Glamour Editing by Irene Rudnyk

[rpcrowe]

You may not like the results of this editing (I do but, many don't) but there are a lot of techniques that Irene Rudnyk uses which can be transferred to other images. There are even some techniques that I think I may be able to use in editing the images of my dogs.

I have subscribed to Irene's YouTube channel and am learning a lot from her instructional videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khJTaAjwJ5Q&t=438s

Since it is YouTube, the price definitely is right

[Shadowman]

Richard,

Was it the body transformation edits that you thought we'd have issue with? I was more attentive to the edits she did in RAW: shadow/highlight adj., adding clarity and how it is thought that those changes add too much detail to the skin tones. It's interesting that her edits in Photoshop seemed to fix the issues she created in RAW.

[rpcrowe]

Actually, I thought that many folks might have an issue with the amount of processing that she does with her images. The images resulting are lovely but often seem to lack a bit of realism...

[Donald]

My first reaction was that if she'd lit her pictures properly in the first place then she wouldn't have needed to do so much pp to 'correct' all the errors. But, I admit, I have a built-in prejudice against all that touching up of the human form in images.

[Dave Humphries]

You may not like the results of this editing

Hmmm, I don't mind the result, it is her methods that I object to, so many, how shall I say; "less than ideal" practices. I also agree with Donald's point.

I admit that I "don't know the half of it" when it comes to ACR and PS, but this is how I used to edit when I first started out, not how I edit now - and even that leaves a lot to be desired.

If they work for her, fine, but I really don't think they ought to be copied - there are many better work flows and techniques 'out there'.

[Shadowman]

Actually, I thought that many folks might have an issue with the amount of processing that she does with her images. The images resulting are lovely but often seem to lack a bit of realism...

I did wonder if her RAW edits created the issues that she felt needed fixing later on.

[Shadowman]

I read some of the comments below the video and there were a few viewers that took the "objectifying women/body shapes" stance on Irene's use of the liquefying tool to reshape the model.

[Tronhard]

Personally I prefer the documentary approach to photography and like to see an image as it is, which I admit is not likely in the fashion or glamour disciplines. That said I came down to earth with a bang when my sister, five years older than me, wanted her photo taken... I sat on the horns of a dilemma: on one side my desire for the image "as is", then on the other a desire to live longer...

[Shadowman]

Personally I prefer the documentary approach to photography and like to see an image as it is, which I admit is not likely in the fashion or glamour disciplines. That said I came down to earth with a bang when my sister, five years older than me, wanted her photo taken... I sat on the horns of a dilemma: on one side my desire for the image "as is", then on the other a desire to live longer...

Trev,

In a situation as yours I would either present her with my interpretation of her or have her work with you on the edit choices. I think all of us have one or two things we'd like to change about our appearance, however some attributes cannot be changed (for instance connecting eyebrows) and would only create a false interpretation of ourselves.

[Manfred M]

I watched the video and would agree with others, I'm not a fan of her workflow. I especially am rather wary of using the "liquefy" tool, as overuse of it (which I feel she does) is what has given Photoshop a bad reputation.

I also agree that proper lighting should be used, but then shooting a back-lit subject in front of a window is a bit tricky. Also, in the beauty and glamour photography side of things, the amount and level of retouching is MUCH higher than we see in most other forms of photography.

[rpcrowe]

O.K. What are we striving for? An image that will grace the cover of a glamour magazine or an image which could be found within the pages of National Geographic Magazine. I think (rather I know) that the techniques and workflow of images for these two uses are as different as the uses themselves. We probably want an image that is somewhat in-between the above two diverse examples but, is flattering to the subject.

IMO, if you want a flattering image of a female, you of course need to light and have her pose properly... However, equally as important in photographing flattering images of females is the makeup and hairdo of the subject. I often see images posted (both on this site and others) which could benefit a GREAT DEAL from proper makeup and professionally done hairstyles.

I have a grand niece who is basically a very nice looking young woman in her late teens. However, she most often wears no make up and when she does, it is not applied well. Her hairdo is non-existent. She looks like she simply wets her fingers and just runs them through her hands. Her clothing is equally unkempt. She gets this style from her mom and her grandmother who have never looked like they got fully ready to go anywhere. In other words, she is a mess and she photographs that way. No amount of lighting or posing is going to change her basic appearance.

