Do you guys like photoshopped models

[beck images]

As Daz said, we are in the fantasy business. I would be very surprised if the majority of images are not photoshoped to some degree. I am not talking about altering body shape but general image adjustment. Good togs get the right lighting in the first place but even the best ones I know, make even a small adjustment to levels to even the set. Unless you are going for the look of my boyfriend took these pics of me, which is not something I don't cater for or am interested in. If we are dealing with reality, porn wouldn't be that sexy, unless you're into doucheing and guys having wood problems, so its fantasy & escapism most punters are after.
Daz mentioned he didn't like the look of Twistys or Mac & Bumble, but as they are in the top thousand sites in the world, there's an awful lot who are. It also becomes a calling card so that their images are recognisable. Take a look at killergram's images, their shopped style is very distinctive whether you like it or not.
I provide images to publications in raw & jpg, how they adjust them is up to them, but they all do.
Plus I've seen things in pics which ruin them for me.... Price labels on the bottom of shoes, a naff plug socket or wires. Also I've just sold a set of pics to Penthouse with a model who has a playboy tattoo. Do you think they'll let that stay in? Playboy tatts are a pet hate of mine lol.
It comes down to the market you're in, if it's amateur, fine, anything else its gonna get done.

[Benson_Media]

It depends on the context.

I just photoshopped Tigerr's new gallery to give it a fashion magazine look to be a contrast to the crude 'in and out' of the content. I hope it works.

But regards our Petgirls content we usually show the reality. Only photoshop when desperately needed.

On another point. When I see excessive photoshop such as this I'm always suspicious:

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=5&i=114436&t=114436

Over the top photoshopping usually hides all kinds of hideous defects.

As a producer I expect the model to wear concealer for eye bags etc..I don't expect to have to do it for in post via PS.

[kiNky erOtica]

The only thing i do is lighten any photos i don't think are light enough. I shoot in vivid on my nikon. But how others get that serious punch out of the camera with no photoshop i still can't get it right, i'll keep trying.

I wouldn't plastic face a model because it looks crap and takes far too long to edit 100's of shots. Some US porn mags look plain silly with perfect plastic skin.

[SpannerProductions]

Hi, Hope you guys dont mind me adding my opinion , I havent done much yet as I am so new to the whole industry I wouldnt want to rock anybodys boat.
However,

I think surely it just depends on how the pic has origionally turned out....if by using a nominal amount of tweaking here and there , overall improves the shot without altering the content etc - surely no harm , the comment about easily missed things at the time, like marks on a wall, unsightly plugs ( maye even a minor blemish such as a spot or two) - then thats ok, maybe even if you can add a little extra light or shading or contrast, colour etc.

I do agree though that changing the shape of the model, making the skin look flawless etc seems a bit too much.If you end up having to change the entire picture, pick a better one !!!!!!!

Please dont slate me too much - its just an opinion on a subject I need to know more about if I'm serious about moving on in the industry.

[Alexandra]

Well it's better than this:

[IMG]http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2179/090617j.jpg[/IMG]

I think you should keep your pathetic, snide comments to yourself...

BTW, the US company who are a bit bigger than your one-man-band operation + 1 slave. Who I've signed to work with later this year doesn't think my pictures are suspicious.

Have a good day! !happy!

Alexandra Cat

[Ron T. Storm]

Hi Spanner,

No one should slate you at all. I think you have a valid point. I personally do remove some small blemishes. One time I removed a 'blemish' and the model asked me what I had done with her beauty spot. Whoops.

Stormchild69

[SpannerProductions]

Thanks stormchild,

Mucking about with a similar type of software when trying to sort out some initial "intro " pics for my other half .Storm. - I managed somehow to put an extra eye in the shot - turning a negative into a positive , she can always send it in if someone is looking to do a female cyclops porno. !laugh!

(if she see's this blog, i am so dead..................)

[SimonD]

Good topic.

I'm not a fan of photoshopping girls by any means, one of the reasons I got into photography was I loved the amateur market where honesty was key, real girls as they come, over glossy porn never did anything for me.

It's great to see that's how girls out and about in the street or bars look rather than some unnatainable glossy supermodel, but that's my thing, each to their own and each has a big market.

There are always contradictions though, model choice is one, I look for girls that essentially don't need airbrushing to fuck and minimal tattoos, slimmish girls etc.... (I will stop there as I'm struggling to word this and make my point without offending!)

Photoshop has it's place in the industry if that's the market it's aimed at, as long as it's not overdone, simple spot removal etc. without painting over the whole skin can be a good thing, in fact for my studio portfolios and weddings etc I do photoshop spots and blemishes, I'm just cautious not to loose the reality look.

Sure there are plenty of sets I have shot that WOULD have benefitted with a little photoshopping, but we choose to remain consistant to the 100% natural policy, and strangely even had feedback that they liked the spanking bruises one model had!

Overblown lighting is one of my pet hates, again it's a personal preference but it appears to me as poor lighting rather than creative, if I am setting up and cannot clearly see the skin texture I consider I fucked up and either tweak it or change the lighting setup.

.........

The more I prattle on the more I realise this is a complex topic, there is no right or wrong and it's all down to the market you shoot for, let the customer decide, I'm just fortunate that the market I shoot for likes the honest look as I do, but if I HAD to photoshop I would.

And as a final contradiction, I am still learning and who knows how I will be in a few years, somebody once left me some hurtful feedback a few years ago "your lighting is flat and you have killed the shadows" at the time I was proud to kill every shadow, time and experience has taught me his feedback was smack on! - live n learn I say.

Cheers
Simon

[Benson_Media]

Hi Simon

Good comments.

But from time to time I bore folks with my technical setup or workflow for a particular shot...not that you'd be a bore, but would you care to share your formula for say picking up skin texture?

i know that requires good lenses so I'm interested to hear what you use.

Cheers,

Simon

[SimonD]

Hi Simon

I've been asked this before, sounds daft but I don't really have a formula, experience & instinct tell me where and what height to put the main light take a shot and examinine it then tweak either the aperture or light power/position accordingly, exposure on the model is the main thing, background is secondry for me, if the light drops off and I have no room to backlight then so be it, works for me.

I suppose if I put it in a formula:
Place light - place model - test shot - tweak or reposition - test shot examine fine detail - tweak - tweak - tweak (I tweak a lot much to the boredom of the model!)

Lens wise, your right it plays a big part, I mainly use a Canon 24~105 f4 L series, works in most situations.

I've been asked to teach but I think I would look a twat as I can't explain instinct:
Me:
"You put the main light here and use a diffused brolly"
Student:
"Why?"
Me:
"Fuck Knows!"
!nerd!