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

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:

Natural.

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.

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.

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.

sergezap wrote in post #18618250
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.


.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18619739
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
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

AZGeorge wrote in post #18618927
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.

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.