On the other hand, I have recently photographed young ladies on two different occasions who have been part of a family adopting one of our rescue dogs. The images were not lit for glamour or to get the most flattering image of these young ladies, neither were the images posed to achieve the most glamorous result. However, each of these young ladies was wearing makeup that suited photography additionally both of these young ladies had hairdos that were very well done.

The result was, that despite no specific attempts to shoot flattering images (I was simply documenting the adoption of our dogs), the results very photos that showed these young ladies in an extremely flattering manner.

Here's the problem... If we are shooting females who we know, and if we want to achieve a flattering image, it is very difficult to even suggest that they apply makeup other than they are already wearing and it is equally difficult to suggest to any female that her hairdo is not suitable for a flattering image. The results of lack of, or incorrect' makeup and incorrect hairstyles (for the person's face) or even worse, virtually no hairstyle at all is usually not flattering despite the person's intrinsic good looks...

One thing that I have learned in over fifty years of photography! WOMEN WANT TO LOOK NICE IN THEIR PHOTOS. They don't normally want a documentary type of image. We often complain that while over-processed images of female portraits are not what we think is best. I have noticed that very few women complain that the image makes them look more attractive than they are.

In fact, if used judicially, many if not most, women like the effects generated by Portrait Professional. I have had women honestly remark that my images have made them look better than they are in real life but, I have seldom had a female (of any age) complain about that

[Tronhard]

So when I told her she was old and that her face was like a relief map of Mars that it was, perhaps, an undiplomatic approach?

In all seriousness I ironed out some of the age lines and made her look a bit less like a 70 Y.O., but still recognizable. She knew it but she loved it anyway because I had not erased her age, but with respect, just lightened it's load.

Trev,

In a situation as yours I would either present her with my interpretation of her or have her work with you on the edit choices. I think all of have one or two things we'd like to change about our appearance, however some attributes cannot be changed (for instance connecting eyebrows) and would only create a flash interpretation of ourselves.

[Tronhard]

I have had women honestly remark that my images have made them look better than they are in real life but, I have seldom had a female (of any age) complain about that

I can attest to that... I was in a supermarket at the check-out when two obviously retired women were purchasing some alcohol. The young chap on the till looked at them carefully for a moment and pointed at the sign that said "If you look under 20 we reserve the right to have photo ID for alcohol purchases".

He said "Ladies, can I get an assurance that you are over the age limit, or should I ask for ID?"

HIGHLY flattered the grey-haired duo admitted that the were, in fact, over 25 but said they had ID. So with a warm grin the operator said "You look like very honest people to me, I will take your word for it". After the transaction was done and as they left one said to him "Young man, you have made my day!"

I suspect he will go far... perhaps in politics?

[Manfred M]

So when I told her she was old and that her face was like a relief map of Mars that it was, perhaps, an undiplomatic approach?

In all seriousness I ironed out some of the age lines and made her look a bit less like a 70 Y.O., but still recognizable. She knew it but she loved it anyway because I had not erased her age, but with respect, just lightened it's load.

This is always the retoucher's dilemma; how much retouching is appropriate.

The best thing is of course to ask the "client" or subject, as everyone has their own opinion as to how they want their face and body handled. For one person a large mole, age line or scar is something disfiguring that they want removed. For others, these are viewed as a "badge of honour" and the photographer who dares remove them is going to be told to "put them back".

I've also run into people who are fine in having these "defects" covered up by a makeup artist (MUA) but get incensed if someone dares to fix the issue in Photoshop.

In general, I have never had any complaints when I remove minor, temporary skin issues; pimples or a patch of dry skin. I've never been lectured for removing a stray hairs or cleaning up the blood vessels in the white of the eye. Neither has anyone complained when I use dodging and burning to enhance facial contours.

The bottom line is that you need to understand your subject's views and feelings when it comes doing "major surgery" to their bodies and faces; the minor stuff, they likely won't even notice and these will definitely give you a superior image.