Back Modifications (1)
Views 274 Unique 132 Award Shortlist   

Edited or not edited

By gmcphotography
I was trying to take an elegant, glamourous and seductive image. I lit the model with a red gelled light from her right and a blue gelled light from her left. The then used a brollied flash from over my left shoulder. I would love to see others mods on this image and I will upload an edit myself when I get the chance. I will probably use liquefy to smooth out her shape, and to make her arms more slender. Heal brush any blemishes and do a frequency separation to smooth the skin tones. I have used liquefy to smooth her dress and enhance her figure. I have used it to open her eyes and plump her top lip. I have given her hair some more volume. Frequency separation to smooth the skin tones. Some dodging and burning. And I have tried to bring the pink through in the background.
I have added the unedited shot as a mod for comparison.
I believe the edited shot improves the image and the attractiveness of the model. My aim is to edit the image to a point which is not immediately obvious. So which do you prefer the edited or unedited versions and why?

Tags: Model Fashion Studio lighting Gels Seductive Portraits and people Glamour female model Beauty and fashion bodycon

Save & earn with MPB; trade-in and buy pre-loved


14 Jan 2022 3:26AM
You have given her bigger hair….for me, most noticeable….and a different quality of skin tones..I am kind of old school….I do not do a lot of changing photos….the Edi tied photo is beautiful. Maybe. Not quite real….but then,min todays photo world….what is real. I would go for the original. As skillful as your mod is.

Robert51 13 7 127 United Kingdom
14 Jan 2022 7:46AM
First may I say that you have done a great job.
The hard thing is that people will look at the before and after and pick a winner.
Here this is not the case,people should look at the image as more of a journey that the image takes you.
It's still the same image and if you had only seen the result, you would have thought what a great image.
If someone else processes the image it will lead them down a different road.
Brilliant comments. Thank you both.
dudler Plus
18 1.9k 1929 England
14 Jan 2022 10:06AM
For me, Peter has analysed this perfectly. The edit is beautiful, but the woman in it is not quite real.

For me, reality matters, especially with beauty. Islamic craftsmen, who would never imitate the human form, always included one deliberate imperfection in their patterns and calligraphy, because they believed that perfection is for Allah alone. My own belief is that the imperfections actually enhance the beauty in some complex way: in the same way as the knowledge that a rose will wither and fade makes its brief blossoming more beautiful.

And I also love digital and airbrush art: have a look at some of KDC's creations. (Note that many of them are nudes, though.)

There are different ways to approach a camera: one is as the route into editing, the other is to see it as the primary instrument. Either is OK, and both have their devotees. We each choose our own route.
mrswoolybill Plus
15 3.2k 2519 United Kingdom
14 Jan 2022 11:04AM
If it pleases you, that's the important thing, but I would query the use of the Portraits and people tag as main category. Sorry, but you seem to be straying towards Jessica Rabbit territory here.
banehawi Plus
17 2.7k 4307 Canada
14 Jan 2022 2:08PM
She gained a few pounds from the original I think?

I already uploaded a mod of this yesterday outside the CG.
Mrswoolybill it does please me. I think this image is a long way from being cartoonish and I suspect if I hadn't posted the original for your reference you may have been hard pressed to definitively point out any alterations. We do all sorts of things to look better in photographs. Flattering lighting, make-up, clothes that make us look better, hair styling and colouration and posing. Adding a bit of photoshop if you know how to is just as valid a device as any of the others.
Banehawi, I saw your mod and it seemed on my monitor that you had blown out the highlights. For me that is detrimental to the image.
mrswoolybill Plus
15 3.2k 2519 United Kingdom
15 Jan 2022 8:42AM

Quote:Mrswoolybill it does please me. I think this image is a long way from being cartoonish and I suspect if I hadn't posted the original for your reference you may have been hard pressed to definitively point out any alterations.

If you look back over your CG uploads, CT members have consistently indicated that what you do jumps out at us. We ask to see the original, where substantial processing is apparent, in the hope of advising as to how it could be done better, more sympathetically.

There is now a blurring of the line between reality and fantasy in most visual media, (and as a result, inter alia, many women will measure themselves against an image like this and feel inadequate). But my consumption of visual media is largely confined to documentary, I have a very high threshold of resistance to fantasy, so I do know what real people and real skin look like. And I value truth.

The word photography means 'drawing with light'. There is a very great difference between what lighting will achieve and what skin-smoothing software will achieve, and it's a difference that matters.

You have several times asked a simple question, as to whether what you have done is an improvement, and we have all answered you.

Your avatar looks to be Burns, so I will quote him:

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

Over and out.
paulbroad Plus
14 131 1294 United Kingdom
15 Jan 2022 9:14AM
It has impact. It makes you look. That, in itself, is a success story. In my6 camera club days I would sit in the exhibition and note which images visitors actually stopped to look at. Not always the cup winners, but usually strong, simple and with impact.

I rather like what you have done.


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.