Photoshelter is hosting a webinar featuring retoucher Kristina Sherk this week, and to advertise the webinar they posted an animated gif showing before and after Sherk got her hands on the image. I was shocked, as Sherk not only easily erased 10 years off the model, but even more amazingly did it without making it look fake.
Unfortunately, the webinar closed because it filled, but Photoshelter will be posting a recording of that webinar on their blog later in the week. Amazing right?
UPDATE: It has come to Fstoppers's attention that in our original article showing the outstanding retouching work of Kristina Sherk and her upcoming webinar, we neglected to put the image (and the retouching applied to it) in the proper context. Having only what was written on the PhotoShelter Blog, we lacked the back story that properly contextualizes this image. In an effort to quickly publicize the webinar being hosted by PhotoShelter and SharkPixel.com, we failed to check into the full story behind the retouching. Thus, giving our readers a fragmented frame in which to view Kristina's work through.
Sherk’s original purpose behind retouching this image was strictly for educational purposes and is to be included in her upcoming instructional retouching DVD. Her intent with the image was to show the possibilities of post production, but with the stipulation that though it can be done, retouchers should take the skills learned in creating such a piece and utilize those skills in the degree they see fit for their client's needs.
[Via Photoshelter]
Thank you Kristina for your comments.
Let me first state that if a body of medical professionals hadn't taken a position on this, then I'd be quiet and move on. We are all different with different tastes. But the American Medical Association did take a position and published an article so I'm guessing they know something.
While I'm glad that you acknowledge the effects of your style of work and have taken steps to mitigate the negative impact, those steps seem a bit self-serving. I would argue that placing the before/after comparison on your site, rather than in the finished ad / story / promo / however it's used, serves to get you more work than to eliminate the problem. If you really wanted to stop causing harm, you would stop being a party to the cycle.
Your comparison between portrait retouching and special effects in movies is not accurate. Children realizing that they cannot "run off a barn roof" do not then internalize the issue resulting in unrealistic life or body expectations. Also, to continue the comparison, there is more and more evidence that suggesting that movie violence does in fact lead to actual violence. So yes, movie special effects DO affect children, but we aren't talking about that here.
Let me be clear: it's not your skills that I have a problem with. (They are impressive.) It's your choice on how you USE those skills that I have a problem with. I also understand that you have a need to feed yourself / family, but by participating in a seminar you are continuing the cycle of harm and profiting from that cycle. Retouchers such as yourself "get the bad rap" because you've earned it.
I'm asking that you consider finding other subjects & take on different work. I'm sure your skills could be used somehow that didn't plainly hurt others.
Seriously?
I have two young daughters and they watch me retouch all of the time. I am far from perfect and so are they, and yet they still have a healthy view of themselves. It's not her job to make sure that children have a good self-esteem. Leave that to us, the parents.
Can no one take responsibility for their children's physical and mental health anymore? Stop blaming everyone else, but yourself.
"Young daughters"
The problems manifest over years. I hope they are the exceptions.
How about you let me and the other parents worry about our children and you go worry about you own?
No problem. Then don't post your work and ask for comments.
I think your work is fantastic. Absolutely baffled at the criticizers who attack (and yes it's attacking) as if they stand for the good of mankind and yet I'm sure in some ways they contribute to the deterioration of not only civilization but the planet. Oh the horror.
I think the critics are just beyond shocked and afraid of what they see here and can't accept it. They never seen the back door to what goes on in such productions nor can they conceive the logistics of it. They are probably the same people that think photographers / retouchers do this as a 'cool little hobby', and can't figure out why we charge what we do. This is the world we live in and @kristinasherk:disqus sure didn't create it she only retouched this image. Its truly amazing how people want to hinder talent. She does great work she worked hard to get where she is and I wish her continued success.
Honestly I can only say that most of the negative comments are a result people who never knew what goes into this type of work so I can understand their frustration.
Age can be cruel but we all have options to do it gracefully.
Thanks, Kristina. I think your attitude towards this shows a real touch of class.
