When and how did retouchers start making people look like androids?

<p>I apologize in advance if this is a newbie question, but I am a newb...sort of. I shot film, mostly fine art, since 1985 and last few years I've been selling very little if any fine art at all, but am making some good extra money doing portraits, so I've been studying a lot of professional and not-so-professional work. I have been looking especially on Model Mayhem, which seems to cover the entire range of skill and creativity. I especially find Photo of the Day...interesting.<br>

So when did retouchers start turning models into androids? What is the software that does this? Sometimes I look at a photograph and I think: 'this might no longer be a photograph; it's now something else, like a painting perhaps'. <br>

What is going on here?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Jerry </p>

<p>It's called unrestrained--indiscriminate and clumsily unsubtle--use of the Surface Blur filter. I make it clear to people that I am *not* going to make them look like they have plastic/reptilian skin. I explain that (a) as a professional I use sharp lenses, and I'm not going to make their results look like they came from some crappy rubbish and (b) I *like* skin texture, scars and flaws--they are what gives us character, individuality and a history. That keeps me from getting some commissions--but I don't give a flying-you-know-what. They wanna pay for that crap, they can go find someone--cheap--who'll do it for them.<br>

<br /> (My policy when doing portfolio shoots for people is that if it's a temporary thing--a pimple or something--I'll retouch it. But if it's a permanent feature, it's gonna stay...although I might ameliorate the prominence of it, just a bit.)<br /> <br />My hero is a certain obstinate West Coast American photographer who once hung a sign in his studio window which read, "Edward Weston, Photographer, Unretouched Portraits."</p>

<p>When did landscape photographers start making waterfalls look silky smooth? It's unreal, maybe it's no longer a photograph, like a painting. What is going on there? </p>

<p>And when did hipsters decide that producing edgy street photos with their Leicas is only authentic if they use special effects film that turns the full-spectrum light that enters the camera's lens into mere black and white images? How long has that bizarre affectation been going on? What's going on here? </p>

<p>Jeff I see your point, and it's a good one. I find the blurry waterfall photos cliche, and I think they've been cliche for decades. Maybe what I am seeing here is the formation of a new cliche in (portrait) photography. Maybe what makes me uncomfortable is that it seems to me that the urge to iron out all of the supposed imperfections also erase the subtle characteristics that make us differentiated human beings. I find myself siding with Bernard because in my limited experience with portraits, I only eliminate what is temporary: pimples, odd hairs, cold sores, stains on clothes, etc. The irregularity of human beings is one of the charms that I enjoy in the appearance of human beings. <br>

Furthermore, texture is a powerful element of photography, and when you iron it out with android-making, something critical is lost. But I don't deny anyone to say this is an artform, it is certainly an artform.</p>

<p>Wherever bad taste exists, you will find no shortage of people willing to fill the demand. If you read old retouching manuals, you will see that excessive retouching has been around right from the beginning of portrait photography. The early guys prided themselves on being able to wipe out all vestiges of skin texture, while adding shadows and modeling artificially. Some of the early work much resembles the clothing dummies one finds in department stores.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some of the early work much resembles the clothing dummies one finds in department stores.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clothing dummies are a lot of fun to shoot, too, but if you can't find one, I think it's an interesting idea to turn a human into one. That seems more interesting artistically than just trying to depict "reality."</p>

<p>As Bambi Cantrell said, beauty lies in the eyes of the checkbook holder. Sometimes I am surprised at how much those with the best skin want done or how little those with the worst want. </p>

Herpes simplex virus, cause of "cold sore", is forever! Cold sore may become infrequent but is not temporary.

<p>Parvv some clothing stains may be temporary, or permanent but I still PS them out.</p>

<p>There is software like for example Portrait Professional, that aims to simplify the optimisation of portraits. Use it with care, and things like perfectly fine. Dial the volume up to 11, and you're well into plastic paradise. No different from badly done HDR images with outerworldy tone curves, the already mentioned overdone cliché use of neutral density filters, and basically most other activities where the volume knob really should be limited to 10, yet comes with 11.</p>

<p>These are matters of taste for which we will not all be able to agree. I don't like plasticized portraits much either, but for many fashion shots it seems appropriate given the models are really just being living clothing dummies - in this sense they are not portraits in the sense many of us mean.</p>

<p>Could it be that it started when androids started taking over the retouching business?</p>

How do you know they are not androids?

Do you have anything against this long oppressed group of people's or machines?

LOL

<p>I think it started somewhere around forties, or maybe a tad bit before that - with the early hollywood style, heavily retouched skin. The main difference being, back then you'd use pencil over the negative, while today a tablet over the photoshop does the trick faster and better.</p>

<p>I use Frequency Separation for most of my fashion and style portrait shoots. The trend amongst beauty photographers have been to use the technique to create a sort of plasticky skintone that is loved by so many magazines. Because there is a demand for it, that is why many use it.</p>