Lady in red

[xpatUSA]

...
If you want to see really bad photos, just have a look at "The Photograph as Contemporary Art" by C. Cotton. By the way, the author has impeccable credentials and the book is in its third or fourth edition.

Thanks, André,

Some text and shots from that book can be seen here:

https://mazzeo.files.wordpress.com/2...ch1-cotton.pdf

Not all bad: the well-known Bechers' water towers 3x3 is shown in there, almost at the bottom ...

[Manfred M]

Absolutely, if it is done on purpose because that is the way they like the result. It does not mean that I or you have to like it.

I actually read a book on contemporary photographic artists by Charlotte Cotton which critique over 200 photos by almost as many contemporary artists. In my humble opinion, not a single one of the featured photos had any merit technically nor did they show any composition skills. That experience convinced me that creating photos to my liking was what I should focus on.

If you want to see really bad photos, just have a look at "The Photograph as Contemporary Art" by C. Cotton. By the way, the author has impeccable credentials and the book is in its third or fourth edition.

I read Cotton's book last year at a time I was starting to explore contemporary, critical photography in my own work. This genre is not going to appeal to many people that are traditional photographers. This site largely caters to that genre, although my work is moving more into the contemporary genre and I have noticed the same trend with a few other members. My recent work with the flat of eggs. This piece was strongly inspired by the works of the Becher's that Ted mentions.


Typology - White & Brown Eggs



It is not a book of bad photographs; I think you would find that many curators, academics and galleries would strongly disagree with you there. It would be more polite to suggest that the works are not your taste. That being said, there are many traditional photographic works that are not to my taste; I can certainly point out pieces by the greats like Ansel Adams, Karsh, Cartier-Bresson and others that I do not particularly like.

I think the best way to explain this is to turn to music. When I talk to people who love popular music (or at least specific genres or sub-genres), they can't understand why anyone would want to spend an evening at the concert hall, the ballet or the opera. . My daughter cannot understand why I have opera playing while I work on my images. I could not get anywhere if I were listening to the music she likes. That is very much the same with traditional versus contemporary photography

[William W]

Lady in red

Well depicted: Serene. Provocative. La petit mort.

Bravo.

***

Personally, I'd lose the bed-head verticals.

Doing so, it will still be obvious that she is laying across the bed and it is assumed that pose was purposeful.

I don't like the crop below L elbow, it is a little too jarring: it was probably purposeful also, to solicit intrigue, but none the less the crop at that point of her arm, is jarring.

***

Regarding the discussion about the Model's Skin and Post Production of it:

The Photographer has a posting history at CiC comprising mainly a particular and specific genre of Portraiture.

The Post Production Technique has changed over that period of posting, and, over that period has taken a particular tack, refining and (noted) emphasizing specific attention to the skin textures of the female studies.

It occurs to me that particular pathway of Post Production has been chosen; further, this particular Post Production Technique would be in concert with owing his own style within what seems to be the narrow genre of Portraiture which the Photographer is pursuing.

I think it is important to consider this Image’s Story.

Moreover, it important to consider the Photographer’s intent and his reasoning for developing his own particular style of in this genre of Portraiture.

WW

[Javier]

Hi everyone
First, thank you for your opinions, I am not a professional photographer, I am a simple amateur. I really like the portrait and believe me, that all your opinions are highly valued. I must say that thanks to everyone's criticism, especially to Manfred, here I have learned a lot and to see the portraits photography with "different eyes". Thanks again a thousand to all, just one final question, I generally use the technique of "frequency separation" but Manfred spoke of another technique that professionals use to retouch skin. Can you tell me what technique it is to try it? Greetings from South America

[xpatUSA]

Hi everyone
First, thank you for your opinions, I am not a professional photographer, I am a simple amateur. I really like the portrait and believe me, that all your opinions are highly valued. I must say that thanks to everyone's criticism, especially to Manfred, here I have learned a lot and to see the portraits photography with "different eyes". Thanks again a thousand to all, just one final question, I generally use the technique of "frequency separation" but Manfred spoke of another technique that professionals use to retouch skin. Can you tell me what technique it is to try it? Greetings from South America

Javier, ¡hola otra vez!

