Lady in red

[Javier]

[rpcrowe]

Two comments about a really nice image:
1. The bed posts at the top of the image are distracting to me
2. I think that a bit of light to lift the shadows around her eyes would be nice

[xpatUSA]

Very nice composition, Javier. I am troubled a little by the apparent halo on her top lip.

Lady in Red ..."You look Wonderful Tonight" ... desde la canta por Clapton ...

[pschlute]

Nice composition. Lovely picture but agree with the above posts.

[DanK]

I agree but would add the comment I've made before: it's hard to tell at this low resolution, but it seems to me that the skin is overprocessed and looks unnaturally smooth, like plastic.

[lovelife65]

I appreciate the effort but I have to agree with Dan. When first looking I’m sorry to say I thought I was looking at a mannequin in a coffin. Apologize if that sounds rude but…. Her skin looks plastic.

[escape]

Actually Sharon I thought that as well. I saw it like a corpse in a coffin. There is a lot to support it. The pose with the hand on the heart, the scattered flowers, the body cradled in white. The expression is lifeless in my view. I don't know what the intended mood is for this image. On the technical side, it's a good image. Javier chooses to process skin in this way. That's often commented on his photos. I'm fine with that. In fact, it defines his work. I think it's an artistic choice on his part.

[Manfred M]

Javier chooses to process skin in this way. That's often commented on his photos. I'm fine with that. In fact, it defines his work. I think it's an artistic choice on his part.

I see a lot of photographers who are relatively new to portrait photography making the same mistake. I would not suggest that this is artistic choice per se, as in the portraiture world, this is viewed as using an inappropriate post-processing technique.

High end retouchers tend to try to preserve the pores on the skin and lower ones try to emulate them using a technique called "frequency separation". Removing skin temporary skin blemishes (pimples or dry skin) is done as a matter of course. Permanent markings (moles, birthmarks and scars) will depend on the client's wishes. Textureless skin is definitely frowned upon.

[Round Tuit]

I see a lot of photographers who are relatively new to portrait photography making the same mistake. I would not suggest that this is artistic choice per se, as in the portraiture world, this is viewed as using an inappropriate post-processing technique.

High end retouchers tend to try to preserve the pores on the skin and lower ones try to emulate them using a technique called "frequency separation". Removing skin temporary skin blemishes (pimples or dry skin) is done as a matter of course. Permanent markings (moles, birthmarks and scars) will depend on the client's wishes. Textureless skin is definitely frowned upon.

Sorry Manfred but Daniel has a point. It is obvious by now that Javier chooses to process the skin that way. Most of us seem to not like it but it is his choice. One can look to "high end retouchers, printers, artists, etc" for inspiration but if one chooses not to emulate them, it does not mean that they are making a mistake; any more that if they choose to ignore the "rule of third" or other dictate of the "in the know world".

[DanK]

I agree with Andre and Daniel. The plastic-like skin is not to my taste, and I think that Javier's portraits would be a lot stronger if he backed off the smoothing. However, it's a matter of taste. There are a great many highly successful artists, including photographers, who create work that isn't to my taste. And art history is full of examples of superb artists who faced opposition during their lives because they didn't do what the high end of the art world of the day demanded. I am a great fan of impressionism, for example, which was initially widely condemned by the rule-enforcers of the day.

One of the photographers whom I find most inspiring is Olivia Parker. The exception is her macro work. I see a lot of value in some shallow-depth-of-field macro work, even though I don't do it. Hers, however, is simply too shallow for me; I don't find it very interesting. Different tastes.

This is clear not only in the visual arts. Some of the most important musical artists earned themselves a place in the ranks fo the greats because they didn't follow the standard rules of the day--e.g., Gustav Mahler and Theolonius Monk.

So my bottom line for Javier is this: I personally think your work is strong in many respects, but I think it would be stronger if you left the skin somewhat more natural. if you disagree, ignore that suggestion.

[xpatUSA]

Going the other way, I am reminded of the introduction of Pointillism in the Arts.

I speculate that such artwork was none too popular at first.

Maybe one day most live models will be rendered with a plastic look, perhaps influenced by anime ...

[xpatUSA]

Going outside the pale of Adobe, Contrast By Detail Levels re: skin is discussed here:

http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Cont..._Detail_Levels

FWIW

There's more to skin than meets the eye ...

[Manfred M]

Sorry Manfred but Daniel has a point. It is obvious by now that Javier chooses to process the skin that way. Most of us seem to not like it but it is his choice. One can look to "high end retouchers, printers, artists, etc" for inspiration but if one chooses not to emulate them, it does not mean that they are making a mistake; any more that if they choose to ignore the "rule of third" or other dictate of the "in the know world".

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?

There is a fine line here; there are conventions in any art or craft and practitioners are generally expected to follow them. These conventions can and do sometimes change over time. 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, I and Javier, do not and if we break them, our work is viewed as having technical or compositional flaws.

In my view, Javier is breaking a significant convention on how people should be retouched.

[xpatUSA]

Going outside the pale of Adobe, Contrast By Detail Levels re: skin is discussed here:

http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Cont..._Detail_Levels

There's more to skin than meets the eye ...

