and leave the skin's natural texture. If someone wants their portrait taken, I don't want them to worry about blemishes being recorded forever. If I'm trying to take a nice Christmas picture of my child and she has a scratch on her face, I'm going to get rid of that before printing for the grandparents.

Caroline

gecko0

i haven't done much portrait photography yet, but agree with you that the more natural the model looks, the better. processing out temporary blemishes (a scratch, pimple, etc) sounds perfectly reasonable to me. what i personally dislike is when everything is done...smooth the skin, whiten eyes/teeth, remove hair, etc. unless the model (or agency paying for it) specifically asks for that, you're just creating a fake representation of the person at that point. i call them "glow in the dark eyes and teeth". i rarely ever see a person in real life without veins on their arms/legs, pores, or peach-fuzz hair on their face...haha!

anyway, i prefer photography to be WYSIWYG, when people are involved. for landscapes and such, going a bit heavier on the PP can be cool. it still hits the line of digital artwork vs. photography though.

.02

Kinkajou

I see what you're saying, but I also think that some of the 'creaminess', if you will, that we see in skin frequently in this forum has as much to do with the lighting and technical details of the shot as the PP.

I've taken shots where the skin is surprising smooth, and I think part of it (and I could be wrong here) is because of soft, natural light and the narrow DOF that I love. With the narrow DOF only the eyes will be sharp while the rest is softened a little bit. I'll admit that I do go in and work on the areas under the eyes a little bit if there are dark circles there and remove a pimple or two, but I don't 'airbrush' skin or highlight cheekbones or something.

Of course, there's also the issue of makeup with women/girls, as well.

I agree, though... there is nothing like a "salt of the earth" face. Some of the most beautiful shots are just simple, straight-on shots of a face in it's natural state.

InsuredDisaster

I also do temporary sorts of things. If someone is having a bad day with a big pimple right on their nose then I'd hate for them to live with that pimple for the rest of their life.


Now on the other hand, if you are just ugly, then I think its just too bad and you've just got to face the music, right?


(note: The above image was created by Ian Aberle and is under a license that permits such posting, provided the created, (Ian Aberle) has been credited. I just dind't have anything ugly enough.)

Just kidding.

Hackbone

Gventure wrote:

I know what they say about opinions but here goes anyway - But before I do, let me state that I think people's faces are wonderful subjects - each face is different and full of character and substance and I just love a well photographed real face. I think if a face is obvioulsy processed to the point that is almost looks like a painting - where the depth and character of the subject are gone and its place is a computer generated skin colored "patch" - well, I think the processor went too far - we've lost the subject and manufactured a "perfect" model. Does anyone else agree? I see so many people photos here where the subject's face is clearly not their face but rather a computer processed likeness yet everyone raves about how great the shot is. Don't get me wrong - there is talent abound here - I am learning a great deal and I enjoy the site. I guess my question is - is my opinion in the minority - is it acceptable to basically paint a face? Is there a difference these days between a photographer and processor?

Please don't take this personally or be a wise guy (or girl) - I am not trolling - I am seriously curious as to your opinion on the level of processing that we see.

Thanks, G

I agree with you up to a point. We are in a glamor diriven medium. Put the shoe on the other foot. If it was you having your portrait taken would you not want to look your best, especially if you were ageing(sp)?

Qarik

mostly agree..but it depends on the style you are going for. A highly stylized glamour shot may call for smoothing and a lot of processing to achieve the look desired. In those cases..it's not about a "true" capture.

Gventure

thanks for input
Thanks for the input. I think so far we all agree - touch up is OK and some minor enhancements - and I agree about the nice shallow DOF we see - especially when the focal point in on a kid's big innocent eyes. What I find odd is the obvious PS such that while the end result may look more like a "model" face than w/o the PS - the result is still so obvious. I don't even like that application in commercial glamour photography. I like real people - not what some people think lovely people should look like but then again those people who like it that way pay the bills for some of you so who am I to say.

To the question above about whether I'd want to be touched up - honestly, no. I am what I am (aging and not pretty but still happy) and I would not want to be PS'd. I'd be embarassed when someone would look at the photo because I'd know that they were thinking "heck, that's not what he looks like - he's been airbrushed". Then they would think that I was vain. And I am, I just don't want people to know that I am (ha ha ).

divamum

I truly think it depends on context, and that was true in film days, too - Hollywood glamour portraits with airbrushing? Absolutely. It's no different now, except that it's possibly easier for the photographer to do that him/herself rather than farming it out and gradually, as the fashion world presents us with heavily manipulated images, we've come to expect a degree of "perfection" (no different than the impact of digital and studio recording on live music-making)

My own general philosophy is similar to how I feel about makeup: use as much as you need to make it look as natural as possible. Sometimes it means barely any. Sometimes that means A LOT.

For myself as a subject, I have no problem with "personal" shots being pretty much au naturel, but my promotional and formal portraits which are going to represent me professionally as a singer definitely have some processing, since it is assumed that those will be "glamourous" all-dolled-up shots. I'm unlucky enough to have hereditary dark circles and puffy/baggy undereyes - they started being noticeable when I was about 16, and haven't improved any in the following ::mumblecough:: years... . So those simply HAVE to go as far as I'm concerned, although when I was having shots done by others I always requested that they leave a reasonable amount of "real" skin texture, and now that I'm doing my own I always try to ensure that there is some natural texture and lines; I don't want to look like I'm made of plastic and since I'm not a 20-something any more, why should I try to look like one?!

