[normhead]

But pores are REAL!!!!! (Personally I prefer pics with real pores, but that's just me--others may have a different opinion and that's JUST FINE.)

Professional photographers know better.

[35mmfilmfan]

But pores are REAL!!!!! (Personally I prefer pics with real pores, but that's just me--others may have a different opinion and that's JUST FINE.)

Isn't that why they are called 'Por - traits' - they show the traits of the pores ? I do not intend to spend my time poring over portraits, looking for poor pores.

[RobA_Oz]

I use RawDigger for that task. Seeing the RAW data (voltages) and expressed as non-interpolated RGB and histograms can be very enlightening.

https://www.rawdigger.com/


Steve

You’re a mine of information, Steve. I hadn’t heard of this software before, but it looks interesting, and comes in three versions for various needs.

[Rondec]

But pores are REAL!!!!! (Personally I prefer pics with real pores, but that's just me--others may have a different opinion and that's JUST FINE.)

I don't like portraits that have blasted away every detail in a person's skin, but there is a big gap between that and touching up some blemishes/acne.

Anyway, the difference between an Instagram filter and a professional is the control the pro has over how much or little to touch up.

[RobA_Oz]

I don't like portraits that have blasted away every detail in a person's skin, but there is a big gap between that and touching up some blemishes/acne.

In some quarters, both of those are just called “makeup”.

Anyway, the difference between an Instagram filter and a professional is the control the pro has over how much or little to touch up.

When you spend most of your waking hours fixed to a screen, that probably doesn't much matter.

[normhead]

In some quarters, both of those are just called “makeup”.

Ya, it really disappointments him when his subjects come with makeup on. I remember my days when when I had to ask the ladies at Ryerson to come in and pose for me. They always came in with heavy make up. I guess the ladies don't really like to go with the skin imperfection thing. I also had to try and learn to retouch negatives to remove blemishes.

Showing other people with all their warts and blemishes is a violation of privacy, and makes the camera a weapon. Anyone can make their subject look bad. It takes real skill to take an image that is true to the subject that they will enjoy as much of the viewers. It's not just about what the photographer wants.

Not softening an image a bit in a portrait could be seen as a violation of trust, unless the subject was for-warned as to the brutal treatment their image was about to receive. I guess a portrait full of pores and blemishes shown to the subject before hand with the note "this is what I'm going for" and a signed model release made with full knowledge of the style of photography would absolve one of any guilt or responsibility.

That being said, Richard Avedon was very successful with this style, except, he had a lab tech who retouched and processed the heck out of every image. But sometime imperfections are part of the story.

It did work for some subjects.




Not for others


If you think you are as good as Avedon, go for it. Be prepared for some unhappiness, and sleep with your light on.

[Mooncatt]

It's not just about what the photographer wants.

In many respects, it is. A client can choose things like certain poses, outfits, etc, but a photographer should be chosen based on their work. If you are someone that wants a lot of smoothing, why would you pick a photographer that's shown to keep things rough in their portfolio? If you pick such a photographer, you have no right to be mad at their shooting and editing style because you presumably choose them for their style.

By the same token, a good photographer also knows when to turn down a client. If you're a rough style photographer and someone requests that you smooth out their skin, you should tell them to find someone else if you aren't confident in your ability to deliver on that request.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

But pores are REAL!!!!! (Personally I prefer pics with real pores, but that's just me--others may have a different opinion and that's JUST FINE.)

One of the major problems is in how people sharpen portraits. one of the more common errors is the clarity adjuster and also micro contrast adjustments this will put too much emphasis on the skins texture. If a person uses the better sharpening ideally sharpening based on how large the image is going to be viewed this will give the skin texture a more pleasing look.

Any setting that also include tone mapping is another problem that will emphasis a unnatural appearance

Often times its these adjustments that will lead people to more of a PS'd image that requires the additional use of of softening that leaves you with the plastic skin appearance

[normhead]

In many respects, it is

unless the subject was for-warned as to the brutal treatment their image was about to receive. I guess a portrait full of pores and blemishes shown to the subject before hand with the note "this is what I'm going for" and a signed model release made with full knowledge of the style of photography would absolve one of any guilt or responsibility.

Already dealt with.

[Wheatfield]

All digital photos are post processed.
This is one of those inescapable facts that some find to be an inconvenient truth.
So they pretend otherwise and say they don't post process.

I make whatever level of adjustment is required to get me as close to the desired result as possible. To do otherwise is to let others make decisions about what my work should look like, and I'm not prepared to give control of my work over to some anonomous code writer or a robot.

There is a level of sanctimony surrounding the I don't post process train of thought hat I find both amusing and sad.

[jgnfld]

Professional photographers know better.

True enough. But then I'm not trying to sell any portraits to the subject at hand. For my part, my own preference is to look at real people with lived-in faces. But as I said, that's just me--other views on the subject are just fine w/ me. It's just that I tend to look away from prints showing china doll faces. No interest there for me.

[normhead]

I make whatever level of adjustment is required to get me as close to the desired result as possible.

And in art shots, it's about what I can make of it, not what it originally looked like.
People looking for some kind of purity should be on another dimension.

There is a level of sanctimony surrounding the I don't post process train of thought hat I find both amusing and sad.

If you aren't good at post processing, try and make it undesirable. People who are better at it than me can produce some fantastic images and I applaud them for it. Just because they are better than me doesn't mean I need to try and drag them down to my level. I live within my own skin, I'm happy with what Ido, and for people with more skill, I'm happy for them too. For people happy with jpegs, that's good too. It saves time an energy.

What I don't understand is people who can't appreciate the work of others based on some arbitrary standard, like the imagined lack of processing in straight off the camera images. Those images are heavily processed, just not by you.

I'm not sure why results matter more than the processes used to achieve them is such difficult concept.

[jersey]

Exactly.... any time Ian and I agree on anything, odds are, it's right.

So tell me people , exactly which of the 20 or so jpeg settings preserves integrity?

It there a "preserve integrity" jpeg setting that I missed?

I think you missed the point. SOOC JPEG preserves integrity of image in a way that ensures agency that this is what you really photographed, not what you remember that you photographed or what some editor made of from what you tell him that you remembered. Not that this is best/exact/whatever look of scene. It probably is a big thing for news agencies who wants to escape from "you edited this photo".


Though I do not know how this translates to amateur or any other then news photography where image integrity is not required unless for personal reasons or style of photography.

[luftfluss]

Looks like the OP ran for the hills after the initial post.

[Mooncatt]

Already dealt with.

You advocated making a big to-do about it being the photographer's responsibility to inform a client about the "brutal treatment" (a subjective term, but I digress), complete with a model release stating such. I'm saying that isn't necessary, and the portfolio is warning enough. If a client wanting a bright and airy portrait goes to a photographer that has nothing but grungy looking photos in their portfolio, that is on the client for picking the wrong photographer. The photographer has no obligation to inform the client when such is already made clear by their portfolio.

Now if we were discussing new photographers, ones with lacking portfolios, or ones looking to try something new, then I would agree they need to be more up front, but not a pro/established photographer sticking to their usual style.