I think that "frequency separation" is also called "wavelet processing". Manfred has called it a "lower" form of re-touching skin, I don't know why because the examples in the links I posted earlier looked very good to me.

In my editor, each frequency (wavelet detail level) is placed in a separate layer. Each layer can of course be edited separately in any manner of my choosing and any area in each layer can be selected for separate editing from the rest of that layer.

So I await with interest any method that can do better or is "more professional" ...

espero que puedes comprenderme ...

[Manfred M]

Hi everyone
First, thank you for your opinions, I am not a professional photographer, I am a simple amateur. I really like the portrait and believe me, that all your opinions are highly valued. I must say that thanks to everyone's criticism, especially to Manfred, here I have learned a lot and to see the portraits photography with "different eyes". Thanks again a thousand to all, just one final question, I generally use the technique of "frequency separation" but Manfred spoke of another technique that professionals use to retouch skin. Can you tell me what technique it is to try it? Greetings from South America

Javier - I am not a professional photographer, which is true for the vast majority of members on this site. I have formally studied portraiture under highly skill photographers who have a formal education in photography (i.e. degree in the subject or college diploma) and have had a very long career in the field as commercial photographers dealing with corporate clients rather than in the retail environment where the photographer deals with the general public who tend to be less discerning.

The best and easiest way to get strong portraits is to have a makeup artist (MUA) who works in the portraiture field. If you get the chance to do so, they will do all the heavy lifting for you and quite often the photographer has very little retouching to do. In an ideal setting the MUA is on set and will do touch ups during the shoot. With a bit of luck, the MUA will also fix issues with the hair. I try to shoot tethered in the studio and the MUA can see the image on a large screen as the shoot proceeds.

The problem with frequency separation is two fold. The first is practical; the method only works well when you find the right balance between the high frequency (the fine details like pores in the skin, fine lines, skin blemishes and hair) and low frequency (large areas of colour or tones). In most examples, people don't get the mix right and we either end up with skin that has no texture and looks like plastic or the skin looks too highly textured and not realistic. The other reason is more philosophical than practical as you have not preserved the look of the skin, but rather are trying to make the skin look like skin, rather than preserving the actual skin, which does look 100% natural. if you "pixel peep" and know what skin looks like, you can see that the frequency separation method has been used.

The high end retouchers primarily use dodging and burning, but at a very small scale; they will locally lighten small local areas that are too dark and darken small local areas that are too light. Generally we work at 100% magnification here and we are literally working with a very tiny brush. This does take a lot of time, but if you are good at it (it takes some time to get there), you can't notice the retouching. A similar technique is used to "sculpt" features, much the way a makeup artist would apply makeup.

Unfortunately, I can't point you at any YouTube tutorials; I learned this working in a classroom setting.

[Round Tuit]

... It is not a book of bad photographs; I think you would find that many curators, academics and galleries would strongly disagree with you there.

I am sure that they would; I don't have a problem with that. They are entitled to their opinion just as I am to mine.

It would be more polite to suggest that the works are not your taste.

I don't know if it would be more polite but it would be inaccurate. I found the photographs mediocre at best. True, they are not to my taste but there are plenty of good photographs that are not to my taste. To use your music analogy, I hate Jazz. It gives me a headache. That does not mean that I consider Jazz an inferior musical form or Jazz players second rate players.

As Ted would say, I will fold with my apologies to Javier for highjacking his thread.

[William W]

. . . The best and easiest way to get strong portraits is to have a makeup artist (MUA) who works in the portraiture field.

Emphasizing the underlined portion.

IF you employ a Make Up Artist for your Stills Portraiture, it is absolutely essential that they be experienced in working and preparing for Stills Photography.

There are many excellent and very experienced MUA, however some specialize in (for example) Catwalk, Cine, Television, Wedding and Formal Functions (this last being for the woman's "look" not necessarily prepping for Photography).

WW

[William W]

Separation of my two comments is necessary -

. . . The best and easiest way to get strong portraits is to have a makeup artist (MUA) who works in the portraiture field.

I read and interpreted this definitive statement in the context of Manfred's previous comments and within the outline her gave of his studies in Portrait Photography, and in so doing I didn't react to a dictum - "the best and easiest".

