dealing with grooming issues: photoshop and make-up?

[garionhall]

This is sure to be a contentiuos topic... you may not realise that around half of all shoots we have booked are cancelled on the morning of the shoot, due to grooming issues. This is usually bruises, insect bites, or shaving rash. As you could imagine, this plays havoc with our schedules, staff satisfaction, model satisfaction, and productivity.

Because we only employ amateur models, and most people are not perfectly groomed all the time, this is a huge problem for us. We have a pretty good system of informing models what our requirements are ahead of time, and explaining what issues are lilely to be a problem for our shooters, but most models undersell the significance of their grooming issues before the shoot day, so we end up cancelling on the day.

Many members will have seen the odd bruise, acne, or rash here of course, becuase we need to shoot SOMEthing.

Lots of other sites and producers have this problem, and they fix it simply: applying make-up pre shoot to problem areas, and photoshopping other areas in post production. Of course, some producers go a lot further than this, using photoshop to change body shape, eye colour, remove texture.

Should this be something we consider to help us be more productive? We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner with our "no photoshop!" and "no make-up!" claims, and it's becomming more of a problem. What do you think about us applying make-up to selected areas (never on the face), and photoshopping out particularly bad blemishes?

[gabrielle]

It would make the job easier - but then how could we be natural girls? Photoshop, in my opinion, is way WAY out. I don't mind the idea of using a bit of coverup on a bruise on a thigh (I always have bruises...) but that's as far as I would take it. No makeup on the face. It's a slippery slope - as soon as you can put concealer over a pimple, its an acne-covered cheek, a bag under the eye... hy not just use foundation to smooth everything over? All or nothing.

Interested to see what members think...

[Luxman]

I'm pretty much with Gabrielle here. A bit of make-up on bruises would be ok (I'm always annoyed when I see bruises on a model).
Make-up in the face or on huge body parts, to cover scars for example, would be against my personal view of the site.

Photoshop? No, no, we should never do that, thats really violating our own paradigm and puts AW into a direction where it does not belong.
Natural is what AW stands for, so the models should stay as natural as possible.
No digital manipulation!

My very own view of the things.

Lxm

[Luxman]

Anyway, if you use Photoshop to change a model's appearance somehow, the videos would tell the truth unless you use digital manipulation on videos too.

Lxm

[MightySpork]

I would think that using Photoshop in some cases would become expensive, because some of your photo sets have so many shots in them, and if all or many of them needed attention, that would use up a lot of labor.

Putting makeup on random bruises and bug bites makes sense. I don't get turned off by bruises, but I can imagine that many people would. I don't see how this breaks your "natural" ethic, because I don't think this is the meaning of "natural" you or we have in mind. Yes, bruises are part of nature, but they're not erotic.

(But on the other hand, I just watched the Sue-Ann redux video, and she worked her bruises into her patter, and it was very funny and charming. I realize that your question concerns stills more than video, but I thought that was worth pointing out.)

So if you're really turning away that many models over this, then you ought to do something. Not only is this a problem for you, it must really suck for the models who get sent home.

[Randomthoughts]

I find it astonishing that you can actually find that many natural girls in AUZ almost every day.

IMHO, Garion your site is not targeting members who seek "absolute" beauty as portrayed in mainstream. Everyone knows that there is manipulation (airbrushed bellybutton being the most famous) to these publications.
I actually find it almost erotic to see an in-grown hair or the occasional pimple, stretch mark or bruise, because it is real life. Not that some sort of level of personal hygiene or timing should be at the discrepancy of the shoot prime, but please do not resort to image manipulation.

Good to see the CEO is finally jumping in to a needs assessment, much appreciated

rt...

[Dekoda]

I guess I'm the odd man out here, but I think Photoshopping pictures would be a good solution to cleanup anything that the makeup didn't hide. I've scanned thousands of pictures and Photoshopped every one, but I've always tried to maintain one particular aspect of the process....I only Photoshop out things that aren't permanent on the model like pimples, bruises, scratches, etc., because I've always felt that on a different day, those imperfections wouldn't be there.

I try not to remove freckles, moles, birthmarks, etc., only temporary blemishes. I would never add anything either....like lipstick or makeup.

