Taking Editing To Extremes

Taking Editing To Extremes

21 posts
2 Jan 2014
Found this little video interesting. How much editing do YOU do?

I only ever ask for basic editing, from any photographers I work with, sometimes none at all. (In case of Press photographers especially)

Unless it's fantasy editing which is a completely different ball game.


http://www.upworthy.com/see-why-we-have-an-absolutely-ridiculous-standard-of-beauty-in-just-37-seconds?c=ufb3

Posted 2 Jan 2014
Edited by SuzyMonty 2 Jan 2014
Fox2006
Photographer
Fox2006
Nothing like that much...but most of my editing is working on the background/enviroment, the model gets basic editing mainly because I don't think they need anything else. Skin smoothing, sharpening, small bits n bobs and final toning...job done.

Posted 2 Jan 2014
That's how it should be...

I didn't realise such extremes as this video shows...
Posted 2 Jan 2014
Gerry99111
Photographer
Gerry99111
Model gets their skin edited - spots fixed and smudges corrected individually. I have had I think two models ask me to liquefy their waists smaller - I told them to get stuffed and am now a lot more careful who I work with.

I think I do a pretty good job of making the models look good with lighting, composition and styling and if they need significant work beyond that, then I have the wrong model.

I don't care if they think they have the wrong photographer, anyone that needs the liquify tool needs to sort themselves out or foget any meaninful internet modeling career
Posted 2 Jan 2014
Edited by Gerry99111 2 Jan 2014
carshaltonkev
Photographer
carshaltonkev
Suzy- thanks for highlighting this issue. IMHO there is FAR too much editing going on these days- in the media and advertising- and yes even on Purestorm. Very few photographers I have met are taking any kind of stand against it. They just want to join the Photoshop bandwagon. It is only in photojournalism that it is frowned upon. To the point of zero tolerance with some photo agencies. It is perfectly OK to fake up female beauty, but not OK to fake up news photos! It has almost become more important for a photographer to be good at Photoshop, rather than good at taking photos. Now, how many models would prefer to have images produced by a photographer who tries to use light, angles etc to make them look good, rather than use editing. In my experience very few. They prefer to look even better with a photographer using Photoshop. Every time! I have heard models complain that very highly regarded photographers have even used another models mouth or nose, such is the level of editing. To me this is crazy, but these are photographers who are very highly rated. But they are cheating!
Posted 2 Jan 2014
nik_guy
Photographer
nik_guy
Is it just me or does anyone else thinks she looks better before all the editing?
Posted 2 Jan 2014
Paul_Jones
Photographer
Paul_Jones
I enjoyed the video and admire the work of the retoucher.
I don't subscribe to the theory that Photoshop is cheating.
Retouching is an art-form in its own right.



Posted 2 Jan 2014
carshaltonkev
Photographer
carshaltonkev
Paul_Jones

I enjoyed the video and admire the work of the retoucher.
I don't subscribe to the theory that Photoshop is cheating.
Retouching is an art-form in its own right.





You sound just like most photographers I meet.

By cheating, I meant when it goes to extremes, like when a models mouth or nose is swapped. I don't think a little touching up and removing blemishes is cheating. Touching up and airburshing have gone on for decades. But on the video, I think we are into cheating territory. Or should I call it "simulation"?

The whole point of the video is to show how fake the images of beauty are that young women are force fed in advertising and magazines. And they don't know how fake they are. It is bound to give a lot of young women low self esteem. IMHO it is very unhelpful and unhealthy.

Maybe I should stick to photojournalism and forget about model shoots.  

Posted 2 Jan 2014
paulford
Photographer
paulford
nik_guy
Is it just me or does anyone else thinks she looks better before all the editing?
Yep I think that too. far too extreme editing gone of by the end.
Posted 2 Jan 2014
paulford
Photographer
paulford
Mostly just clone spots and stray hairs off, If done on a beach will clone out anyone in background.