Wait! Wait! wait, Mike Newton and all the others who believe it's pure negativity to criticize this work. This is put up as the be all and end all of retouching and then, if someone disagrees that it's the gospel, they're labelled negative. And Mike, just because someone might not be adept at retouching doesn't mean they can't have a valid opinion on the work of others. IOW, don't put someone's work up for display as what everyone should strive for, then expect your readers to raise their hands in unison in agreement.
And I understand the difference between pure negativity and thoughtful criticism.
Agreed. For instance, I can't do landscape photography for beans, but I still can critique it, last time I checked.
Please look at your own face and you will see that skin texture differs a lot in it's different parts. Killing this differences (both in make-up and in post-processing) kills a portrait. You will have just another magazine-stile dollface. A lot of people will like it and ask for more but a lot of people like burgers and Cola as well...
PS: Frequency modulation and D&B, am I right? :)
PPS: Fingers are looking a bit strange too.
Amazing job Kristina!
Wonderful work. Beautiful and elegant retouching which, from my experience, means she took her time and worked her butt off to get it so well rendered.
Not that hard to do...Although I have no idea how she did the ears
Good job from what you had to work which I'm guessing is the point of the webinar. If this would have been a beauty editorial I would have been annoyed at the model choice. No point in making things hard on yourself unessassery :). This retouch is a touch excessive for my personal taste but the necessary skills are evident.
My opinion, FWIW (which probably isn't much to be fair) is that I think the question should be asked - Why? What is the underlying purpose of such touching up? Personally, I think the craft of the touching up here is extremely good, and definitely way better than a lot of stuff out there, but what is the end purpose?
If it's for advertising, then what is it advertising? If it's make-up then it must be considered too "fake" and could/should be considered false advertising as the results would plainly be unachievable by using the product alone.
If it's trying to be a true reflection of the individual, then anyone with any honesty/credibility (including the models friends) would easily see how "different" the end result is from the reality.
If it's to be used as an overlay on a CGI model or something (say, for a game etc.) then I'd say it would fit that requirement perfectly.
If it's simply "art", then to be fair to the originator it's no different from painting an original picture that would be considered "perfect".
So, I think it's difficult/rich to consider criticising for the sake of criticising, without knowing exactly what the end result is intended for.
Great post.
I think you overestimate the ability of the "man on the street" (or woman) to identify retouched details. I come across images that are so massively retouched that they make me want to cry for destroying what I think must have been an underlying beautiful image. Or retouching a beautiful model who I know to the point where she doesn't even look like herself.
These are usually the images that get the strongest positive reactions. From both men and women.
If you spend day-to-day dealing with this stuff, then retouching becomes obvious. But people who only look at pictures either don't recognize the retouching, or don't care.
But in that point I was referring to friends of the subject, who I think would surely recognise such significant changes (at least to skin/wrinkles etc. I'd challenge anyone to notice the ears in this one if the images weren't presented side-by-side) to someone they knew well.
Having said all that, and despite what we might think of it here, there is clearly a definite market for this kind of work. I know of someone personally that was "photoshopped" almost beyond recognition (the end result of her "photo session" literally had her looking half her actual size) and she absolutely LOVED it. However, you could almost hear the echoes from Facebook of her friends shouting (yer 'avin a laugh, that's NOTHING like you!). To be honest, in those situations it's really no different to slapping one persons head on another's body, you might as well save yourself the hours of retouching.
Kristina's done some excellent work here, but I guess I'm puzzled that it needed to be done at all. Was she ugly before? In the "before" picture, I think, "here's an interesting person, with a story to tell" but with the "after" I'm left wondering why someone wants me to see this image—am I admiring the makeup? Is this a person I should know? I feel like my eyes wander over the image, looking for significance, and I don't find it. Perhaps in context (a magazine article, say) I'd know what the photographer was aiming for, but without it, I think the person loses their voice and their character along with their laugh lines.
Thanks Andy! Point well made.
I of course could be wrong, but this clearly appears to me to be intended as a beauty shot. You appear to be speaking of artistic images or portraiture. In a beauty shot, you aren't really looking for a story, significance, voice, or character from the model. You're conveying beauty to make people want your stuff.
I agree that some of the comments on these posts are more disparaging than useful, although people are entitled to their opinions. Some of these criticisms are perfectly valid, and as someone said, you don't have to be a retoucher to see when something looks unnatural or uncomfortable to the eye.