Another aspect of using Photoshop would be to remove or blur products in the shoot, like a bottle of Coke. It would be easier to remove or blur the products in the shoot with Photoshop, than it would be to try and take the shot making sure nothing unwanted was in the picture. You can't get a natural shot if you're constantly stopping and removing things from the shoot. My philosophy with using Photoshop has always been, "If you do the job right, no one will know you did anything."

If AW decides to Photoshop photos and you need someone to do this, I'd be happy to help out. One thing you might consider if you do decide to use Photoshop....set a strict set of guidelines as to what you want and don't want removed so that whoever does the Photoshopping has something to go by. Having guidelines will keep the Photoshop process from being over done.

Maybe you could try some photos with and without touching up and see what the members think.

[OfCanada]

Please don't photoshop any of the photos, this is one of the reasons why I came to this site.

Please don't use make-up, this is one of the reasons why I came to this site.

I gotta tell you, I find the bruises and blemishes and all to be endearing (you know what I mean when I say that, I don't have an attraction to bruises and blemishes and that, they just don't bother me). Now, if it makes the model really uncomfortable, then yeah, there's a problem. Otherwise, I don't see what the fuss is about, the site advertises natural girls, and this is a by-product of that. Thing being, I came for that whole package, and I'd love for it to be maintained. I watch a lot of porn, I'm a bit of a self-admitted fiend. I don't own any memberships to any other websites, and why? Because it's all fake, all of it, all of it, nothing of the sort happens in real life, people don't do that in real life, people don't LOOK like that in real life. See, people look like the models that you have here in real life, for the masses.

tl;dr No make-up, no shoop (yes, I said shoop). Don't sweat it, it's fine.

[doinel]

It's the little imperfections that make a person unique and interesting. AW models are no barbie dolls or centerfolds, and I wouldn't like this site as much as I do if you would start retouching the pictures to receive a 'proper' more convenient look. Nope.

doinel

[Melinda]

I say go for it! I've always wanted to look like the models in magazines anyway ...

But being serious, would have to say I agree with everything Gabrielle said ~~~~

Luv Melinda

[chiefbrody]

But there is an easier way for a model to avoid having bruises,don't get into a fight before a shoot as been arranged

[Frans]

This is sure to be a contentiuos topic... you may not realise that around half of all shoots we have booked are cancelled on the morning of the shoot, due to grooming issues. This is usually bruises, insect bites, or shaving rash.

Since we never see the cancelled shoots (obviously;-) it is hard to tell if maybe your standards are perhaps to high for amateur models without using any hiding tools? Shaving rash is a different problem, since that would be a model simply not following pre-shoot instructions it seems?

So the question then becomes how many bruises or insect-bites can we expect on the average girl in Australia? We don't expect (nor want) perfectly groomed girls. Maybe your expectations are higher than the members? Did you try shooting such a model and see what the (member) reactions were?

That's the expectation part, now for the editing part. Make-up is just a non-digital form of editing really, you can hide less with it compared to Photoshop but it IS changing appearances. The danger in that is trying to mold every model to some standard perfect-model-format. Try Playboy USA for a fairly good example of said danger. I prefer my models unique thank-you-very-much

I think it's easier to stick to a simple rule like 'no photoshop', otherwise you're on a gliding scale downwards. Simple make-up to hide a single bruise isn't so bad but I don't really see the NEED for it, for me as viewer anyway. Also remember that as Lux said we'll always have video to compare, it's MUCH harder to cover up perceived imperfections on video.

[chiefbrody]

I agree to frans,if this was a site where you get heavly made up before a shoot to look like a dogs dinner,i wouldn't be here
quick get the make-up
i heard that

[bookmanz]

A little make up on blemishes and bruises is O.K. For me, that's still within the natural paradigm on here.
I agree photoshopping the model is not good though!

[Chasaffton]

First thank you for asking about this.

I have to agree with Luxman and Gabrielle that a little makeup would be ok, but NO photoshop.

[Peter52]

I think that there is a tendency here to see photoshopping a zit as "the thin end of the wedge"; it doesn't have to be, it's just another tool to make beautiful photographs of natural girls. Of course we like things that Playboy consumers don't: pubic hair, inverted nipples, dark freckles (mmm, Evangeline!) or tampon strings, but is anybody really turned on by a big white pimple on the cheek? I don't think so! Mentioning no names, but there has been one incredibly hot model in the last two weeks that I would have downloaded the whole set but for one thing: the spots on her cheeks. Maybe she'll come back for a redux with flawless skin, but it will be too late for the first set. A judicious dab of makeup would have made all the difference. I'm with Garion here - let's not paint ourselves into a corner over "principles".

[MightySpork]

I gotta tell you, I find the bruises and blemishes and all to be endearing (you know what I mean when I say that, I don't have an attraction to bruises and blemishes and that, they just don't bother me). Now, if it makes the model really uncomfortable, then yeah, there's a problem. Otherwise, I don't see what the fuss is about, the site advertises natural girls, and this is a by-product of that. Thing being, I came for that whole package, and I'd love for it to be maintained.

But we're not really seeing the whole package, because as Garion said, they send about half the models home because they have bruises and blemishes at such a level that you and I might not find so endearing. These are models the team considered shoot-worthy, so if a little coverup would allow a shoot that met our general expectations instead of a cancellation, we'd all be better off for it.

It's all right for the AW team to uphold SOME standards for attractiveness, after all. For example, the company only shoots models of a certain age range, and asks that they be "height/weight proportionate," and this appears to be acceptable to most of us, judging from what I read on these boards. I understand that some interviewees are not even offered a shoot, because they don't fit the site's vision. So this look that we call "natural" is actually the result of a fair amount of discipline and control, and this is a good thing. I don't think this product would be as popular without it.

If the company does adopt a policy of using coverup on bruises and bug bites, I would suggest that this be mentioned in the FAQ and/or some other appropriate place. This policy WOULD diverge from the long-standing practice a little bit, so it would be wise to be up-front about it.

[matchless]

I'm with the folks who say no to photoshop and ok to covering up unsightly bruises and blemishes. The no make up rule is a good one but it can be bent to allow for this.

Then there is always the Mezz. for those times when you do shoot a model with "grooming issues".

[MightySpork]

Then there is always the Mezz. for those times when you do shoot a model with "grooming issues".

Speaking of Mezzanine, I was about to observe that the section had not gotten any new shoots since June; previously, it had been getting about one a month. This can be interpreted many ways, but I think it's evidence that the AW team are screening and prepping models more carefully, to avoid producing Mezzanine-quality work in the first place.

[casgrain]

I find it astonishing that you can actually find that many natural girls in AUZ almost every day.

IMHO, Garion your site is not targeting members who seek "absolute" beauty as portrayed in mainstream. Everyone knows that there is manipulation (airbrushed bellybutton being the most famous) to these publications.
I actually find it almost erotic to see an in-grown hair or the occasional pimple, stretch mark or bruise, because it is real life. Not that some sort of level of personal hygiene or timing should be at the discrepancy of the shoot prime, but please do not resort to image manipulation.

Good to see the CEO is finally jumping in to a needs assessment, much appreciated

rt...

I agree with RT, natural girls is what we're looking for. No photoshop please.

[alexbee]

I'll add my vote for no photoshop, but I'm on the fence about makeup over blemishes.

Personally I don't give a hoot about bruises or pimples, but if the model wishes to cover those temporary things up, maybe we should let her?

If it makes the model feel better about herself, the shoot will probably come out better.

FWIW

[wannadance]

well, here goes....

okay, this is what i think:

first the models do indeed wear some (photography) makeup. not intended to be seen as such, but as a makeup maven and makeover artiste (yes, really, and i play the ukelale, too!) i see:

subtle lipgloss with some sparkles or shimmer (lip color),

some off white highlighter around various parts of eye to emphasize eyes and hide big old shadows. it's very very well done and not everyone has it, but for those of us who see it, we see it. it's not all over, just cleverly put on certain areas.

occasionally some eyeliner on the top, right at lashline, occasionally some brow pencil just to deepen brows a tiny bit. as above, if you didn't look specifically for it or weren't trained to see it, you wouldn't see it.

no face makeup, no blush, occasional eyeshadow the color of babies' eyelids, no liner under the eye. the lashes and brows are brushed carefully and i see some mascara occasionally.

i think that photoshop is a bad idea for all the reasons stated. but i do think that the following issues should be addressed/fixed:

-spots. just small red ones are fine but big whiteheads are hard not to look at. concealor won't really help. brief medical treatment will.