However, within the context of CiC being a learning environment, I reckon it is worthwhile stating that there are many genres of Portrait Photography.

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree in assuming that Javier has a desire to follow a niche area of Portraiture or stumbled upon it by accident and is experimenting - at least he is doing so in the short term.

I make this observation by looking at all the images that Javier has posted: noting this one has a theme unlike any of the others.

Taking this point further, I investigated and sought opinions elsewhere. Subsequent to my initial comment here, I sought (blind) opinions from five others on this image. All are well experienced in Theatre and/or from Cine backgrounds. All commented that there is a strong theme in this image, congruent with ‘la petit morte’.

When asked directly about ‘the treatment of the Subject’s skin’ none commented that it was intrusive or deleterious and two commented that the ‘plasticity’ enhanced the theme.

We all have opinions, and, from my point of view, all are valid and I personally love reading and listening to opinions – doing so is a great learning tool.

One opinion I have is - when expressing our opinions on artistic merit and artistic content, we always should consider how our words might impact on the individual’s development.

WW

[Manfred M]

Emphasizing the underlined portion.

IF you employ a Make Up Artist for your Stills Portraiture, it is absolutely essential that they be experienced in working and preparing for Stills Photography.

There are many excellent and very experienced MUA, however some specialize in (for example) Catwalk, Cine, Television, Wedding and Formal Functions (this last being for the woman's "look" not necessarily prepping for Photography).

WW

I had the opportunity to work with a MUA who claimed to have experience in makeup for photographers. She lied. The eye makeup she used had all kinds of sparkling reflective agents in it, so that the model's eye lit up like a safety vest when the flash hit them. Eyelids is not where one normally expects specular highlights...

The other truth in the industry is that the training for different types of models is quite different. A good photo model has a series of move that she will hit between every shot. A catwalk model is trained to be a walking clotheshorse; the outfits are the stars of the show and the model is trained to not compete with the clothes she is wearing. A totally different coaching direction is needed when shooting them.

[Manfred M]

Separation of my two comments is necessary -



I read and interpreted this definitive statement in the context of Manfred's previous comments and within the outline her gave of his studies in Portrait Photography, and in so doing I didn't react to a dictum - "the best and easiest".

However, within the context of CiC being a learning environment, I reckon it is worthwhile stating that there are many genres of Portrait Photography.

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree in assuming that Javier has a desire to follow a niche area of Portraiture or stumbled upon it by accident and is experimenting - at least he is doing so in the short term.

I make this observation by looking at all the images that Javier has posted: noting this one has a theme unlike any of the others.

Taking this point further, I investigated and sought opinions elsewhere. Subsequent to my initial comment here, I sought (blind) opinions from five others on this image. All are well experienced in Theatre and/or from Cine backgrounds. All commented that there is a strong theme in this image, congruent with ‘la petit morte’.

When asked directly about ‘the treatment of the Subject’s skin’ none commented that it was intrusive or deleterious and two commented that the ‘plasticity’ enhanced the theme.

We all have opinions, and, from my point of view, all are valid and I personally love reading and listening to opinions – doing so is a great learning tool.

One opinion I have is - when expressing our opinions on artistic merit and artistic content, we always should consider how our words might impact on the individual’s development.

WW

Bill - if this was the only time that Javier used that approach in skin retouching, I would have addressed my comments differently. If you go back and look at his other works, he often pushes skin too hard.

The comments on different approaches for different genres applies here too. I remember discussing this during the retouching sections of one of a number of portraiture courses that I took. Some of this gets close to being philosophy. The amount of makeup for a family portrait will be different than one for a glamour shot. Different photographers and different MUAs have different views here. Some MUAs I have spoken with feel that they haven't done their job well if the photographer needs to make corrections in post while others feel that the MUA and retoucher are on the same team and both have contributions to make to get the image looking right.

My work is mostly for me or my subject, although I have done some shoots where the client is an outside party. I will always discuss the amount of retouching with the client; some want maximum effect. Others done want any changes to the way that they look and their moles and scars are parts of them that should not be touched. I have yet to meet anyone who objects to having minor, temporary skin blemishes removed. The hardest ones are the ones that want the "natural look", which to me suggests a very light touch, rather than no retouching.