Perfection in retouching can be artful, even if it isn't realistic. I personally like the look. My only criticisms of this retouch are that the 3-dimensional look of the cheeks has been flattened out too much for my taste, and the reduced highlights and color on the fingers makes them look flat and ashy. These are subtle if you don't have the before image to compare. They aren't a big deal in portrait work, although for high-end fashion and beauty images for publication, they are relevant details.
From my point of view, it's a decent retouch.
I love how you handled the blemishes on the cheeks and still managed to maintain texture, also the work on the eyes which gave the hole face more symmetry and impact.
However, to me, some things are off... like the tone of the hands that actually looked better in the "before" since they had more contrast and they became this flat dark tone with odd color halos on the edges.
Also the lower edge of the chin maintains certain "noise" that seems to be quite different from the rest of the texture on the face so it looks pretty odd.
Now what I think was truly unnecessary was the liquefying of the fingers and the ears... I mean... I would've preferred you got rid of the wrinkles bellow the eyes before you made her ears "look better" which no one would've noticed anyway.
As a photographer, I'd certainly love to work with you because of your great skills and I guess that always the end product is the result of direction, which can be given the photographer or client, so I would understand why sometimes the retouch has got to be "excessive"
Well... that's only my personal opinion, I hope it helps in anyway.
The work is amazing! This is a real art form, and Kristina is a wonderful artist. It is the message that is screwed up.
wow, I think its amazing work Kristen. The even illumination on your retouched piece is kinda stunning. One question, when I see many of these portraits, I always notice the very visible light source reflecting in the eye. I'm not talking about the specular highlight but the one where you can actually see the multiple rings and hotspot of a real light source. How come that always get's left in there? It seem's like you'd want to remove that. Not a criticism at all, just interested! Thx for sharing.
"I was shocked, as Sherk not only easily erased 10 years off the model, but even more amazingly did it without making it look fake." what????
Thaaaat's right... lets all have a slam the retoucher day. It's all our fault that society has unrealistic expectations, isn't it?
You realise, this is what clients WANT right? This is what we're asked to do. Daily. And more!
And yes, it IS an art in its own right. And some of us actually ENJOY the challenge, even if that makes us evil contributors to young girls self esteem issues.
Do you know how beauty advertising works? They WANT you to feel bad about yourself! If you feel bad about yourself, then maybe you'll buy their product to make yourself feel better.
At least this retoucher still left a few pores.
Stop buying magazines if this offends you. I haven't bought one (that wasn't Photoshop related) in 15 years, and if your kids are looking at mags like Cosmo, you've got far more to worry about than a retouched photo. Have you read their articles?
Unfortunately most of the "haters" aren't pro photographers. They are pixel counters and monied armatures. They have lots of cameras and lenses, shoot weddings for $75 and hand over a memory stick. They also spend a lot of time on this site pulling others down. Canon/Nikon fanboys, bla-bla-bla. If they were real pros, they would realize this photo isn't a portrait or something you show your friends on FB. A photo of this type isn't taken for any other reason then to SELL SOMETHING. A concept lost on most amateurs. Skin cream, perfume, fashion etc. in this case, what is being sold is a Photoshop class or this persons retouching services. It does that really well.
For a pro, this kind of photo is real bread and butter, lots of $$$$$, and yes it's going to be "retouched" to this level and far beyond. Armatures, when you see a photo like this think $$$$$ in someone's pocket. Sherk did a WONDERFUL job here. She can probably name her price for this kind of work, and agencies will happily pay. Armatures, you have to realize that when you have this kind of skill, you are also able to practice restraint when that is what is called for.
GOOD JOB!
With that advent of digital, every snap shooter thinks they are a Photographer.
im guessing a misused "inverted high pass"... just guessing... ^_^
Do you know what's annoying?
People telling haters to "post up your own work".
That just implies that it's OK to "hate" as long as your work is better than that person's. When people offer brief comments like, "Wow, this is great"... Nobody tells them to "post up your own work". So why is there a double standard? All criticism is equally valid, nobody's really "hating". Be thankful for it.
I did not take my time to read all of this, but some comments are hilarious for sure!