bruises, bug bites,(i fell in love with marigoldy because she had a mosquito bite on her knee during her T3 with ava) scratches, etc: nah, leave them alone, so long as it doesn't look like an abusive SO or a terrible motorcycle accident. makeup or concealor over a bruise just looks like a bruise with gangrene..

i can see where razor burn is a problem, better some stubble. there are many many OTC to minimize this, like a hydrocortizone cream or something.

as far as plain ole grooming goes, here goes and hope i don't gross anyone out.

i think nails and feet should be scrubbed and clean, fingernails shortish.
i think hair should definitely be clean even if still damp. and use dandruff shampoo.
i think genitalia and anus should be very very carefully cleaned and spiffed up. this is my personal gross-out. just do not want to look at that end of an unclean person of either sex...

but, photoshop, nah. please leave freckles, stretch marks, moles, bruises, etc. alone. and various spots that are not distracting. makeup really calls attention to 'flaws' and they're not flaws in my opinion. they are reality...

thanks, garion, for flinging yourself into the fire. i think we all appreciate it, i know i do.

opinionated but sometimes right,
dancer

[Dekoda]

I think people are getting the wrong idea of PhotoShopping. Yes, you can take an average looking woman and turn her into a centerfold, but that's not what is being proposed here. To use PS to remove a few unsightly blemishes from a picture isn't changing the entire look of the model.

I've seen professional editing done on a magazine cover shoot of a model, and they compared the before and after pictures side by side. I couldn't see any difference between the two until they magnified them and showed you what was done. It was so minor to me that I knew no one else would have ever seen anything, but it removed a few little things that the photographer didn't want.

Something you have to keep in mind, cameras aren't as forgiving as your eyes are. Cameras pick up a lot of detail that your eyes miss, and that detail isn't very flattering. Only when you've shot a lot of pictures can you then understand what that means. Every imperfection is magnified in a photo, and if you don't believe me, take a picture of your spouse or a friend, then look at it on your monitor and see if you see anything that you didn't notice before you took the shot. Have you ever noticed that it's hard to get a really good shot of someone, no matter how many you take? That's because the camera "sees" things your eyes don't. Because of this, AW photographers might not see everything that's wrong with a shoot as they're shooting it. However, once the pictures are up on the monitor, they show all kinds of really bad blemishes that the model might not be happy with. Now the shoot is over, the money is spent for the shoot, and AW doesn't have a usable product to display. The whole thing can be remedied simply by making a few PS corrections. Are you all saying they should throw the pictures out and spend a lot more money redoing the shoot? Remember, if the model isn't happy with them, they won't get posted.

I bet that if Garion had just posted some pictures of a model and didn't tell you they were PS'd (Photoshopped), no one would ever know. That's not how AW operates, and Garion would never do that without informing the members first, it's just that if AW changed their FAQ page and added makeup and PSing to it without telling anyone and just did it, no one would have been able to tell the difference.

What Garion is asking here is, would you like to see models that AW would normally cancel on because they didn't adhere to the criterior that they were told to adhere to, but are still being shot and posted because they needed a little makeup and Photoshop to meet AW's requirements? I would think that everyone here would like to see those shoots.

[Horndog15]

I think if 50/50 odds for a shoot to occur are normal than something definitely needs to be done! My only issue is make-up and Photoshopping taken to extremes. My preference is to just use enough make-up to cover the temporary flaws like acne and bruises and nothing else. Leave the permanent imperfections like scars and wrinkles alone.

[Dekoda]

I think if 50/50 odds for a shoot to occur are normal than something definitely needs to be done! My only issue is make-up and Photoshopping taken to extremes. My preference is to just use enough make-up to cover the temporary flaws like acne and bruises and nothing else. Leave the permanent imperfections like scars and wrinkles alone.

I agree HD. That's what I mentioned in my first post. You only remove things that are temporary blemishes because if the shoot had taken place on another day, those blemishes wouldn't have been there, so you're not removing anything that is a permanent characteristic of the model.

[German]

I do understand that it can be sometimes difficult without make up, photoshop or similar accessories. But you are talking about changing a core value of AW - real natural girls.

Yes, you can use make up and photoshop carefully and I'm sure we wouldn't notice. Nevertheless it would be fake. AW differs from most competitors with the all-natural-girls concept - please don't throw away a key-success factor.

