![]() ![]() ![]() Calling this a new trend ignores the qualities of photographs and remains indifferent to the below-par use of the tools. However, the misuse or even abuse of the tool, no matter how many practices it, does not make it the new normal. I have no problem with extensive editing of photographs, so my position is not of a purist. It is not only not normal, but it also is not photographic. With the blessing of competition judges, the use of this kind of filter and home-brew variations gradually increased to the point that many now consider it “normal.” Friends, there is nothing normal about it at all. The filter indiscriminately selects the skin and blurs it to the nth degree, creating what I started calling electroluminescent plasma skin. I tested one such filter made by Kodak at the request of a friend and got horrified by the results. Or one can buy a “filter” plugin for Photoshop and let it decide what to do. When used properly, this method can still provide compelling results, but one must have the vision and the patience to learn and apply the tools. Those with some skills in editing software like Photoshop started using layers that combined a slightly blurred layer with a normal photograph to imitate the look of the soft-focus lenses or filters. Filters Can Go OverboardĪfter the advent of digital photography, things got a bit out of hand. Of course, there were filters used in front of normal lenses that provided comparable results. Those who could afford used dedicated soft-focus lenses that provided a gauzy look to the photograph, diminishing major details but never eliminating them. These tools ranged from careful lighting to nylon women’s hosiery stretched over the lens. So, where does this “trend” come from? Before the advent of digital photography photographers used other tools to enhance the look of the models, celebrities they photographed. Do they look like someone’s skin to you? Do you see any skin texture, which at this magnification should look like the Lunar surface? Look at the following patches, taken from two separate photographs after enlarging them ten times. To see some samples of this sort of portrait editing, see the PSA exhibition acceptances, medal winners this year, last year, and quite likely next year. One must apply clear reasoning to avoid falling victim to fallacies and use better tools to yield better photographs. Like its logical cousin, it may appear quite logical or acceptable in the absence of sound foundation logic, or sound photo editing workflow. Poor technique, when accepted by many people can give the illusion of being right or being a new “trend.” However, a close inspection of the photographs and what the master portrait editors, like David Cuerdon, do to edit their model photographs will make it abundantly clear that texture-free skin is a fallacy. I have also challenged the PSA to be more diligent on what they implicitly or explicitly promote. I have written about the model photographs with electroluminescent skin with razor-sharp eyes and eyelashes and made a presentation ( Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) on how to edit portraits for pleasing and plausible soft focus results.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |