Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 02 May 2018 (Wednesday) 13:52
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The hard truth, natural look, or some kind of magazine cover style?

 
sergezap
Member
Avatar
35 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 133
Joined Mar 2017
Location: Belarus
     
May 02, 2018 13:52 |  #1

What's your personal preferences in a candid/lifestyle pictures retouching?
I don't talk about some specific genres as fashion and beauty photography, but the "lifestyle" portraiture.
And yes, i'm trying to avoid producing some plastic androids on my pictures.

These are unprocessed & processed images.

After Ps:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

After Lr:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


I think the model's choice was kind of obvious!
What's your thoughts guys?



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,463 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 981
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
May 02, 2018 16:44 |  #2

Natural.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
48,453 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Likes: 4550
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 02, 2018 18:37 |  #3

I have to admit that I am impressed here. If you had not posted the before, I would not have been remotely aware of how much processing had been done. In the past, every one of these threads that has been posted, I've pretty much preferred the original because the processed image always looks fake. IMHO not so in this case,.. unless of course one has seen the before.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,438 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2245
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
May 02, 2018 22:33 |  #4

I like #1.
But maybe not if the model were much older. In that case I'd try to keep hints of the facial lines, maybe 50%, & there are two horizontal lines in her neck that could go.

OTOH, with my Grandmother, I kept everything.


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,237 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 483
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
May 03, 2018 15:37 |  #5

I think you stayed well out of the plastic range, but don't know which one the model would choose. My post is much like yours and find that some would rather be portrayed without adjustment, others are happier with more adjustment and yet others with less.

My own inclination is to try for the results that could be obtained by an excellent make up artist going for a natural look with perhaps some removal of temporary blemishes.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,154 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2923
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
May 04, 2018 00:07 |  #6

sergezap wrote in post #18618250 (external link)
What's your thoughts guys?

.
I like the processed one way way way way way more than the original.

In fact, I really like the processed image, but I don't like the "before" version at all.

To me, the processed image appears completely natural. . In fact, I thought it was unretouched until I scrolled down and saw the other pic.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sergezap
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
35 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 133
Joined Mar 2017
Location: Belarus
     
May 04, 2018 04:39 |  #7

Thank you all for your opinions, guys.

I can't remember at all, when some of my models had choose unretouched pictures. The problems when models can't identifying themselves on my photos i can't remembering too.

The more interesting to me, what the arguments of people who told about "natural"?
What does the "natural" means in photography, if you can remove or add 10-15 years just by playing with light, color, shooting point, makeup, dressing, ect?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,603 posts
Gallery: 128 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4255
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
May 04, 2018 09:49 |  #8

I always like reality. One of the greatest fashion photographers to ever live was Richard Avedon and he always said the beauty is in the imperfection. Though his pro work was always driven by the client. His personal work was much different. Most of my pro work is in a world where credibility is key so retouching is usually at a minimum.

I love this quote by Bresson
"It seems dangerous to be a portrait artist who does commissions for clients because everyone wants to be flattered, so they pose in such a way that there’s nothing left of truth." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

To me a great portrait is honest and straight forward. When someone looks at it they say that is what that person is to me. And a great portrait also shows some of the creator in it to.

Fashion is a very different world from that but to me I prefer #2.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,005 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1273
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
May 04, 2018 22:08 |  #9

For me the retouched one is overdone. I don't often shoot portraits but when I do I will at most reduce, never remove, blemishes (unless they are temporary like zits). I would never remove a permanent feature like a mole.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aezoss
Senior Member
386 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 680
Joined Nov 2013
     
May 11, 2018 23:47 |  #10

If the subject requested extensive retouching #1 looks great. The processing is really good.

That said, the subject easily appears 15-20 years younger in the processed image. My better half and I both think that it could be disheartening for some subjects to look at. It's a severe transformation. If it were me I'd feel pretty damn ugly putting my face and the processed photo side by side in a mirror. I don't see a lot of positive affirmation in it. And it's not that the subject isn't pretty. She is. It's just an makeover of that magnitude could be somewhat distressing for a sensitive subject.

If the processed image is how the subject sees herself it's a win. If she has a more accurate perception of self she could be put off by the implication of the photo needing so much post to be passable.

I think using make up, clothing, accessories, posing and lighting to transform a model is completely different than using Photoshop. Perhaps because the model is active participant in the former. It's not a leap to envision the final product. Whereas with PS you've basically rendered someone who could be mistaken for her daughter.

Your processing shows a lot of skill. Really well done. I'm just trying to untangle my own position on fantasy v reality and I'm probably reading too much into it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SJacPhoto
Hatchling
6 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2018
     
May 14, 2018 00:19 |  #11

The Photoshop Version looks much more favorable, although the second one is probably closer to reality.

I would go with the PS look, it isn't overdone and too unnatural in my opinion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Road ­ Dog
Goldmember
1,012 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 294
Joined Jul 2014
Location: St. Augustine, Florida
     
May 14, 2018 21:29 |  #12

I think the "after" looks better with one caveat: I would've left the mole/birthmark above her lip on the left side of her face...


Just shut up and smile...
My Current Line-Up

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,759 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1514
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
May 15, 2018 05:13 |  #13

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18619739 (external link)
For me the retouched one is overdone. I don't often shoot portraits but when I do I will at most reduce, never remove, blemishes (unless they are temporary like zits). I would never remove a permanent feature like a mole.


aezoss wrote in post #18624257 (external link)
If the subject requested extensive retouching #1 looks great. The processing is really good.

That said, the subject easily appears 15-20 years younger in the processed image. My better half and I both think that it could be disheartening for some subjects to look at. It's a severe transformation. If it were me I'd feel pretty damn ugly putting my face and the processed photo side by side in a mirror. I don't see a lot of positive affirmation in it. And it's not that the subject isn't pretty. She is. It's just an makeover of that magnitude could be somewhat distressing for a sensitive subject.

If the processed image is how the subject sees herself it's a win. If she has a more accurate perception of self she could be put off by the implication of the photo needing so much post to be passable.

I think using make up, clothing, accessories, posing and lighting to transform a model is completely different than using Photoshop. Perhaps because the model is active participant in the former. It's not a leap to envision the final product. Whereas with PS you've basically rendered someone who could be mistaken for her daughter.

Your processing shows a lot of skill. Really well done. I'm just trying to untangle my own position on fantasy v reality and I'm probably reading too much into it.

I usually try to do everything I can to avoid having to do formal portrait type photography. On those occasions that I do have to do it I'm with Dan, I'll remove temporary stuff like zits, but that's about my limit.

I think aezoss has it right, for a lot of women seeing that processed image, then effectively seeing the unprocessed image in the mirror every day can have some very bad psychological effects. To me the before shows a great looking person of maybe 40 or so. The after looks like a girl of 14 or 15 or thereabouts. The two photos to me do as someone said look like a mother daughter pairing. Do the work with the subject beforehand in making them look good, so that it is realistically possible for the subject to recreate that look again.

For fashion shoots that level of processing is fine, if that's what the client wants, but I would not use it for true portraits.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdvaden
Goldmember
Avatar
2,250 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 554
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
     
May 27, 2018 23:45 |  #14

AZGeorge wrote in post #18618927 (external link)
I think you stayed well out of the plastic range, but don't know which one the model would choose. My post is much like yours and find that some would rather be portrayed without adjustment, others are happier with more adjustment and yet others with less.

My own inclination is to try for the results that could be obtained by an excellent make up artist going for a natural look with perhaps some removal of temporary blemishes.

Honestly, I can't tell if it's "plastic" range or not, because I can't see any enlargement more than what seems like a 5x7 on my screen. If I can fill my monitor with a larger file, then it would be apparent.

I usually print 8x10 up to 20x30 prints of portraits, and that's the size that tells if detail still remains. If pores and hair can be seen on the face, it's natural. If pores and hair are completely missing in an 8x10 or 12x18, then I'd place something purely in the plastic range.

So for now, I can't tell from those samples.


vadenphotography.com (external link) . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
s1a1om
Senior Member
Avatar
485 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 414
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Hartford, CT, USA
     
May 28, 2018 06:42 |  #15

Depending on the use one could be better than the other. I think the edited one may have gone too far (20 years younger), but the unedited one needs some work.


Constructive criticism is always appreciated.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,698 views & 5 likes for this thread
The hard truth, natural look, or some kind of magazine cover style?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is DOG-tography
789 guests, 376 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.