• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Blurring Scar on Model

I would show the model a work print, explain the options ask if she wants to reshoot.
 
MattKing said:
I'm trying to think of a respectful and sensitive way the OP can ask the model if he can reshoot her (the model's) boob.
Assuming of course that waffles is a "he".
Click to expand...

The model is aware of her scar. Unless she is not available to do it, she should be open to a reshoot. Show her a work print and discuss the options: concealer make-up, lighting, pose. And don't rule out shooting digital.
 
another thing you can try when printing is to get some semi-transparent plastic material, or paper, and make what amounts to a dodging wand out of it. You'll have to shape it carefully to match the scar, and crinkle it up so it is blurry. During exposure you can put the dodging material over the scar and wiggle it around just like you were dodging the exposure. The diffusion material will soften the scar's details. You'll have to experiment with the material you use and how far above the print surface it needs to be to get the best effect.
 
Studios knew how to routinely do this for decades before digital methods were ever invented. The larger the negative the easier. One simple trick among many is to use a Q-tip to smudge a little bit of localized vaseline below the lower carrier glass where no you need the blur, provided it's not a long exposure involving excess heat. Old darkroom manuals illustrate lots of now-forgotten routine tricks. In terms of smudge pencil retouching, modern films rarely have sufficient "tooth" or surface texture like old sheet films; but you can always register a sheet of frosted mylar above, and apply pencil or dye or whatever to that. Some of these old tricks are way faster and easier than scanning and PS. And a smudge pencil costs about .001% as much as a scanner and software.

Do you think those famous Hollywood gals at Hurrell's studio always had flawless complexions or perfect makeup, and no cellulite, when they showed up? Did they need Photoshop? That kind of film retouching was done almost on an assembly line basis using assistants. Heck, you should see just how miserable some antique negs I had to print were. Or even fire-damaged prints I had to copy and restore prior to digital options. Maybe not so realistic if you're doing a whole book of that kind of thing, or a Ken Burns historical documentary for PBS, but plenty realistic for a limited number of images.
 
Last edited:
Kodak made specific film (4x5 and larger) for retouching the back of a negative (which was relatively rough) with soft pencils. While I never got to take pictures of Movie Stars I did do a bit of "clean up" work on portraits back in the day.
 
Pieter12 said:
The model is aware of her scar. Unless she is not available to do it, she should be open to a reshoot. Show her a work print and discuss the options: concealer make-up, lighting, pose. And don't rule out shooting digital.
Click to expand...

Or she might rethink the need to reshoot if she sees a portrait in which she looks great with the scar. I think being open to this possiblity rather than pushing the need to make it disappear would be nicer and an opportunity for more self acceptance.
 
Don't models not have scars which is one reason they are models? Unless you are looking for a model with a scar?

There was this guy in one of my photography classes who did fashion portraits and he didn't go anywhere without his Wacom tablet and he would sit for hours tap-tap-tapping on his tablet doing God knows what to the faces of the models, but whatever he was doing the models had the most phenomenal complexions. He probably got a job with Revlon or something.
 
Last edited:

The model had already requested that the scar be minimized. That makes one think she would be less open to the possibility of her accepting an otherwise great shot.
 
If you have access to a scanner and PhotoShop, consider scanning your current print. Play with PhotoShop's various tools to see what you have to do to fix the problem digitally, and then try to do that with optical techniques. This will tell you whether you need to blur the image, burn/dodge or copy and paste. Depending on the size, shape and location of the scar, you could also make 2 large prints and do a real cut and paste to fix the image and then rephotograph the final image. If this could be done in the 19th century, it should be doable today, although I doubt it is easy.
 
Like I already stated, not only were such corrections routine prior to scanning and digital options, but some remedial techniques (not all) were far faster, easier, and more cost-efficient than today's need to jump through scanning and secondary output hoops. I've done it the old way many many times myself.
Everyone nowadays is so obsessed with the latest and greatest consumer electronics toys that they have seemingly forgotten that the shortest distance between Point A and Point B might well lie on a far less expensive route.

But printing a neg, cleaning up the print, and then rephotographing the result for a new master neg, is old hat too. Just about every trick PS offers has some kind of former graphics precedent. But even that amount of fuss is rarely needed to soften a scar-line or whatever. There is also the option of selective filtration at the time of the portrait shoot itself, to reduce the look of redness in a particular skin area etc.
 
Where does one find a professional retoucher these days, in Purgatory? I remember walking into the back room of a Carmel gallery once where a pathetic "professional retoucher" was condemned to spotting out silhouettes of mosquitos which landed on AA's film during 8x10 exposures in Alaska, and spotting out all the disastrous dust blemishes from back when he still used the inside of his sleeping bag at night as a film changing tent. That retoucher must have done something really bad in his past life to deserve a fate even worse than being reincarnated as a fence lizard.

Darr - save time? First you have to clean and scan the original. Factor that in. Then you're forced to digitally print it. How does that solve anything in a direct manner? For example, I always got paid for the finished print itself per piece, not per job. They wanted my darkroom prints, period, not digital output, even when that option routinely became available. Ain't the same thing. Commercial standards for sake of offset printing etc are quite different from something people are willing to spend a lot of money for apiece to put in a custom frame on the wall. I even did the framing. Speed of production has its due place in some applications, not necessarily in others. My dad would spend an entire day slowly smoking pork ribs in a granite smokehouse high above a hardwood fire; or it could be done in ten minutes in a microwave oven. Which would you eat?
 