Posted 2 Jan 2014
Purple_Girl
Photographer
Purple_Girl
I quite like the end result of the edit in the video, however I also think she looked good before the editing started. I never edit that much (mainly because I don't need to, slightly because I don't know how to) but I don't really have a major issue with other people doing it. Different projects require different levels of editing. Magazine/billboard ads always have more heavily-edited models, that's just what happens. I'm cool with it, it doesn't affect me personally. I used to think the level of editing of models in the media was terrible for the self-esteem of 'regular' or 'real' women, but these days I'm more of a mind that if your self-esteem is cripplingly low, the reason is not soley because you think the airbrushed girls in a magazine look better than you, and that alone cannot be blamed, so I'm not going to freak out about it. Also, anyone who does modelling knows that at some point (probably most of the time) the images of them will be edited, and if they're not Ok with that, then they probably won't get very far; it's been my experience though that most models expect (and want) to be edited. I greatly respect the retouchers who can work to excellent standards far beyond anything I could manage, I also agree that good retouching is as much an art as photography.

When editing, I remove any blemishes, straighten/whiten teeth if needs be, sometimes I'll tuck in an unflattering bulge or material fold, followed by adjusting the brightness/contrast a bit. I'll muck around with a filter if I think the image warrants it. I don't tend to do much else and I'm happy with the results.


Posted 2 Jan 2014
jpv
Photographer
jpv
This goes back to the very beginnings of photography. Are you capturing a moment or “creating an image” as a final product, I believe there is room for both approaches.

I can remember (back in the 50’s) many happy “weekends” in the winter spent in the darkroom creating an image. toning, bleaching, making internegs, producing oil based prints and all the “bits and pieces” that were considered necessary for a “competent” photographer.

I much prefer Photoshop and a warm study!

However I do agree that it is often overdone for my taste although some of the retouching I see is awesome.

I totally agree with the comment above about “self esteem” of some of the young models I am fortunate to meet and photograph. To compare themselves with highly manipulated images to their own detriment is a folly and I do try to show them by editing their own images how unreal some of the images of their celebrity idols are.


Posted 3 Jan 2014
Jackass
Photographer
Jackass
Had Photoshop been around in the 40's would it have been used as extensively as it is now by professional photographers? Of course it would. There's a difference between editing an image to make it look it's best and turning the model into a caricature, just like there's a difference between sensible breast enhancement and Jordan. That's not editing, anyone with even a basic introduction to Photoshop can smooth skin tone to the extent that it looks like plastic.

There should be room for all styles in this big old world, but a model who relies on purely a Photoshopped portfolio runs the risk of being a disappointment when she turns up for a shoot when the photographer doesn't recognise who he's booked! How many of us have been there?

Posted 3 Jan 2014
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
There's no more editing now than there was or still is in virtually all fashion and beauty publications.

I suspect the point is that the majority of models on here are amateur and claim to be models because they are happy to be photographed, usually in exchange for money. Combine that with perhaps less than the very best re-touching and it could be argued that the result is perhaps less effective than if it had been left alone in the first place.

Recently the staggering numbers of images with completely plastic skin, over sharpened small Jpeg images and somewhat unusual colour balancing could all be testament to that!! There are also some absolutely superb examples of the highest quality re-touching on this site but it is not the norm?

But we are all on a learning curve, after all these years I have just learned an effective High frequency/Low frequency method which avoids the major pitfall of over smoothing original skin texture. Having said that Photoshop used with plug-ins such as Imaginomics or Perfect Portrait are still superb simple and effective tools if not over done?

So as with most things there is no definitive answer? A model with perfect skin, well lit and composed probably needs no work but even the "most perfect" model with high contrast lighting will have every blemish revealed.

Which is why it is so good to have such a battery of tools to work with all under the umbrella of Photoshop..but they are tools and like all tools, only as good as those who are using them?

Posted 3 Jan 2014
barone
Photographer
barone
That's nothing....This is what it's like in the real world.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR4GoLk0o50 sorry....I can't do one of those hyer linky thingys..
Posted 3 Jan 2014
Edited by barone 3 Jan 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join