Manipulation of portraits

[magumi]

Recently, some friends have asked me to take their portraits for their

web site presentation. To achieve the look I want with minimum

Photoshop hassle (I have never worked with PS before), I shot the

portraits on traditional B&W film, using window light and a large

envelope to fill in the shadows, and had them scanned on a local Fuji

Frontier machine. I wanted only to resize them, using a trial version

of PS Elements, but could not resist playing with the software a

little bit. It seemed very easy to manipulate not only the tonality

and local contrast, but also the entire appearance of the models. I am

attaching some samples for comparison.

 

My question is: When shooting on assignment, do you prefer to

improve/change the appearance of your clients in Photoshop to sell

more pictures? Of course, I am talking about manipulation beyond the

common pre-exposure and darkroom tricks. In the samples hereinbellow,

the more subtle changes include changing the size of pupil or the

shape of the mouth.<div></div>

[magumi]

Alternative version 1<div></div>

[magumi]

Alternative version 2<div></div>

[emre]

I make a few variations, toss the ones I do not like, and let the subject/client pick among the rest. If indecision is a problem, forget about the pictures for a while and try again later.

<p>

<img src="http://www.ece.neu.edu/students/esafak/photos/photo.net/In-front-of-her-apartment-019a.jpg">

[magumi]

Indecision is not a problem. The pictures I posted are just samples of the type of manipulation I was able to achieve after the first two or three hours with Photoshop so as to illustrate the issue. I referred to the fact that slightly enlarged pupils or slightly different shape of mouth can change the entire appearance of the person, making him/her appear more (or less} attractive. Such manipulations are not easily replicable in traditional darkroom and yet they might help commercial photographer sell more pictures, albeit at the expense of the "veracity" of the photograph. As you know, wrinkles or pimples can be partially removed by pre-exposure methods as well, which is why I did not mention them.

 

To refer to my samples, in the first alternative picture I enlarged the pupil, removed all wrinkles, changed the shape of the mouth and added "wind" to the hair. I wanted to achieve a slick, disturbing appearance - a person, who looks like he is in love (enlarged pupils), but has not facial expression and tightly shut lips (sign of agression). In the second alternative, I went for the rough, "old miner's" look, with narrow eyes, constricted pupils and coarse skin.

 

Obviously, these pictures hardly flatter the model, but it is easy to imagine doing a manipulation that would. After all, this is how the entire fashion industry works, isn't it. My question was whether this is a common practice in the commercial portrait/wedding photography as well.

[fotografz]

The original is nice. The 1st alteration is an artistic interpretation, and a matter of

personal opinion. The second appears to be transparently obvious PS manipulation... a

mistake as opposed to altering the character of the subject.

 

PS is a wonderful tool to make subtile corrections in portrait work. But it requires learning

things like the History Brush or how to work in Layers, etc.. It's best to get it right when

shooting. Yet, we all know that is not always possible, especially when shooting candids

like those so popular for weddings these days.

 

If shooting on assignment, I find the subject (say a Bride) has a big pimple on her forehead

then PS is essential. Same for portraits. I just shot a portrait where the subject wanted to

remove his glasses. It left deep lines in his face where the glasses rested. The Healing

Brush in PS-CS was invaluable in fixing that flaw.

 

I have used layers to do things like swapping heads in group portraits where I had 10

minutes to get the shot and in the best image one of the 15 people had their eyes closed.

 

I've used Liquify to slightly open a persons eyes caught in mid blink, or to reduce a double

chin. But all of these require knowing what it should look like in the first place... which

comes with experience or artistic ability. I was a trained artist, illustrator and painter

before undertaking PS work. It was easier for me than it is for others who can't draw very

well.

 

As far as selling techniques... just place yourself in the shoes of the buyer. Say a bride is

looking over proofs and her new Mother-In-Law's chin looks like a pack of hot dogs...

think she'll buy a print of that? I've fixed more double chins than a Plastic Surgeon : -)

[magumi]

Thank you for your answer, Marc. I know your work and bow to your expertise.

 

"I've fixed more double chins than a Plastic Surgeon : -)"

 

This is what I suspected. :-)

 

To me, the first alternative version looks more manipulated, but maybe it is just because I spent so little time on the second one. I used just the "burn" tool to darken the cheeks, "sharpen" tool to enhance the uneveness of skin and the "liquidify" tool to close the eyes a little bit.

 

By the way, this was my first formal portrait "session". I had the models sit by the window, in front of the wall, my wife held an envelope to fill in the shadows on the opposite side of the face, I told the model how to sit and where to look, took three pictures (formidable, smiling and one as a backup) and moved onto another model. It was fun.

 

I attach the version that I intend to use.<div></div>

[derek_stanton2]

Hi, Martin.

 

The fellow in your third version appears diseased. Too much manipulation, and it's

just unflattering. The first two are fine. I think, though, that in your last attempt,

there's an apparent mismatch between the lack of skin texture on the face, versus the

neck area. If you do the face, don't neglect the other areas of exposed skin.

 

Regarding a 'philosophy' about retouching photographs.... you probably won't find

one. There's no consensus. 'Manipulation' is fine. The context of usage will probably

determine how far you go or what you do. Also, gender and/or age usually play a

role. Photographs of men are more likely to have less 'obvious' work done on skin.

The skin texture is morely like to show....

 

You shouldn't feel guilty about manipulating images digitally. Photographers have

been altering photographs way before computers were used. Even those Avedon

shots from the American West, which look to be honest, simple, direct b+w

photographs have been 'manipulated' with significant, intricate darkroom dodge/burn

techniques. The limits are really only imposed by the photographer/client/audience.

My personal belief, though, is that one should never notice the retouching, if you

strive for 'natural' portraiture. I have a bit of distaste for obvious digital creations,

although there are always exceptions. Klinko and Indrani, for example:

 

http://www.markusklinko-indrani.com/photoGallery

[mark pav]

Like Marc, I've retouched photos at clients' requests, or after guessing their preferences. There's nothing wrong with it, for the most part. I mean, you're not using the pics for blackmail are ya? ;-)

 

Besides, many professional studios will spend an hour or so putting make-up on people and fixing their hair before a shoot. What's the difference? One is done prior to the shot and one is done afterwards.

[fotografz]

Martin, the last one looks plastic. I can even see the selected area.

 

Here's a tip I've shared before... learn to work in layers. After you select an area, feather it,

12 to 15 pixels, and then hit command J which will create a layer of the selected area only.

To see the layer click on Layers in the window portion of your PS menu at the top, and a

window will open to show the selected area as a layer along with the base image. At the

top of that window is a selection opacity slider,. After you work on the area, you can blend

it with the layer below to preserve some of the actual skin texture.

[magumi]

I guess my question was a litte naive. Yet, I still continue to be amazed at how small a change can transform the appearance of a person. This is why the poor fellow looked like a wax figure - the smoothing of skin was way overdone, though I did not realize that when I posted the picture.

 

Marc, thanks for the great tip. I works much better this way, although it is also more time consuming. I won't be posting more pictures of my friend, or else I might risk loosing his friendship :), but since this my first scanned film, let me show you another portrait from the roll.<div></div>