Your opinon on skin softening

[jtsmith]

Anytime this question is raised it is always going to depend on the reason of the intended image.

Your shot shows more texture because it is an extreme close up and the light design. Perhaps a certain foundation would conceal some of the texture or shoot her with flat light. I am not saying showing texture of skin is bad.

She has good skin but not flawless. Your model in my opinion on this image presented will not be doing any close up beauty make up ads the way I see it presented here. There are some bumps and a dimple smoker line that some might frown on for close up work. I can see her in many other things worthy of modeling.

Fantasy, Glamour, Art, etc could have a reasonable amount of softening, if desired as long as it is done nicely and not what we see in so many cases. Nothing wrong with creating images in art form for an IMAGE Merit.

If it's designed for character or commercial/lifestyle then skin softening(blur) techniques are not what is usually desired. In other words, real life should result in real life.

Agencies have "go sees" for a reason.

So how much is too much, you ask?

Put the image itself in context. However you present it, for what it's for, will determine the best opinions towards a question like this.
J T

[DavidMoyle]

The problem we ran into with the "goddess" shots is that the bronzed make-up actually brought out the texture in her face when sunlight hit it. You should see the blue channel in some of these images, it looks like she has goose bumps in the mid tones. I had to blur the blue channel in some of them to tone it down, and the model has absolutely gorgeous skin in real life. But, I still wanted some real texture.

I dunno if I did it well or not?!

[jimmyd]

it's not just about sking softening or treatments, its about how the skin is treated. lately, if you're looking thru magazines and such, you'll see there's been, for instance, a greater emphasis on the use of diffusion glow types of softening rather than simply blurring. (maxim is a good example) a lot of this has to do with trends. a fair amount of what i do gets treated by a graphic designer before its use for whatever it gets used for. more often than not, there's more "treating" of the skin going on than i would have performed if i'm processing the images for my own, promotional use. also, the way you light the model is going to bear on this. i find myself lighting in ways that actually help the graphic designer use the skin treatment tools that will be used. i don't think there's a formula that says this much blur or diffuesion is okay, but not that much. it's all about "use" of the image.

[cclesue]

work and the end all goal is for the computer generated image to look "real". Kinda like Data on StarTrek, the antithesis of Spok. One wanted to be less and the other wanted to be more. Ever met a girl like that?
I like her the way she is.



"Traje de Luz". . . Suit of Light

[rjwarren]

Ron

A few months ago in PDN, a photo editor with a major magazine or ad agency said that if they saw ONE MORE image in a photographer's book of a model with plastic skin they were chucking the entire book right out the window. It's easy to overdo it and end up with something that doesn't look natural.

Something that JT pointed out - the lighting doesn't help that model in that image. Any time you have the light scrape across the skin at an angle it will show ANY imperfection. Beauty shots need to be evenly and completely lit to avoid exposing imperfactions. Any model might have been "exposed" in this lighting.

Bob

[rdavis]

Yeah, I'm starting to realize my lighting was part of the problem. Here's a couple with better lighting.

This is my favorite of the shoot.


This is more direct, but still has texture.

[Orchid]

Moisturize and sunblock EVERY DAY. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I would hope that the skin stuff goes like this-
Model doesnt want MUA to have too much to balance, blend and coverup to make her look good
MUA doesnt want the photographer to have to get TOO creative with angles and lighting to make the model look good.
Photographer wants to be able to press a button and get a beautiful image without HAVING to play with all of the cool functions of photoshop.

Of course, the fuzzy, surreal look has its place, as does a rough porous look.

If a picture is going in my portfolio that could get me jobs- I want people to see me- not what someone else can do with photoshop.

If the picture is going to my boyfriend or husband overseas in a care package- give me every lighting, photoshop and makeup technique and make me look as flawless and inhumanly beautiful as possible!!

That's my take. Im not a photographer, but i know what i like when i see it [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[peter_nelson]

I do NOT think it needs softening - I think she looks lovely.

I think many photographers here on GG use way too much softening and create images that look like they are CG simulations rather than real woman. Between that and the fake t**$ wouldn't it be cheaper for some photographers here to get a good macro lens and shoot Barbie dolls?

[rdavis]

I think you are dead on about how everyone feels. And about the final destintion of the images.

[moscato_images]

I like your image. The trick to learn with post-editing is to make skin smooth and soft, not blury and plastic-like. Bluring techniques do work, but only with other things involved like masks, blending modes and grain. I have seen some top magazines lately with some terrible editing. I always *sigh* when I see plastic skin or bad air brushing or an obvious body modification in post editing. I recently even saw the catchlights edited in the models eyes on a cover...on THE WRONG SIDE! All the light is from the left, the catch is in the right. Looked spooky to me.


-joshua [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]