Skin smoothing, are we overdoing it?

P

paula

Messages
79
Edit My Images
Yes
When I am editing photos I tend to do what I do when I am shooting portraits, try to make the subject look as good as I can. Of course skin smoothing is one essential tool to accomplish that in post production. But then, I look to them after skin smoothing (not even a heavy-handed job) and they look unreal, they have lost part of who they are because they become plastic dolls with perfect pore less skin.
Looking through the gallery on here and on other forums, i see that I am not the only one who overdoes it. Standard head shots and even lifestyle portraits have become a bit like pageant portraits it is almost like any resemblance to the real person is pure coincidence. I don't think this is a problem when doing commercial or glamour or even fine art work as they are more conceptual picture forms, in which the subject is not the individual but a representation of an idea.
Now I try to make sure that I do some smoothing very gently but I do worry what my future clients will want/expect.
Are they going to want/expect us to turn them in who they are not (perfect plastic dolls) or there is still space for real yet flattering portraits?
Are we in general overdoing it or just changing the rules of what a portrait is, a real vs an ideal representation of a person?
 
I think a lot are overdoing it, yes. If you don't like the look then stop doing it? Some people like it some don't. Either way you'll find people who want the photographs so it's just whether you want to do it like that or not. Personally I don't like it so I don't do it.
 
I think mostly it's way overdone and looks awful. Even the best skin has a texture and over-smoothing just makes your subject look like a plastic doll as you say. I've no objection to removal of minor blemishes or localised work on bad skin, but it needs to be a lot more subtle than most of the examples we see.
 
Exactly, more skin correction and less skin perfection.
 
The best work of this kind is done by hand and it's quite painstaking work involving sensible photographic judgement. Just applying a gausian blur on a layer and rubbing out the blurring around the eyes and mouth etc produces the awful examples we usually see.

It's a difficult one because some people will unashamedly demand it, and if you're photographing women for their model portfolio they'll be trying to compete in a world where the practice is commonplace - but subtle is definitely better - it's just a case of trying to convince them.
 
Yesterday at focus I showed my husband the portrait professional booth (I think) and he was so freaked out that he could not last more than 5 seconds there. I am hoping to reach clients that have the same outlook!
 
I have got portrait professional despite being fairly strongly against skin smoothing etc...
If used VERY subtly it does help for some subjects, so I rarely use it. As I get older the more I understand how hard it can be to be shown the warts and all in a portrait, but one of the things that makes a face so interesting is the proof of a life lived and the toll it has taken.
I used to be not unattractive (or so I was told..!) but the last few years have been hard on me, and the suffering and drama of my life now shows, and in some way I almost want people to see that. It is an important part of a portrait.
Doesn't make it easy to look at for me though................

Using skin smoothing in the way it so often is applied on young and pretty models just takes away any signs of life and leaves one with a plastic, bland and empty shell with no appeal to these tired eyes.
 
PP in model photography has gone way too far. I've had models turn up that have blemishes not in their photos or they are bigger than they appear lol
 
Jonathan, yes, the pageant scene is crazy!
I agree that some retouching is fine, it is our job making a images that portray our subjects in a flattering way, but converting them into plastic dolls is not that flattering!
And Steve, I imagine that the software must be good for pp but the samples they show are scary!
 
Tried it, didn't like it, no longer do it unless specifically asked. I'll happily remove spots etc though.
 
I'd be interested to know what technique & software the 'Pros' use.. and by that, I mean the guys working on the likes of FHM, Esquire, Maxim etc.. as they tend be working with some quite plain/normal looking women and then have to make them look 'Pin-Up' quality.

Whenever you watch a 'behind the scenes' type program, these guys are amazing..
 
Zukabak said:
FHM, Esquire, Maxim etc.. as they tend be working with some quite plain/normal looking women and then have to make them look 'Pin-Up' quality.
Click to expand...

Srsly??? I find that very hard to believe.

But don't forget pretouch. A good MUA can do amazing stuff before you even rig a light.
 
Yea, seriously. I went to college/Uni with two girls who were in FHM & Loaded etc.
In the flesh they were completely plain (although nice, slim enough figures etc).. but come mag launch time - Boom!
Perfect skin, elongated slender joints, faint hair removed from jawlines etc.. yet still looked natural.
 
Zukabak said:
Yea, seriously. I went to college/Uni with two girls who were in FHM & Loaded etc.
In the flesh they were completely plain (although nice, slim enough figures etc).. but come mag launch time - Boom!
Perfect skin, elongated slender joints, faint hair removed from jawlines etc.. yet still looked natural.
Click to expand...

Which leads to another question. Why can't everyone appreciate natural beauty? Or rather why is needed that super duper retouch (in pre and post production)? Fair enough small imperfections which everyone specially women due get specially due to hormonal process, but changing jaw lines and more, I find ?!
 
My husband worked for the (dreaded) Venture in their pp department, and did some freelance work for M&S underwear dpt...honestly the horror stories he told me makes me gag!

I used to have a little fuji compact that skin smoothed when it took the photo, at the time, I thought it was great...now I hate it and think it looks fake and weird.