By the way: Little imperfections are the secret behind true beauty

[Frans]

I think people are getting the wrong idea of PhotoShopping. Yes, you can take an average looking woman and turn her into a centerfold, but that's not what is being proposed here. To use PS to remove a few unsightly blemishes from a picture isn't changing the entire look of the model.

Depends on the definition of both 'unsightly blemishes' and the 'look of the model' which is subjective and thus dangerous as a rule.

I've seen professional editing done on a magazine cover shoot of a model, and they compared the before and after pictures side by side. I couldn't see any difference between the two until they magnified them and showed you what was done. It was so minor to me that I knew no one else would have ever seen anything, but it removed a few little things that the photographer didn't want.

That's nice, however if differences are not visible the editing/work-on-them is obviously wasted. If a photographer doesn't want something in the pic they should make sure it doesn't get photographed that way, that is their job. PS isn't a crutch or something. I'll agree camera's are less forgiving but lighting usually fixes a lot of that. Again, we are talking about professionals on the job here.

Now the shoot is over, the money is spent for the shoot, and AW doesn't have a usable product to display. The whole thing can be remedied simply by making a few PS corrections. Are you all saying they should throw the pictures out and spend a lot more money redoing the shoot? Remember, if the model isn't happy with them, they won't get posted.

I'm not entirely sure about that last line btw. The problem isn't shoots being done resulting in non-usable material. Screening and good photography takes care of that. Due to current AW standards (and models not following all pre-shoot directions I guess) a lot of models can't be shot (wow, that sounds weird;-). THAT is the problem which should be solved, not fixed after the fact. Where does the change between 'intake/interview' and 'shoot-day' come from? Would that change be accepted by members, this being an amateur-model-site and all? Why does this problem affect so many models, too much time between interview and actual shoot?

What Garion is asking here is, would you like to see models that AW would normally cancel on because they didn't adhere to the criterior that they were told to adhere to <<SNIP>> I would think that everyone here would like to see those shoots.

There's no way to answer that since we have never seen such a model. I myself doubt if a lot of members mind a model with a visible bruise or two. That they would mind, is an assumption based on nothing really. This site is about natural amateur models, such things are to be expected.

In short; I doubt if editing is NEEDED for that many models really.

IF editing is required, prefer pre-shoot make-up to photoshop. The latter is much to inviting for further edits. Besides, the photographer/videographer should capture the images needed.. not some post-shoot dept.

Once you start doing post-editing it won't be possible to distinguish between edited sets and non-edited sets, unless you plan to put the PS-ed sets in Mezz ;-) But seriously, it will make people wonder if what they're seeing is as real as it used to be. It's part of this site's integrity NOT to edit pics, if you do (and admit) it even once you do post-editing you'll loose part of the build-up trust and getting it back is MUCH harder. (the words in that sentence are bit heavier than intended but can't think of better ones right now, just remember that if you do whatever ONCE it will be assumed to have been done for most if not all shoots from there on and possible previous shoots too.. and there is now way to disprove that)

p.s. this same discussion will occur once you start shooting and releasing full-HiDef video. Same problems

[chiefbrody]

You Can't Airbrush In A Video Anyway

[ratyrl]

I'm in 2 minds on this one.

The rejection rate at shoots that Garion explained, is far too high, but I would prefer any tampering to be minimal.

I guess it it also down to how we each view some of the girls. With some models, you could find many flaws but with others the same flaws would be totally ignored.

[sweatyfox]

My initial reaction was don't do it. And even thinking about it now I err on the side of caution.

I think such alterations should be done as sparingly as possible and only if the so-called blemishes are just so stand out or obvious that you can't just ignore them whilst you're trying to look at a beautiful model. I would say for large bruises, cuts or sores yes but not for the more everyday things that a lot of us get at some point(s) during our lives like a bit of acne etc, a tiny bite, a little scratch etc. If you decide to use these tolls, they should be applied lightly and not just become the norm. And I hope you'd never use it to change body shapes, colours etc.

I kinda agree with Frans too, a bit of pre-shoot makeup is preferable to fiddling with and altering images afterwards if possible.

I think Gabrielle has expressed it very well and I agree with her about it being a grey area and how far do you take it, if you implement it?

SF

PS On the shaving rash note, this is one thing you shouldn't cover up, maybe just a few more girls who think having hair there is yuck would see that a sore rash looks a heck of a lot less appealing to quite a few people.