Who retouches toooooo much?
You think I retouch, check these out.
http://styleblazer.com/69578/14-of-the-most-airbrushed-celebrity-pics-see-the-before-and-afters/
http://styleblazer.com/69578/14-of-the-most-airbrushed-celebrity-pics-see-the-before-and-afters/
Charles
www.cameraone.biz
www.cameraone.biz
0
Comments
See photography comes as a series of processes; planning, shooting, processing, artistic touch.
As part of the artistic touch we manipulate the picture to reach a desired outcome.
Of course pictures intended for documentary work will have practical no artistic changes as they are supposed to depict the reality. Where as others for Fashion magazines will have a complete different artistic method applied. I have done recently a series for a men magazine, again de artistic work on the models includes liquify , very soft/silk skin etc....
I believe that as a photographer we should be able to apply whatever is needed (if you work for others) . Your own style is what is applied to personal work.
By the way, in the old days (Dark Room) we manipulated the pictures as well with masks, gabo's, filters, feathers etc......
Manipulation is one of the artists main ingredients.
Without knowing the intended purpose of an exposure , one can not judge if it is toooooo much or not.
Anyhow that is how I feel about it.
Have a nice day.
I disagree with this Bryce, it all starts with a good picture on which an artistic effect is applied.
I would agree with you if the intended pictures were supposed to show the reality, but that is not the intend in this series.
It's a bit like our wifes or girlfriends, when at home they have no to little make-up ( and you have to wake-up next to them
It would be unfair to state that the wifes or girlfriends are not our wives or girlfriends just because they are dressed-up and look beautiful .
In both circumstances we think that they are beautiful but on another scale, depending the instance.
I disagree and think Bryce hit the nail on the head. Of course it starts with a good picture but the intent of the image is still graphic art.
I guess we all have our own views on it....
Can we say that the film "The ring of the Lords, or Harry Potter" is not a film because of the graphic art in it ?
The definition of "film" has nothing to do with graphic art
Very curious to see the different takes on this topic.
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
They do start with good captures, but a good capture of a 50-year-old actress that makes her look 50, is probably not what the art director, or the actress, or her record label wants to see.
I retouch all of my clients' pics; not to that extent, because I don't have to. If I were to shoot Madonna and needed to make her look 20 years younger, that wouldn't qualify as "too much retouching". It would be exactly enough.
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
Where I think it crosses the line is when the retouch is more than the product can deliver. Not sure if that makes sense but that's where the line is for me.
Good questions and debate....
- For me there is no boundary as long as the basis is a photograph , from which artwork can grow in varying intensities .
- The level of manipulation depends on the purpose , what is the scope of the capture, where will it be used ? Maybe it will be used in a SF magazine, hence lots of manipulation is acceptable. Maybe for a documentary, then no manipulation should be allowed.
Just my views for what they are worth...
Regards Steve,
I would be willing to bet a few shekels that other than taking the original image (some of them quite poorly), the photographer in these instances had NOTHING to do with the look of the finished image.
Hence, my point that the results are the work of a graphic artist and not a photographer.
I also contend that a photographer that has truly mastered the art can make Madonna look 20 years younger SOC by using posing, lighting and filters. But I have a feeling that those folks cost a bit more.
What is too much, what is just right?
Whatever the person paying wants!
Bryce, that is very well possible. And yes, the work that was done is most likely the job of a retoucher or graphics artist.
I just completed my 5 years photography classes, in fact they are no longer called Photography but Graphical Techniques.
The profession "Photographer" is no longer something you need to study. Everybody may call himself " Photographer" even without a degree or education . Sad but a reality. People like me that have completed the degree (although as a photographer) are called Graphical Expressionist. Graphics and artwork are 1/3 of the education (photographer). Mainly based on 4D studio, a virtual studio created on a PC, adding models is done by pictures from the studio.
Note that this is the case in Belgium and Nederlands. How is it in the US ?
I don't know, Bryce... did you take a good look at that "before" pic? :wow
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
I did. If lit properly and using the right filter, it wouldn't have looked like that to begin with.
Me personally. I'd like to become a master at both... learning and developing my skills behind the camera but also developing my skills equally behind my computer screen. I think this is just another one of those things where some skills become less needed as technology advances. It's unfortunate and I think there will always be an appreciation for true photography so those that maintain or develop those skills, will be sought after and appreciated but the fact is that the average person, won't. Lets face it, the average person, American at least, lacks good taste. We are so consumed by cheap and fast that most don't even know what craftsmanship is anymore. Just look at the photographs that most people ooh and awe over. The majority is garbage "plug-in-tography". I'm coining that term by the way. Make sure you credit me with it if you use it.
I'm just very thankful that you old crotchety guys have learned to use the interwebs so you can pass on your knowledge and skill to a young, strapping guy like myself. I will carry on the torch as far as I can. Your legacy will live on with me!!!
"They can take away our lives, but they will never take away our FREEEEEDOM!!!!"
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
http://www.fastcocreate.com/1682534/dove-canada-uses-photoshop-trojan-horse-to-shame-potential-body-shamers
You have to understand that, this too is a lie. What I mean by that is that Dove is pandering to a group of individuals for the purpose of selling a product which is exactly what those photoshopers are doing with the pics we are talking about. Americans are increasingly overweight, and selling a product to overweight people is difficult if your target audience can't relate to an athletic model in your ad spot. This is the same problem you would have trying to sell a slinky dress to a 19 year old girl if you put it on a 65 year old 200 pound model. There is a certain segment of society that wants you to believe that your ok just how you are, regardless of what your condition might be. They are the opposite end of the spectrum from those folks who never think that your alright. It's just a matter of who you are lying to and what lie you are telling. For this group of people, which is quite different from the perfectly photoshopped body crowd, I'd suggest on camera flash from a disposable camera and a big hug, maybe a cookie to top it off.
So the bottom line is, photography is shaped by the society and some will step into the brave new world of digital processing others will stick to the traditional craftsmanship .
Oh and I am an old guy (52) but a young photographer. So I am not sure to which group I belong, but fore sure I love old camera's and digital artwork...
Have a nice ay
How often have you had your photograph taken by a professional? Would you want to look "exactly" like your reflection? I think not for most of us. Seriously, find a professional photographer, not a part timer, and pay or see if they'll do it as a professional courtesy and undergo the experience. Maybe skip the "professional courtesy" part and pay. Go through the ordeal of picking out what to wear, picking out a photographer, scheduling an apt. and going through the process. Watching how he/she poses you, lights you and speaks to you. It would be a fiscal way of getting in a photo class and seeing it from your clients perspective. How do you look to others? Is that how you want to present yourself? After all that you might want a new avatar!
www.cameraone.biz
However, it does seem to contradict your thread title just a bit. Not "toooooo much"... just what the client wants
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
It's worth remembering that media images and celebrity promotional photos have always presented heavily manipulated images to the public - this isn't new. Look at the classic Hollywood portraits. While they didn't have Photoshop, Max Factor pancake is NOTHING like real skin, and there was darkroom manipulation too. I think we sometimes forget that those film images weren't, strictly speaking, SOOC either (even if some of the manipulation was done before snapping the shutter). Btw, if you really want a fright sometime, see if you can find a picture of a mid-century movie star made up for B&W filming ... in colour. It can be pretty extreme.
As for the body manipulations - some of it's ridiculous, some of it is "enhancement". I'm still not sure how much the media DRIVES the concept of "beauty" and how much it reflects it; my guess is probably a bit of both.