I'm sure we've all seen the dove ad where the model, a very natural, plain yet pretty women is turned into a stunning supermodel. If you haven't seen it (and you are a retoucher then you've been living under a rock :grin: ) here's a youtube link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

I was really interested in getting a discussion going on how far is too far. I for one absolutely love the total transformation, I think it is an art to have the ability to create beauty from simplicity, to make a duplicate who is much more striking, beautiful and I'd even go as far as turning them into somoene else, unrecognisable compared to the original.

I understand about real and natural enhancement, but there is a time and a place for that. Whenever I can I look for a glorified duplicate, a new person. I think this level of creativity is very interesting and not explored as much as it deserves. Here's a before and after I recently did and I'd love some opinions :) Please don't compare this to the dove model, the intention wasn't to create a supermodel for a glossy ad, rather, to transform the subject and apply excessive artistry - I ended up with a glamourous actress from the
1920s :pleased:

Here is the "behind the scenes" version: http://youtube.com/watch?v=fksMtc0OGo8&mode=related&search=

As for what is too far...it depends on the project really. I've done SERIOUS extreme retouches, and they've been just as appropriate as the more natural ones that I prefer.

i concur with mellyrose ..

its all on whats asked to be done ..

How far is to far depends on what you are trying to do?
If somebody request a slight touch up... this is going to far..
If somebody request a massive touch up... this is still going to far...
So maybe this is just to far!!

eyes weirded out for some reason as did the rest of the image for that matter. Going this far is useless by all accounts but definetly an exercise in Photoshop excess.

Lasa

That Dove commercial is somewhat misleading about the retouching process, and I wish they'd been more accurate. First of all, the software depicted. That ain't Photoshop. I'm not sure what it is, to be honest. They may've faked one so they wouldn't have to worry about any copyright infringements. Does it look familiar to anyone?

Secondly, I know that they made everything look a lot faster than it really is, but nobody can work that fast at retouching an image like that (if you slow it down to what would be a "normal pace". The speed looks to be 10, maybe 20 times faster, than what would be normal.

Third, there is no magic "make neck longer" filter that the video seems to be suggesting after they use the lasso tool cutout on her. I just love how fluid they made it look. It just isn't so.

However, I do altogether appreciate the message that Dove was trying to communicate. But as a retoucher, myself, it's not so wonderful the impression they're giving to the general public just how easy it is to retouch photos.

I find it interesting the question of wether the retouching is too far when in my opinion the makeup is doing far more of a transformation than the retouching.

The process looked realistic to me (if you remove the obvious fast-forwarding).

The really funny video was another Dove film called "evolution of a slob". They took a good-looking male model and made him look terrible.

Bart

You mean, this one?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v_vToQxpXFg&mode=related&search=

contemporaneous, they didn't just speed up the retouching. They had to put together hundreds and hundreds of takes to make it look like it is being retouched on one software (whatever that may be). The process took weeks. Go to youtube and look for the making of the dove ad and you'll see what I mean.

I should have just posted the link. Here it is:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fksMtc0OGo8

I should have just posted the link. Here it is:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fksMtc0OGo8

I posted it in the first reply ;)