You are absolutely correct about the development of a photographer and understanding these things are important for anyone other than the people who only photograph for themselves. Other than that, one has to understand client needs and wishes, how the model feels and how the MUA works and thinks.

Landscapes and still life work is so much easier as the subject tends not to express opinions on creative and technical decisions...

[DanK]

Taking this point further, I investigated and sought opinions elsewhere. Subsequent to my initial comment here, I sought (blind) opinions from five others on this image. All are well experienced in Theatre and/or from Cine backgrounds. All commented that there is a strong theme in this image, congruent with ‘la petit morte’.

When asked directly about ‘the treatment of the Subject’s skin’ none commented that it was intrusive or deleterious and two commented that the ‘plasticity’ enhanced the theme.

IMHO, this is the most important point in the latter part of this thread. It illustrates the overarching point that shouldn't get lost in the details: there is no one right way. It doesn't matter how many 'authorities' one cites who support one way; there are many paths open to all of us.

At the risk of being repetitive, I think it is often very useful to explain to people why an image violates one or another guideline, particularly if one can explain why that guideline often makes sense. For example, long ago, I profited a great deal from critical comments about high-contrast areas on the edge drawing the eye away from the subject. Now I only place high-contrast items on the edge when they can't be avoided (some candid photography) or when I want them there.

But this doesn't make it a rule, like teaching people how to undo a logarithmic transformation. It's a guideline.

[Javier]

Colleagues, thank you again for your opinions and contributions, I am really learning a lot. Thank you CiC, I am congratulated to be here.

[xpatUSA]

The best and easiest way to get strong portraits is to have a makeup artist (MUA) who works in the portraiture field. If you get the chance to do so, they will do all the heavy lifting for you and quite often the photographer has very little retouching to do. In an ideal setting the MUA is on set and will do touch ups during the shoot. With a bit of luck, the MUA will also fix issues with the hair. I try to shoot tethered in the studio and the MUA can see the image on a large screen as the shoot proceeds.

Manfred, I am not convinced that the introduction of makeup artistry is relevant to the topic of frequency separation vs. high-end re-touching.

The problem with frequency separation is two fold. The first is practical; the method only works well when you find the right balance between the high frequency (the fine details like pores in the skin, fine lines, skin blemishes and hair) and low frequency (large areas of colour or tones). In most examples, people don't get the mix right and we either end up with skin that has no texture and looks like plastic or the skin looks too highly textured and not realistic. The other reason is more philosophical than practical as you have not preserved the look of the skin, but rather are trying to make the skin look like skin, rather than preserving the actual skin, which does look 100% natural. if you "pixel peep" and know what skin looks like, you can see that the frequency separation method has been used.

Neither am I convinced that stating possible errors in the use of frequency separation negates it's utility ...

The high end retouchers primarily use dodging and burning, but at a very small scale; they will locally lighten small local areas that are too dark and darken small local areas that are too light. Generally we work at 100% magnification here and we are literally working with a very tiny brush. This does take a lot of time, but if you are good at it (it takes some time to get there), you can't notice the retouching. A similar technique is used to "sculpt" features, much the way a makeup artist would apply makeup.

... any more than someone stating possible errors in the use of "high-end re-touching" would negate the utility of such usage.

In other words, your comment quoted above about frequency separation is a Straw Man argument, IMHO.

[xpatUSA]

if you "pixel peep" and know what skin looks like, you can see that the frequency separation method has been used.

I peeped at the intro shot from this article at 400%:



With my untrained eye, I was unable to see that a frequency separation method had been used.

Anybody?

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I am not convinced that the introduction of makeup artistry is relevant to the topic of frequency separation vs. dodging and burning.



Neither am I convinced that stating possible errors in the use of frequency separation negates it's utility ...



... any more than someone stating possible errors in the use "high-end re-touching" would negates the utility of such usage.

In other words, your comment quoted above about frequency separation is a Straw Man argument, IMHO.

Ted - Thank your sharing your opinion.

1. Using a good MUA negates the need for some advanced retouching and is often the best way to photograph a model. So it is indeed relevant when discussing how to retouch. Less is more.

