Skin softening - is it always necessary?

I know not so much with children, but with adults (mainly women). Just wondering if others always do it or just on occasion and during certain situations.
I'm getting more into people photography, mainly using friends and family. So I am just curious, what everyone else likes to do... and why.

I never do it. What you are is what you get.

For me it's less a matter of what you do than how you do it. "Softening" suggests blurring, which I would not recommend for skin editing. Frequency separation to remove blemishes is an entirely different technique. When to use it, and how much, depends on the client and the purpose of the photo.

Alveric wrote in post #18429809
I never do it. What you are is what you get.

I agree. This is one of the most obvious edits and just beyond the limit IMO. Just too fake to even for the non-photog eyes. But if you want them to look like cyborgs, go for it.

I think its overdone to the point where it's just that fake glow look that looks like a template/filter. If the client wants it, the client gets what they want. But if not, I would keep it as natural as possible. The only thing I do is touch up obvious temporary blemishes, but something that is always there, I keep it. Just my opinion at least. But again, really it comes down to the client and what they want. I tend to discuss editing with others before doing it, as I try to keep my workflow as simple and minimal as possible.

Very best,

Most times with women i do ,, i just use LR preset and then drag sliders waaaay down to aboit 10 percent or 20 at most of what LR starts off with ..especially when using lighting as it can often make every pore of the skin visible..

It was a thing and still is. We had softening filters, soft focus lenses, and even had the Vaseline technique. Now all of that has moved to the digital arena.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18430056
It was a thing and still is. We had softening filters, soft focus lenses, and even had the Vaseline technique. Now all of that has moved to the digital arena.

Vaseline technique? Rubbing vaseline on the subject's face?

FreeSoul1987 wrote in post #18430089
Vaseline technique? Rubbing vaseline on the subject's face?

Nope, but sometimes it looks like that should be done.

http://www.huffingtonp​ost.com …ick-effect_n_7062900.html

We talked about some techniques here: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1418715

It really depends on the nature of the shoot, and the expected final usage of the image. Always? No.

On posed studio portraits of a single individual? Often but not always. Sometimes I want the final image to be an idealized version of the subject, so they get a fair amount of skin retouching, but I try to be careful to keep some texture. (many of the portraits in my gallery are examples of my usual level of skin softening)

On candids, live performance photos, large group shots? Practically never.


Also, as mentioned above, "skin softening" implies that you're just tossing on a heavy Gaussian blur, and obliterating all skin texture. That falls under "almost never." I'd like to think that a retoucher of any skill would not be doing that. (but I just saw one yesterday that was surprisingly overdone, from a photographer I respect - so maybe it's what the client wanted)

When a client in a wedding is upset because she looks like she is 70, it isn't because of the photographer but rather the way she holds her head when laughing accentuating wrinkles, etc. The way to make her happy is to soften up the countenance a bit in every shot. It just happened here on the boards.

10+ years as a professional wedding photographer, I've never done skin softening. However brides tend to have fairly heavy makeup which is the real world version of skin smoothing.

tim wrote in post #18430153
10+ years as a professional wedding photographer, I've never done skin softening. However brides tend to have fairly heavy makeup which is the real world version of skin smoothing.

And, basically, I do as much that particular woman would want to pay expensive professional make-up artist to do. They didn't invent "air brush" make-up technique for nothing.

And in all actuality, it takes more work to clean up each photo you deliver, and thus "costs more" than if they would have just used a makeup consultant. That is usually once and done for most of the event, but if not, then each photo comes with its own complications, and to touch up each photo should rightfully cost something to the clients, and shouldn't be part of the standard fare.

I put a fee into my senior portraits package that will cost a bit more to touch up photos. Some do it, some do not. I do a very light general softening using Nik tools as my standard processing, but to remove acne from each shot, that costs extra.

Either all the trim in my house could be stained and coated in bulk in the garage before application, or they can all go on with no finish into each room with all the hardware and paint already in place, then individually stained and coated after the fact. Which takes more time, and thus more cost?

nathancarter wrote in post #18430136
Also, as mentioned above, "skin softening" implies that you're just tossing on a heavy Gaussian blur, and obliterating all skin texture. That falls under "almost never." I'd like to think that a retoucher of any skill would not be doing that. (but I just saw one yesterday that was surprisingly overdone, from a photographer I respect - so maybe it's what the client wanted)

Thanks for the clarification. With that understanding my vote would have been a strong never. My goal in retouching is to make it seem an excellent MUA had been at work and I had the lighting just right.