How does her skin look?

[chuasam]

I don't normally talk technical but what lens did you use? I love the swirly bokeh.

 

[DanOstergren]

Also it doesn't get too bogged down in dodging and burning which in my view yields images that are ten a penny.

I believe its about the skill and taste of the person using the dodge and burn technique, never the technique itself.

 

[Black_Square]

Also it doesn't get too bogged down in dodging and burning which in my view yields images that are ten a penny.

I believe its about the skill and taste of the person using the dodge and burn technique, never the technique itself.

I see images of men/women that have been subject to either frequency separation editing or dodge and burn on the front cover of pretty much every magazine. This work is being carried out by the best retouching houses on the planet. Their work is excellent. The point I am making is that it is everywhere. I personally don't like it.

 

[DanOstergren]

Also it doesn't get too bogged down in dodging and burning which in my view yields images that are ten a penny.

I believe its about the skill and taste of the person using the dodge and burn technique, never the technique itself.

I see images of men/women that have been subject to either frequency separation editing or dodge and burn on the front cover of pretty much every magazine. This work is being carried out by the best retouching houses on the planet. Their work is excellent. The point I am making is that it is everywhere. I personally don't like it.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, and to an extent I agree. I see plenty of images on magazine covers that I know are retouched to complete perfection, whether by dodging and burning or frequency separation. I personally believe in drawing a line as to where to stop when it comes to retouching, and in many cases I think dodging and burning can take a photo from being good to outstanding, if only it's been retouched with good taste. When retouched to complete perfection though, the person becomes unreal and unrelatable. When retouched with taste, even the best eyes shouldn't be able to tell it was retouched.

Within the last few years Peter Lindbergh did a photo shoot with Kate Moss, where he decided not to retouch her. The photos were beautiful and she looks flawless, however this was due to a combination of makeup, a high angle of light to highlight and sculpt her in all the right places to minimize or hide flaws and enhance her beauty (just as dodging and burning would do), a black and white conversion that made skin tones blend better together, as well as a backdrop that harmonized with the skin tones after the black and white conversion. I personally feel that retouching begins mainly with the lighting and then a few other clever tricks, and if done right it could be argued that a person has been retouched with different tools, yet with the same results as tasteful dodging and burning. Even a reflector can achieve the same effect as dodging in post.

I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to argue with you, just having a discussion with you. I feel that we should never fool ourselves into believing that if a photo hasn't been retouched in post production doesn't mean it hasn't been retouched in different ways at the moment of exposure to achieve the same polished look that dodging and burning would give it.

 

[TamiAz]

I don't normally talk technical but what lens did you use? I love the swirly bokeh.

I used my Nikon 105mm. I actually bought it for macro work, but I find that I use it more for portraits.

 

[Black_Square]

Also it doesn't get too bogged down in dodging and burning which in my view yields images that are ten a penny.

I believe its about the skill and taste of the person using the dodge and burn technique, never the technique itself.

I see images of men/women that have been subject to either frequency separation editing or dodge and burn on the front cover of pretty much every magazine. This work is being carried out by the best retouching houses on the planet. Their work is excellent. The point I am making is that it is everywhere. I personally don't like it.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, and to an extent I agree. I see plenty of images on magazine covers that I know are retouched to complete perfection, whether by dodging and burning or frequency separation. I personally believe in drawing a line as to where to stop when it comes to retouching, and in many cases I think dodging and burning can take a photo from being good to outstanding, if only it's been retouched with good taste. When retouched to complete perfection though, the person becomes unreal and unrelatable. When retouched with taste, even the best eyes shouldn't be able to tell it was retouched.

Within the last few years Peter Lindbergh did a photo shoot with Kate Moss, where he decided not to retouch her. The photos were beautiful and she looks flawless, however this was due to a combination of makeup, a high angle of light to highlight and sculpt her in all the right places to minimize or hide flaws and enhance her beauty (just as dodging and burning would do), a black and white conversion that made skin tones blend better together, as well as a backdrop that harmonized with the skin tones after the black and white conversion. I personally feel that retouching begins mainly with the lighting and then a few other clever tricks, and if done right it could be argued that a person has been retouched with different tools, yet with the same results as tasteful dodging and burning. Even a reflector can achieve the same effect as dodging in post.

I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to argue with you, just having a discussion with you. I feel that we should never fool ourselves into believing that if a photo hasn't been retouched in post production doesn't mean it hasn't been retouched in different ways at the moment of exposure to achieve the same polished look that dodging and burning would give it.

I agree that good lighting, makeup etc is important

Also it doesn't get too bogged down in dodging and burning which in my view yields images that are ten a penny.

I believe its about the skill and taste of the person using the dodge and burn technique, never the technique itself.

I see images of men/women that have been subject to either frequency separation editing or dodge and burn on the front cover of pretty much every magazine. This work is being carried out by the best retouching houses on the planet. Their work is excellent. The point I am making is that it is everywhere. I personally don't like it.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, and to an extent I agree. I see plenty of images on magazine covers that I know are retouched to complete perfection, whether by dodging and burning or frequency separation. I personally believe in drawing a line as to where to stop when it comes to retouching, and in many cases I think dodging and burning can take a photo from being good to outstanding, if only it's been retouched with good taste. When retouched to complete perfection though, the person becomes unreal and unrelatable. When retouched with taste, even the best eyes shouldn't be able to tell it was retouched.

Within the last few years Peter Lindbergh did a photo shoot with Kate Moss, where he decided not to retouch her. The photos were beautiful and she looks flawless, however this was due to a combination of makeup, a high angle of light to highlight and sculpt her in all the right places to minimize or hide flaws and enhance her beauty (just as dodging and burning would do), a black and white conversion that made skin tones blend better together, as well as a backdrop that harmonized with the skin tones after the black and white conversion. I personally feel that retouching begins mainly with the lighting and then a few other clever tricks, and if done right it could be argued that a person has been retouched with different tools, yet with the same results as tasteful dodging and burning. Even a reflector can achieve the same effect as dodging in post.

I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to argue with you, just having a discussion with you. I feel that we should never fool ourselves into believing that if a photo hasn't been retouched in post production doesn't mean it hasn't been retouched in different ways at the moment of exposure to achieve the same polished look that dodging and burning would give it.

I agree that the extent to this editing is influenced by the quality of the shoot (lighting/makeup etc.). Nevertheless, in my opinion the industry is saturated with too many images which have been subject to the standard retouching process of D&B/FS etc. 99% of this editing is readily identifiable, regardless of the quality of the retoucher. I personally do not appreciate this type of work, which is unfortunate given the degree to which it exists.

 

[chuasam]

I don't normally talk technical but what lens did you use? I love the swirly bokeh.

I used my Nikon 105mm. I actually bought it for macro work, but I find that I use it more for portraits.

I absolutely love your food photography and still life.

 

[TamiAz]

I don't normally talk technical but what lens did you use? I love the swirly bokeh.

I used my Nikon 105mm. I actually bought it for macro work, but I find that I use it more for portraits.

I absolutely love your food photography and still life.

Thank you!