Last edited:
DREW WILEY said:
Commercial standards for sake of offset printing etc are quite different from something people are willing to spend a lot of money for apiece to put in a custom frame on the wall.
Click to expand...

What sort of custom frames are you talking about for photographs? Could you provide a link to an example?
 
I think Drew was talking about a frame and mat that might have to be sized to the photo, darkroom prints are often not made exactly to standard dimension, at least mine aren't. Often the neg has to be cropped for one reason or another, or sized to get rid of problem areas at the edges.

If one dry mounts the prints, then I would call that whole operation, as well as the framing, a custom framing sort of deal. You can't tape a FB print at the top, lay a mat over it, and expect it to be ready to go on the wall. I sure wish you could, but you can't. FB prints tend to not dry perfectly flat, and dry mounting is a certainly a custom job.
 
It had nothing to do with a standardized frame sizes. The expectations were a result equivalent to a "fine art" print as the outcome - everything custom and accordingly priced (high). I even milled my own custom hardwood frame profiles if that's what was suitable. I kept quite selection of true hardwoods (non -endangered) as well as metal profile section, all kinds of high-end matboard, etc., pretty much a full personal frame shop. Even had a proprietary hermetic sealing option for humid environments. Most of these people were either collectors of my prints to begin with, or otherwise knew about my reputation as a printmaker, so sought me out for related services like antique image restoration and framed prints, or personal photography; another spinoff was architectural photography. I was also doing on the side architectural color and technical restoration consultation at the time, so it all pulled together.

The multi-aspect of thag ended when I got married, and as both our parents got elderly and needed a lot of visits, so I wound down any exhibition schedule, and stuck to a formal day job and mainly just personal printing. The timing was appropriate, because by then architectural photog was entering that phase when everyone started wanting everything yesterday, and MF digital cameras were taking over. But I continued to work with some amazing architects and restorers as a consultant, and in terms of materials and equipment supply until I formally retired a few years ago.
 
Now that a few weeks have passed, I'd be interested in what solution the OP chose that worked for him and the model.
 

Do paid models usually have a right of approval so they can prevent the photographer from using a photograph if they don't like the results for whatever reason, including the presence of a fairly prominent scar which they know about and should have a reasonable expectation will show when photographed? And didn't the photographer know that the body part he was photographing had a fairly prominent scar, and perhaps think about maybe photographing an adjacent body part or maybe the same body part from a different angle? Maybe this was just a mistake, and we all know mistakes can happen despite our best efforts. Or maybe this was a TFP session or something.
 
Last edited:

It is unfortunate for the members of the forum that you do not post any of your photographs, including custom framework. I'm sure we could all learn something from your expertise and attention to the smallest detail.
 
Many prints in museums and galleries are archival hinged to backing boards, matted and framed. A properly flattened fiber print looks just fine that way. Dry mounting is frowned upon by some museums and collectors.
 
I wonder about the OP's use of the term "model" in this case. Was she a paid model, and signed a release? Then she doesn't have much say in the matter. However, if the term model meant subject, who may or may not be paying for the session, then whatever she says should be taken into utmost consideration. Or if the paid model is someone the photographer intends to photograph again, it is wise to heed her requests. What we don't know is how the OP feels about the resulting photograph and if he has been able to come to some sort of resolution to the issue with the scar. Certainly, if the model had requested the scar be minimized, it should have been addressed before any images were made. But maybe the model objected to the scar's appearance after seeing a print.

As far as some not liking digital printing, there is the option of taking a scanned image, be it from the negative or a print, doing the necessary retouching and then having a digital silver print made or an LVT negative and a subsequent darkroom print.
 
faberryman said:
It is unfortunate for the members of the forum that you do not post any of your photographs, including custom framework. I'm sure we could all learn something from your expertise and attention to the smallest detail.
Click to expand...

I look at the glass as half full. My guess is he's well aware of what he wants to share.
 
I'm not adverse to presenting web illustrations or examples; I just don't have time for it. I had a very nice website for about 15 yrs, but oriented to the slower web speeds of the earlier days. But it didn't help me personally because it's almost impossible to this very day to show any kind of serious print nuance of either color or tonality over the web. Everyone who ever bought a print of mine did so because they saw the real thing. Web surfers are in a different camp entirely. But if I do get a long break from personal commitments and printing per se, I'll put my new deluxe copystand to work, mainly for estate purposes and cataloging the print collection, but secondarily perhaps for a new website too. Please understand I'm not trying to be rude, but that any kind of web presence is a very low priority in the overall scheme of things for me. And I certainly don't need the endorsement of Pieter or anyone else that thinks the world of art only exists in the face of a web presence. It got along just fine without it for at least forty thousand years before.
 
Please do not assume that I think the world of art only exists in the face of a web presence. I frequently (as in multiple times a month, before COVID) go to museums and galleries and fervently believe the only way to really experience art as the artist intended is in person. However, the internet is a valuable resource, as are books, that can reveal new and possibly otherwise unavailable art. Delicate pieces that cannot be displayed are only viewable as reproductions that may or may not be able to have all the subtleties of the original. If the art relies solely on nuances and could not possibly be rendered other than in the original form (such as Rothko's works) I can still get an impression, however crude, of what it might hold in person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register