Thread: Photoshop spinnoff

golly, now I can't even remember which thread I'm spinning off of (maybe the video thread?) but whatever it was has me curious now...
photoshopping dance photos seems to be demonized in some circles, while others (JShane?) have pointed out that it's no different than what we do applying make up, push up bras & hair pieces.

My hubby thinks even make up & hair coloring are tantamount to lying, while I see it as an aesthetic choice similar to the ones he makes every morning when he gets dressed for work- presenting my desired image.

There is so much out there- good photoshopping that helps enhance an image and folks who prefer minimal or no retouching, but also photoshop in the hands of folks without an eye for artistic balance; excessive perfectionist/delusional pride leading to photos that look nothing like the original model; artistic exaggeration for creative purposes...
How do you tell the difference? What do you consider over the top? What do you prefer?

I am also very curious about seeing some of the over the top &/or 'artistic' examples ..g.:

I have two schools of thought on this:

For Photojournalism, I do not believe in photoshopping any of the subjects. It should only be used to correct color/contrast. I sort of feel the same way for editorial content/images as well. However, there is a copy editor, so it makes sense that there is a photo editor.

Second, it makes sense to photoshop for advertising/promotional images as long as it doesn't go overboard. If the photographer is good enough, then there shouldn't be much that needs to be done. However, I am a strong proponent of softening pores and wrinkles on the face. Because they are so aging and you might not notice them in real life, but on a picture they can really pop--and it the wrong way.

I would also like to say that being a good photographer and a good retoucher are two different skills. There aren't many people who are both. In large corporations (ie Playboy), they have both a photog team and a retouching team. I've had a 'tog who sucks in Photoshop, but mostly because she is trying to overcorrect her bad images to begin with. I, OTH, am not really a photog, yet I am decent at retouching...

OK, that was a ramble and a half...

make up just brings out what you have, unless you are doing "character" make up .i do not know how to post such on here, and would never expose anothers odd advertising, but the funny thing is, the biggest offender of photoshop here, also posts pics from live gigs not altered...you can only see it, a blind person can see the differance !

My rule is simple: Truth in advertising.

The photos should not mislead the client into thinking the dancer is younger, thinner, bigger-breasted, or whatever than what she actually is. I think it's fine to fix the lighting, clean up the background, get rid of a pimple, etc. so long as the customer doesn't feel you've misled him/her when you show up to do the gig.

What Shira said.

Deborah

Some dancers go waaaay overboard and end up looking like wax dolls rather than people.

Accidentally posted twice - oops!

I'm a big believer in using PS to create a cleaner, prettier photo. My boyfriend, who takes most of the pictures you see on my website, tends to use it mostly to punch up colors, sharpen my bling, adjust lighting, and create cool effects with contrast. All of these adjustments go toward creating a beautiful overall image with a "magazine" appearance. Most images we see are enhanced, whether you're looking at a picture of an apple, an Acura TL or Halle Berry. Thus, the human eye gravitates toward a sharp, clear image.

As for skin? Most photographers will lightly smooth the pores, as Andalee suggested. I've never met a photographer who doesn't touch up the skin - and this goes for models with perfect complexions, too. It's par for the course. I've watched my boyfriend alter my own complexion. I have good skin, so the whole process doesn't take more than 10 seconds. The common philosophy is that digital cameras can actually magnify pores, fine lines, forehead shine and blemishes that your average human might not notice in person. By this token, digital photos can be just as misleading when they're untouched! JShane described PhotoShop as an equalizer and that's a great way to put it.

Of course, when I say I'm an advocate of PhotoShop, I don't mean using PS to erase wrinkles completely, shave off 20 lbs or give yourself a digital boob job. And people often tell me I'm prettier in person than in my photos - so go figure

Again, I'll volunteer an example from my own port:



This is an example of PS being used for artistic effect. My boyfriend took this picture on our trip to Vegas and wasn't very happy with the color balance. It came out too white and overexposed, because it was very bright that day. So he made it black and white and pumped up the contrast for that sexy, high-key look. I'm sure he also applied some sort of filter to make it sorta gritty, too, and added a gradient from the top left corner to fade it out. Just goes to show, you can use PS to turn even technical errors into pleasing design elements.

And I had spent 4 hours in the spa that day, so damn skippy that's a natural glow ..g.:

I do minimal touch-up work to people. I tend to fix more backgrounds than subjects. When I do touch-up subjects, it's usually for things like wedding portraits. For instance, the last wedding I did was outside and very hot. Part of the touch-up I did on the portraits of the bride and groom involved removing the noticeable beads of sweat. It's really the small things that make a difference. Heinous changes just get freakish. (By the way, I the only boob job I have given in Photoshop involved a reduction.)

As far as my dance photos go, I have only shot live events. Because of the quantity of photos, editing them down to a manageable number is difficult enough without retouching. But then, I don't get paid for those photos.

The photo really needs to be good to begin with. As a graphic designer, I have to use bad photos that I have no choice about and, sometimes, heavy Photoshopping is the only way to make the photos workable.

On a side note, look for the book "Skin: The Complete Guide to Digitally Lighting, Photographing, and Retouching Face and Bodies" by Lee Varis. I wish I actually had the time to go through the book cover-to-cover. It's an interesting peek into retouching and it has photos of bellydancers, too.

well, it's all about to find good retoucher with amazing PS skills! someone like this:

other examples of "no, thanks..."






PhotoshopDisasters

those last photos are great. LOL... I use Photoshop alot, but not all dancer related. I am a pro photographer and I use photoshop mainly to adjust the exposure, white balance, contrast if it needs a boost. I am not perfect and cannot always get the pics perfect from the start. but I also like dramatic pics and high contrast stuff that I can only achieve by adding extra actions in Photoshop. I will also sometimes boost saturation. I like more artsy types of pics.
here is an example:

Woodland Willow Photography » Photoshop edits #2

Woodland Willow Photography » Photoshop edits #1

I have been known to reduce muffin top b/c not all poses are flattering and can cause bulges around the bra top ,ect so I will eliminate that stuff. Brighten the eyes, occasionally soften the skin.

[QUOTE=shimmygoddess;548151
I have been known to reduce muffin top b/c not all poses are flattering and can cause bulges around the bra top ,ect so I will eliminate that stuff. Brighten the eyes, occasionally soften the skin.[/QUOTE]

I do that as well. I also bling up the costume more so there is more sparkle. I also brighten when needed if the lighting was great or it needs more contrast. I never go overboard unless I want arty.

Wow. The "no, thanks" photos are crazy. Love the shadow. Bwhahahaha.

note to self- watch the shadows...
btw- I didn't start this thread as voyeurism, I really am curious as to where folks draw the line & what the difference is if you consider it 'artistic liberties'- some of the recent magazine covers that look more like anime cartoons might qualify, but I've seen outrage spouted over some of these too.

what a great thread! i HAVE known people who have 'doctored' themselves in pics, dancers AND actors (one gave himself killer pecs he didn't own :p), and wondered why they didn't get jobs when they show up to a gig/audition......

photoshop is a great tool for losing temporary blemishes (pimples, bruises), softening lines deepened by lighting (but not visible in face to face in natural light) or enhancing an image, by cleaning up sharpness, color correction, halo effects or 'bling' effects for artistic purposes, as long as it doesnt alter the person that shows up at a show/audition/meet/go-see.

as many have said here, truth in advertising....i guess photo shop is like make up on a great face...enhance, not alter..