This might also be of interest:

https://pixls.us/articles/skin-retou...let-decompose/
.

[DanK]

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?

There is a fine line here; there are conventions in any art or craft and practitioners are generally expected to follow them. These conventions can and do sometimes change over time. 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, I and Javier, do not and if we break them, our work is viewed as having technical or compositional flaws.

In my view, Javier is breaking a significant convention on how people should be retouched.

Expected by whom? Only allowed to? Javier is allowed to do whatever he wants.

I think it is helpful to point out conventions and (if there is one) the rationale for them. Often people accidentally violate them without understanding, and they can improve by learning these things. But if they knowingly want to violate them because they prefer the result, they should feel free to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

In my view, Javier is breaking a significant convention on how people should be retouched.

In most, if not all photographic topics, convention serves as guidance - especially helpful for beginners. To treat convention as a constriction to be placed on all who post images here is incorrect. By "constriction" I mean any comment from the cognoscenti which implies that the image is somehow lacking and should have been processed in accordance with convention, i.e. not as posted.

I agree with the view that if Javier wants to process skin thus, then that is OK, even though it is unconventional. And comments should not imply that his female model posts are incorrect, per se. Of course, liking or disliking on the grounds of convention is OK provided that error is not implied.

More power to his elbow!

[Round Tuit]

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, 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.

[Manfred M]

Expected by whom? Only allowed to? Javier is allowed to do whatever he wants.

I think it is helpful to point out conventions and (if there is one) the rationale for them. Often people accidentally violate them without understanding, and they can improve by learning these things. But if they knowingly want to violate them because they prefer the result, they should feel free to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, to a point Dan. CiC has always promoted itself as a learning site, so pointing out issues and discussing them is an important part of the site's mandate.

I quite agree that some of the conventions are not intuitively obvious, even to knowledgeable photographers. The answer is rarely a black & white one and often depends on the "clients" wishes.

I know a couple of former wedding / portrait photographers who had a successful international practice. One of the reasons that they got out of the business is that they were being asked to produce particular styles of photograph that were generally viewed as being "poor quality", An example would be the very washed out overexposed look that is still popular in some circles. They knew that they would lose their existing, repeat client base if they turned out poor quality work, so they wouldn't take jobs where clients tried to dictate quality that was not up to their standards.

I do feel comfortable in critiquing portraits, as I have had a lot of formal training in portraiture; both in the capture side as well as the post processing side. There are "norms" that are related to genre and purpose. The typical "retail" portrait has one set of loose standards (very little time spent on the image in post), the higher end portrait where there is a lot of work in post, beauty shots where the makeup artist often dictates what the client looks like, fashion where the model is just the prop that shows off the clothing (and should be as unobtrusive as possible).

There is a lot of variation in the industry in terms of how much retouching is applicable. There are some who advocate no retouching and prefer the natural look Many makeup artists feel that they haven't done their job properly is the photographer has to retouch their work, etc, etc. A lot of class time was spent discussing these topics which are often more philosophical than practical. Ultimately the client makes the call and the production team, which includes the photographer and the makeup artist need to meet client expectations.

Javier's recent shots have all been in the direction of "beauty", so a comment regarding plastic looking skin is warranted. The main issue I have dealing with Javier is that I have no idea as to how good his English is and if he understands some of the photographic terminology.

[escape]

When I was a kid, I was coloring in my coloring book with crayons. I decided to change it up, and I colored the page incorrectly, just to do it. I colored the sky green and the trees yellow with black leaves. My grandmother saw it and scolded me for not doing it correctly. It seems I had broken some rules. Don't color outside the lines; use the right colors. Even as a kid, I knew grandma's view was limited. Rules are necessary but you shouldn't let them limit your creativity.

[DanK]

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 could provide examples as well.

I enjoy going to art museums and looking for ways in which artists whose work I enjoy do or don't follow the "rules" we often hear discussed. Often the do, or do approximately, but often they don't, and it's sometimes clear why not. One recent example is that the Clark Institute has an exhibit now of the work of the Norwegian painter Nicolai Astrup. One of the "rules" he sometimes broke is the admonition not to put bright or high-contrast material at the edge of the image. For some of his images--given what he was painting--a sky that was considerably brighter than the rest of the image was essential, and it works. If I'm not mistaken--I'd have to go look--I believe Olivia Parker also sometimes broke that "rule" in some of her photos.

It's very often helpful to provide feedback based on these guidelines. I've learned a tremendous amount from criticisms of this sort. But in the end, most of us are trying to produce images that satisfy us, and those will differ.

I had an amusing incident last week showing the subjectivity of taste. A club I belong to is going to have an evening devoted to discussing B&W vs. color, and at my suggestion, the organizer asked people to submit a few pairs of photos, that is, each image processed both ways. One of the pairs I sent in was a night photo that was all about stark lines and shapes and that was nearly monochromatic in color anyway--mostly yellow to brown. It was obvious to me that it would be better in B&W. I didn't explain this when I sent in the pair. The organizer sent a thank-you email in which he said he was struck by how much more detail the color version brought out.