Comments on Fluffytek Art Blog: Photoshop and Fantasies

Entertaining and insightful post, Lin.Those of us ...

2008-01-11T14:09:00.000Z

Entertaining and insightful post, Lin.

Those of us who photograph women for a living must produce what pleases them. If we don't, we'll end up with no clients or no models. It's noteworthy that Dove soap, which has a great many more resources than we do, hasn't made a dent in the endless search for flawless sexual appeal. Why? Fantasy works. And whether we achieve that fantasy with lighting, costume, pose, or Photoshop makes no real difference.

Very rarely do I actually read posts that are abou...

2008-01-10T14:49:00.000Z

Very rarely do I actually read posts that are about photography, I usually just skim through them and look at the pretty pictures. I read every word of this & think it was one of the best entries you've done :).

Well I had a beer instead of coffee and did finish...

2008-01-10T01:12:00.000Z

Well I had a beer instead of coffee and did finish the post. I don't shoot naked women so my comments are more general than the others.

The problem with the women is not Richard - but the media. These women see the post process images in magazines and want the same miracle.

Plus as you say in the last couple of paragraphs, about accepting themselves and they're beautiful because...is the truth. But they probably pay a shrink to deal with trying to get that kind of empowerment.

My wild ass guess and only defense I might give the women is that Richard changed his beliefs of what made a good image and how he made his images but did not educate them to those changes and that their images would not get the same extent of post processing as in the past and might not me their expectations.

Just tell them they are getting the "Mr. Fluffy Treatment" only now it's Mr. Fluffy the realist, not the illusionist.

D.L. Wood

CLIENT EXPECTATIONS: Yes, it's possible to fall in...

2008-01-09T19:45:00.000Z

CLIENT EXPECTATIONS: Yes, it's possible to fall into a trap where a photographer becomes slave to a look that he's promoted and known for. If you show a certain product, and people like it, then they'll want you to produce it for them. That's the natural outcome.

PHOTOSHOP: The use of photoshop for improving or even idealizing (or romanticizing, if you will) the look of a woman should be based on use. Boudoir might require heavy work to match the expectations of the intended audience.

Models run the risk of disappointing potential agents and bookers if their portfolio photos are so over-retouched that they don't faithfully represent the girl that shows up on set.

For personal, artistic purposes, it's whatever you want, of course. Porcelain nudes, or time-ravaged bodies, or anything in between that meets with your vision.

It's all about context with the choices of processing.

Let clients know what to expect, and know what they expect. Make decisions before committing time. If money's involved, charge accordingly. No one will be disappointed.

Ed Verosky

Thanks for the advice guys - very interesting to c...

2008-01-09T19:10:00.000Z

Thanks for the advice guys - very interesting to compare other photographers' post-processing philosophies. And thanks too for sticking with the post. It was so long I was wondering if anyone would ever make it to the end :-)

This is an awesome post, it sounds as if Richard a...

2008-01-09T18:37:00.000Z

This is an awesome post, it sounds as if Richard and I went through similar conflicts not long ago, albeit a bit different. I am glad he is “back in the saddle” as we say here in the states. God knows I am…and charted in a completely different direction with Large Format Polaroid Photography..and Pack Film Polaroid Photography. About 90% of what I am doing now is Polaroids, Polaroid transfers and some Emulsion Lifts.

I wish I have the Photoshop skills that Richard has. I barely scratch the surface of its power by using it as a simple contrast/color adjustment tool and cropping and sizing tool. Some blemishing retouching..and sharpening..and that’s it. 20 hours on a photo?..that’s determination..and artistic perseverance…I commend Richard for having the patience to do this (I lack patience greatly…). But Photoshop has never been a “beauty” tool in my work…if anything..i have used it in the opposite direction (by some distressing and aging photos).

I understand Richards disdain of the use of Photoshop at this point in his photography…and champion this decision with him. There are many great photographers that don’t use this powerful tool…BUT there are many great photographers that do use this tool in a very artful way. Afterall..is it not the final image that matters? As Photographic Artist, we owe no truth in our photography...are we not "CREATING"?..or are we editorial? BUT…that image must be true to the artist…and sounds like Richard is on the right path to be faithful to self, and there is nothing wrong with that..photoshop or no photoshop.

Personally, I don’t care for the overuse of Photoshop. I care not for the Maxim or Stuff style of photography (and the difuse/glow look (often subtile) of the models), and the perfectly smoothed skin. Just a preference..but Im not criticizing. I was telling Kurt Hernon the other day that I love the fact that he left the sock and boot lines in his models (and I love seeing panty lines or bra lines….why others photoshop these out I will never understand).

I would like to leave a couple of Ansel Adams quotes to ponder..

"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art."
`Ansel Adams

"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit."
~Ansel Adams

Rock on Richard…keep true to self…that’s all that matters.

bt

For the most part, I've become a processing minima...

2008-01-09T18:27:00.000Z

For the most part, I've become a processing minimalist. An image has to really grab me by the balls for me to spend more than ten minutes screwing with it. If I do spend more than 10-minutes or so processing, I still don't overly-manipulate the models' bodies, altho I'll often try to correct the ravages of really bad, malpractice lawsuit-worthy, boob jobs. I generally refrain from applying much skin processing and would rather try to create healthier looking skin with lighting techniques.

A major processing job for me would probably be 30-minutes max. Required processing (for me) mostly includes Levels, Hue & Sat, Shadow/Highlight, and Sharpening. My favorite manipulation tool is the Patch Tool. My least favorite, though I use it selectively, has become Gaussian Blur. (It's the misuse of this tool by others that's tainted my attitude towards it.)

I've also become more selective with the images I process. Out of a set of, say, one hundred images, I'll process one, two, maybe three. I've become highly critical of overly-processed skin unless it's done for OBVIOUS effect rather than attempting to reflect reality. I know shooters who would still skin-process the crap out of images of an actual Barbie Doll.

I believe a shooter/image-processor should strive for a balance between reality and the image's version of reality. Tricking viewers into suspending disbelief is the goal when processing reality into something else. Often, people over-process to the point the viewers immediately recognize the virtual "smoke and mirrors" used to attempt to trick them. Models, unfortunately, often don't care their images have been (so obviously) over processed. They want to look perfect, i.e., their version of perfection.