2. I've never suggested that there is no place for frequency separation as a technique, including retouching portraits. There are times where is is probably the best approach, but those are generally the exception, not the rule in high end work. With frequency separation we destroy the natural skin textures and replace them with simulated skin textures. We are effectively creating "fake" skin; there can be good fakes and there can be poorly done ones. Good fakes, we won't complain about too much, but much of the work out there is not well done. That is the main issue.

3. When I write about high end retouchers, I am implying a lot of expertise in applying the technique. In most of the work I have seen, they are using the "real" skin texture and making tiny adjustments, only where it is necessary. There are times where they also have to retouch the work of the makeup artist. Someone who isn't good at the technique will not get strong results (that applies to frequency separation techniques too).

[Manfred M]

I peeped at the intro shot from this article at 400%:



With my untrained eye, I was unable to see that a frequency separation method had been used.

Anybody?

First of all, the skin does not look natural, but I can't say for sure why. Skin should not look "crunchy", but it does in this image.

I suspect I spend a lot more time looking at closeup skin detail than you do, but am definitely not an expert.

[FootLoose]

Andre - you are suggesting that someone who consistently focuses incorrectly and has a blurry image, over or underexposes and their images are too light or too dark, uses a shutter speed that is too slow and their image is always blurry should be able to do so because this is their style?.

Absolutely. You buy a camera, it's yours; you can take photos any way you like. You might even toss it in the air to let it take photos at random.
De-focusing, under/over-exposing, intentionally moving the camera are all legitimate techniques that people employ for various effects.

... there are conventions in any art or craft and practitioners are generally expected to follow them. ... There is also a strange convention in the arts that suggest that only well established artists with impeccable credentials are allowed to change the conventions. If you look at the work of Picasso, he was a strong, conventional artist and that gave him the credibility to break the rules. ...

You make it sound very authoritarian. I think practices become "conventions" when a number of people start doing the same thing - over and over and over again. And then it becomes a bit boring and someone does something different. The stuffy old convention police carp and chide and censure as is their wont. But it's a breath of fresh air and other people - the equally bored, who will later be lauded as the "avant-garde" by the same critics - breathe it in and follow suit. All hale the new genius, the sheep follow the leaders, and a new "convention" sets in.

[xpatUSA]

First of all, the skin does not look natural, but I can't say for sure why. Skin should not look "crunchy", but it does in this image.

I suspect I spend a lot more time looking at closeup skin detail than you do, but am definitely not an expert.

I bow to your greater authority on closeup skin detail.

Anybody else?

[William W]

Bill - if this was the only time that Javier used that approach in skin retouching, I would have addressed my comments differently. If you go back and look at his other works, he often pushes skin too hard.

The comments on different approaches for different genres applies here too. I remember discussing this during the retouching sections of one of a number of portraiture courses that I took. Some of this gets close to being philosophy. The amount of makeup for a family portrait will be different than one for a glamour shot. Different photographers and different MUAs have different views here. Some MUAs I have spoken with feel that they haven't done their job well if the photographer needs to make corrections in post while others feel that the MUA and retoucher are on the same team and both have contributions to make to get the image looking right.

My work is mostly for me or my subject, although I have done some shoots where the client is an outside party. I will always discuss the amount of retouching with the client; some want maximum effect. Others done want any changes to the way that they look and their moles and scars are parts of them that should not be touched. I have yet to meet anyone who objects to having minor, temporary skin blemishes removed. The hardest ones are the ones that want the "natural look", which to me suggests a very light touch, rather than no retouching.

You are absolutely correct about the development of a photographer and understanding these things are important for anyone other than the people who only photograph for themselves. Other than that, one has to understand client needs and wishes, how the model feels and how the MUA works and thinks.

Landscapes and still life work is so much easier as the subject tends not to express opinions on creative and technical decisions...

Thank you for replying.

For clarity - before posting the above commentary I read and interrogated every thread in which Javier commented and every image Javier posted.

My point is, (and I believe that it is a salient point in this conversation) - whatever skin post production Javier has used previously is substantially irrelevant - (yes previous PP is similar throughout all the images Javier has posted here).

The point is this image is very, very different to all the images he has posted here, and I am commenting on this image.

That's what this conversation is about.

WW