Unless it's for acne etc I don't see the need for it.
 
Zukabak said:
I'd be interested to know what technique & software the 'Pros' use.. and by that, I mean the guys working on the likes of FHM, Esquire, Maxim etc.. as they tend be working with some quite plain/normal looking women and then have to make them look 'Pin-Up' quality.

Whenever you watch a 'behind the scenes' type program, these guys are amazing..
Click to expand...

Advanced retouching for skin involves pixel level dodge and burn techniques. It's painstaking work and takes hours. I've done it for magazine shoots of my own and for other photographers.

Software....I cannot stress enough that there is no magic button or software that gets results as good as d&b technique. Portraiture plug in for photoshop is ok...portrait professional is dog poo.

FHM, I would suggest is probably mostly tidying and dodge and burn locally to enhance the models dimensions and hair. Not as critical as tight in beauty shots for a fashion/make up magazine.
 
Cheers Danny.. it's something I've become interested in, purely from a technical point of view.

As per Paula's point, I think it's just market forces. Lad's mags all next to each other, which ever one's got the 'tastiest bird' or whatever crap they plaster over the front is the one that'll sell.
Once one starts the slippery re-touch slope, they all have to follow suit!

It's upto the model though, I know my mates were more than happy to be altered.
 
Register to RetouchPro if you're not already. I got told on here that because I retouched skin for over 2hours at a time, my pictures must be bad, not the best place to research retouching....

For portraits I just remove blemishes and lighten wrinkles though unless more is requested and paid for

Give me a pm if you need any help
 
To be perfectly honest I wasnt thinking of glamour and nude images at all when I started this thread rather traditional and lifestyle portraiture. In lad's mags i dont mind that retouching (not that I shoot nor consume them - I rather look at a good looking bloke!) but I do get the both the appeal and need for extreme retouch on those magazines.
What I think we are overdoing as is the "natural" portraits. I mean, I see some that are beyond reality.
 
I agree absolutely, portrait professional is to blame in my opinion, and gaussian blur. Lol.

Overly retouched portraits sort of defy the point.

Model portfolios and fashion/beauty is different though
 
To my opinion, I think every model wants to be nice in the photo. Skin smoothing itself is good. It's up to the way how we use it. Once we overdo it, photos will look bad and lose detail. So just use it and know when to stop. I do portrait photography and I also use skin smoothing but not always. Just up to the original shot. If it's good enough, ok, no smoothing.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Overly retouched portraits sort of defy the point.

Model portfolios and fashion/beauty is different though
Click to expand...

^agree

time and a place

to a point, limited retouching is always a good thing, as for anything more, it depends on the intent of the photograph. if you shoot a picture of someone as a portrait, and then change them to look a way they would never, naturaly, then you cease to be taking a picture of them. if its for a fashion application, im all for as much retouching as you like without looking tacky, or visibly overdone. which comes down to the skill of the retoucher, at the end of the day. the goal of proper retouching is to acheive visual perfection from a model, without it being visibly obvious to the common observer that anything has been done - which is an acheivable, if time consuming, goal

that said, retouching for a comercial shoot, is always a matter of money. and its a job, and your a proffesional. so you do whatever the client asks for, for as good as youve told them there money will get.


on a side note, even in portraits, people can ask for small changes - my brother, for example, has eyebrows of, simply epic proportions - he often asks me to thin those post process for him, and im usually happy to oblige
 
It sickens me when I see adverts in photo mags for retouching software,its just another way of showing artificial body images that pressurise youngsters especially woman to "Look perfect"

Thank god we never had that problem in my youth when the width of your flares was all that mattered
 
The texture of skin, the pores and bumps and wrinkles doesn't have to be seen as unattractive- I'm at that age (26) where all of my peers are having serious panics about wrinkles with some resorting to Botox or fillers. I think society's perception of beauty is seriously warped.
 
I usually find the old trick from the days of film works ok. Over expose the skin by 7/10ths of a stop to blow out the pore details then you only need minimal retouching for blemishes such as spots or small scars.
 
whatafunnyface said:
The texture of skin, the pores and bumps and wrinkles doesn't have to be seen as unattractive- I'm at that age (26) where all of my peers are having serious panics about wrinkles with some resorting to Botox or fillers. I think society's perception of beauty is seriously warped.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.
 
Skin smoothing in terms of these horrid blurring out details and edges are all equally awful in my opinions. Properly retouched photos on the other hand do look great. I love the works of Neil Snape, Amy Dresser, Carrie Beene, etc.
 
hairboy said:
Skin smoothing in terms of these horrid blurring out details and edges are all equally awful in my opinions. Properly retouched photos on the other hand do look great. I love the works of Neil Snape, Amy Dresser, Carrie Beene, etc.
Click to expand...

Neil Snape, now we're talking :) brilliant photographer. Have you visited his blog, he's now posting up lighting techniques
 
Yes, his beauty lighting is excellent. I have used similar lighting for some time now, and it's a safe go to area. Top bloke, too. Very friendly and helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top