One of my goals for 2010 is to improve my retouching skills and hone my technique in Photoshop. Retouching is a touchy subject for a lot of people with regard to the morals and ethics surrounding it.
I personally have no problem with retouching. It's something that has been done to images since the dawn of photography. In fact, the only reason paintings weren't retouched is that they didn't need to be - Painters would paint things how they/their client wanted them! Sure, things can be taken to extremes, and good retouching is often down to using restraint and subtlety.
The media often use the idea of retouching and "unattainable perfection" as the cause of eating disorders amongst young girls. Whilst I'm not saying it's not partly to blame, I do think womens magazines are far more at fault! They often target celebrities and tear them apart if they're slightly overweight, or have a spot on their chin etc. Surely this sends a message to people saying that if you gain weight, or have spots, you will be publicly castigated?
As far as my experience with my own portfolio clients goes, they want to be retouched! It makes them feel good about themselves. They get to see the "perfect" them. Surely if it was such a bad thing, that was the cause of so much suffering, no one would want it? Or maybe it's seen as a premium, luxury thing, and as such, it now has a demand attributed to it.
I'd be very interested to know how other people feel about retouching. Do you agree with it? How far should it go? Should it be banned, or is it just a necessary evil because no one is perfect in real life, but society demands perfection in the media? Leave a comment to tell me what you think.
I've added an image comparison below. The image on the left is un-retouched, and the one on the right has been "fixed" in photoshop. Have a look and see if you can see what's been done. There's a list underneath...
Reckon you got them all? Here goes...
Blemishes removed
Skin smoothed
Fingers thinned
Lips Plumped
Teeth reshaped
Ear reshaped
Gaps in hair filled in
Wrist bone smoothed
Nose reshaped
Eyes rotated and reshaped
Stray hairs removed
Hairline tidied
Eyebrows neatened
As you can see, there's a lot needed to attain perfection!
PS. I checked with the Fifi before posting an un-retouched image, and she said it was ok! It's always good to keep your models happy! ;)
13 comments:
I agree Jay. I often shoot and one of the last things, I get asked is" you are going to retouch them first arent you?"
Retouching can be overdone and its important to keep the facial structure and the person to look the same minus blemishes etc although some WANT heavy retouching so each to their own.
Retouching is both old and necessary. Not many people want an image as truthful as a mirror. Both the subjects in the image and the viewers of the image. The viewers want to believe in the fantasy. The crux has come with the digital era which has put retouching into the hands of the non skilled. There is a yawning abyss between a skilled retoucher and a photographer who feels the need to put emerald eyes into a face that clearly doesn't need or suit them. All that shows is a distinct lack of taste. Retouching in the infamous Kate Winslet way should be renamed: re-modelling.
I totally agree!
In many ways photography hasn't changed. All the same things are done post shoot, but the way they are done has changed, and has become more accessible. Most people have access to photo manipulation software nowadays, whereas the average person wouldn't have had a darkroom at home a few years ago.
I have absolutely no problem at all with retouching. Personally as a wedding photographer I tend to do light retouching. Mainly because I think in my style of photography that I'm documenting an event not recreating my image of what it should have been. Not a big fan of putting big purple skies in or softening the bride so much she practically looks out of focus. But in other forms of the medium, I love it. Fashion benefits tremendously. If it requires it do it! We live in a glossy glam world and people like smooth edges and perfection. Neale James, Breathe Pictures
When documenting an event, I agree that retouching should be used sparingly in order to give a true representation of what was there.
But if you're creating an entire scene in a studio, how far can you go with manipulation before it becomes morally wrong?
Great post Jay, and I think this is such an interesting topic. Personally I think retouching has become part of the new era of photography. How an image is retouched in my opinion should depend on what sort of image you're retouching. For instance, a fashion photo should be retouched different than an image of a musician or actor. The latter should still allow for retouch to perfect the image, but still keep true to the person capture, whilst a fashion image could allow for more freedom. My personal view anyways. In any way I prefer images to look like they haven't been retouched, even though you may have spend quite some time retouching it to look like the perfect image.
You must have read my mind lol. When I saw the picture on facebook, I was going to ask you to post a 'before' picture... I dont retouch much, but thats because I dont know how... I am learning (slowly) but doubt I will ever reach this standard. I have been following you for a while and your photography (and retouching) have improved amazingly (not that they were bad before lol). YOu are an inspiration, I love your work.
Please keep up the 'before and after' shots so I can see how far I have to go. Thanks. Sheila.:-)
Thanks! Always makes me smile when I read comments like that.
In terms of retouching ability, 95% of it comes down to technique... which can be learnt. I spent a good few days recently with various different techniques and tutorials working out which ones are best for me. There are a million ways of doing most things, so find which ones work best for you. One thing I have found though is that to do it properly takes time! Filters and actions are no substitute for the healing brush and patch tool!
You are very right, the 'era of problems' that we are currently in due to the concern over young girls aiming for size zero, and also this new "disease" manorexia, that I have heard thrown around where the men (generally late teens or twenties) feel lacklustre about their bodies.
I certainly has to do with the type of magazines that they read, and in my opinion the more harmful ones are the ones that criticise a photo taken by a paparazzi because of their dress sense or what they look like first thing in the morning.
It is a different matter when you are trying to sell something with the use of a model. Jay, I am not sure what the image is aimed for, and I tried to play a game of guess what he has done, I certainly didn't guess them all, the only one I reallly got was the ear. It is very subtle and worked into the image very well, not too much. Perfect.
And if it's alright I may be asking for tips soon...
Ask away! Nothing I do is a secret you can't find out from someone else. Too many people in this industry keep things to themselves or try and charge extortionate amounts of money for sharing things need to be shared to better the industry.
Back on topic though, I'm guessing the whole 'manorexia' issue is down to images of David Beckham and the like. What's interesting to me is that the use of well toned men in advertising is nothing new. It's society that has changed and pressure by the same magazines for men to pay more attention to the way they look. I doubt the majority of ancient italian men had eating disorders because of Michelangelo's David. But then, did he really look like that, or did Michelangelo reshape his nose and give him more pronounced abs?
More than blemishes, you also removed the 2 small moles (cheek and eyeid) and the ear piercing ir removed too ;)
I normaly leave small moles as they're 'real' marks rather than spots or complexion. I suppose it's down to the client/model, but I leave the small moles in by default
CallumW
Wow! The changes are so subtle, I had to look again after reading your list.
I think its OK to re-touch. I think its nice for the model and we all love to look at beautiful things.
I think the ripping apart of celebrities images in magazines is awful. What message does this send to our children? Why do we tolerate such nastiness. We talk about tackling bullying in schools but what about our media? Are we teaching our children kindness? I dont buy magazines because they dont promote a healthy self esteem.
Ultimately I think what is important when young girls look at beautiful models is, what are they thinking at the time. Its perfectly ok to look at something beautiful and enjoy it. When it is used as a comparison to the self is when it is dangerous. Comparison can be avoided by knowing your own good points (inside and out) Young children should be taught that they are worthwhile human beings, that there are lots of assets worth working towards apart from beauty, what about honesty, humility, kindness, generosity?
When you feel good inside you are not affected by a pretty model. You can enjoy their beauty.
So I say go ahead with the re-touching!
i have to say i do prefer the photos that i get taken to be retouched at least a little bit to get rid of the bits about yourself that you dont like...have seen it over done...the way i see it is, its your choice if you want them retouched.if you dont agree with it then tell the photographer at the shoot.
xxx
Post a Comment