Most of my portrait shooting has been performer headshots, and the oft-touted rule of thumb given to performers is "Your headshot should look like you on a really, really REALLY good day". I think that's a pretty good way of thinking of it, and I always bear that in mind as I'm processing and retouching. Certainly, I never go as far as the kind of retouching/processing we've come to assume in fashion magazines.

Ed911

::mumblecough:: years...

Divamum, you are so funny...and as it so happens...we are the same age..."mumble cough...hicup...years"...well, maybe I'm a couple of years older...lol...

Divamum..."Your headshot should look like you on a really, really REALLY good day". I think that's a pretty good way of thinking of it, and I always bear that in mind as I'm processing and retouching.

I agree with the above. I'm not documenting history...I'm working with a dream...everybody wants a picture of themselves on their very best day...and I try to make that happen.


If you are asking if I like post processing that's over done...well, no.

Zeckson

In my opinion, it depends on what is the asking of the photo. Take a few scenarios as examples.

Scenario 1:
You are hired to do some high-end fashion stuffs where the company wants to showcase their line of fashion clothings and accessories. The company also hired a model for you. You do your thing and give them the photos. Here's the main concern - Are they not going to accept the photos because you have smoothen the face to a point that they think the skin has been processed too much (you did a pretty good job on their line of products)? The answer is no. They are not going to reject it because in high-end fashion industry, although model look is important, the showcase of their line of products is more important. They don't want people to look at the model and neglect their clothes, bags or other accessories. So is face processing a point of discussion here? No, it is not entirely.

Scenario 2:
You are hired to do some glamour shots with the showcase of make-up, eye liners, eye shadows, hairdo, etc. You hired your own model. You did your thing. When you show the photos to your client, are they going to accept the photos if you leave the wrinkles, pores, hairs, unpolished eyebrows, irregular eye lashes, pimples, freckles and uneven colored skin undone or not done enough? The answer is obvious. They are simply going to reject the photos. Why? You want to showcase the face as natural as possible but why they reject? Because the main selling point here is the face with all the make-ups. If the face looks too normal, it is not going to sell in the markets. We are talking about glamour here. We are talking about selling human looks. We are talking about magazine covers. Everything MUST BE perfect!

Scenario 3:
You are on a holiday with your friends to some exotic places. They asked you to take some nice shots of them. Among those "nice shots", it includes some shots where they want to feel like "being a model" and surely, close-ups are among those shots you will take. Now, do you process their skins or not? It is up to you because your friends are not that interested in how you process their skins. They want photos that show their funny side, their lovable side, their energy, their natural self behavior AND the face that they are there on holiday! Whether you process their skins or not, it is not as important as showing them what they are during that period. They will be happier if they look nicer with slightly processed skins!

Scenario 4:
You are photographing and doing a port folio cover for your mom as a gift. Your mom is 60 years old. You took some shots. Now, do you process her skin and remove all her wrinkles, pores, uneven skin color and spots? No, you don't because you wanna capture your mom as what she is now. You want to see those character, those years of experiences, those emotional windows to the soul. You don't process the skin unless there is a delibrate cut or blemish that is uncalled for. Your mom will love you for that.

Scenario 5:
You know of a friend who has very bad skin for almost her/his entire life. He/she has been trying ways to look better through numerous consultations to the clinic and tried many products. It seems no help at all. Your friend is very down and lost his/her self confidence. You as a friend, you try to help him/her out by giving your friend a shot of how he/she will look like when "all dreams come true". Now, are you going to leave those undesired things on his/her face? No. You will do whatever it takes to make your friend look as good as possible. When your friend sees the photo, it will give him/her lots of encouragement and brighten his/her day! By processing the skin, you have helped your friend in regaining some confidence in himself/herself. You made your friend happy (although only for a moment). Is your friend going to blame you for processing his/her skin too much until it is beyond his/her recognition?

THE BOTTOM LINE:
Do according to what is needed and what the situation calls for. There is no right or wrong.

rwells

I agree with Zeckson.

It's what is needed for the intent of the image.

If a client pays me and wants to look like a plaster doll, you bet that's what I'm going to give her.


Every photog has the right to like what they like, but I'm not a "Stay in the Box" type of person. I always pull away hard when someone tries to corral me into that box for no other reason than I'm outside it.


If that's how you feel about post production, what's the problem? Why do you need others to agree with your opinion or to verify that your opinion is valid?

No comprende...

marikris

Right, I agree with the posts above me. If you're taking photographs for personal use, then how you process it is your decision (and everyone has differing opinions on skin retouching. And that's fine; you're pleasing yourself). If an ad company hired you to take pictures of models to sell a product, you'd try to please the client. Same with other forms of commercial photography. If a bride says I like the soft look with no pores, wouldn't you try to please the client even if you think that's "too much retouching".

Anyway, that's my take on it lol. I personally wouldn't retouch if it's just snapshots I took of my friends while we're out walking, but that's just me.

Swartzy

Often...too often, things are overthunk (great word huh?). Previous posters have given some good advice. Here's mine for what it's worth: Who is the subject, what is the setting, what does the photo portray? Those 3 questions will help guide you on your quest as you process. Is it elegant? Is it grungy? Is it editorial? I process skin....more than you can imagine...but the bottom line is....what does it look like to you? Does it enhance your image with the story you are telling or is it off the mark?

The range is wide..from babies to super models. What does the photo say it needs? It may sound ambiguous but there is a great deal of direction when asking yourself these questions.