Ok guys,

I'm dealing with some skin issues on a beauty shot. It has to maintain the skin's texture, but I'm trying to remove a hefty amount of peach fuzz from someone's cheek. Has anyone ever dealt with this. tried going line by line, but it takes abhorrently long that way, and still doesn't seem to give me exactly what I'm looking for. It's pretty detailed as it's shot closeup and on a Valeo 22. Any suggestions from anyone?

Kaveh

Yes, suggest you attached a copy of the image so folks can scope the magnitude, Rgds, MM

Does this thread help?
http://photoshoptechniques.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8822

kev,

welcome to RetouchPRO.

what's a valeo 22?

Craig

No suggestions but faced with same problem and no solution.

I saw a retouch job of an extreme close up of a models face which showed extreme peach fuzz on the nose and very deep skin texture. It was a french retoucher with 'ray' something in the title and high end clients. He did an excellent job of retouching. I grabed the before and after to see if I could duplicate what he did. I can not even come close.

The fuzz is white. If you try to darken the fuzz you get dark areas on both sides of the hair even with a one pixel brush, the hair is so fine. Remove the darkeness and it lightens the hair so you darken again. Back and forth until its gone. Takes forever and even then the results were not that good. Using 50% gray overlay dodge and burn layer.

I am going to play with the methods in the TBone tutorial mentioned above and see if I can come up with anything. If I do, I will post the results.

I've ran into this before but usually in fairly small areas like under the lips where it's not too bad to remove. So a good technique to handle this would be a very nice thing to have.

Found the web site: http://www.rayfresh.com/
Take a look and see what you think of his work.

Larry

I'm going to try a couple of those technniques. My main problem is that lately everything I get is shot digitally on 22 megapixel backs so they're about 4000x5300 pixels in native resolution, so when you're talking about a closeup of someone face, I see every last bit of roughness in the skin. Every line shows, and it's rather difficult at times to keep the texture when doing it to that degree unless I go in line by line, which takes too long. Anyway, I'm going to try the high pass/median filter method and see where that takes me.

Never heard that term before LOL

I am guessing you mean hair?

Using the nose example by rayfresh, you can get his results by applyin a Dust and Scratches filter (12/17 settings) to a duplicate layer. Use a layer mask on this to bring back the original detail where needed.

Using the nose example by rayfresh, you can get his results by applyin a Dust and Scratches filter (12/17 settings) to a duplicate layer. Use a layer mask on this to bring back the original detail where needed.Hi Vikki
This is only partly on topic, but how did you extract the nose image from rayfresh's site? I tried but failed :heul:

Pierre

"print screen" (captures screen to clipboard), "paste" in Photoshop.

"print screen" (captures screen to clipboard), "paste" in Photoshop.Doh! Thanks!

Vikki,

If that's not how he did it, it is pretty close!

I made a mask with a 10-20% opacity black brush and painted back the original layer and did a side-by-side look at the images and it looked pretty good.

k

Never heard that term before LOL

I am guessing you mean hair?

Yep. It's an Americanism, and is a kind term that usually refers to the soft, vellus hair that women (and children) have on their faces...like the down, on a peach. Sometimes it's used in a slightly more derogatory and humorous way, to refer to the beginnings of a young man's beard...

I once read something from a photographer that had worked with Marilyn Monroe repeatedly, and he said that she had a "fuzzy" face--and the hair would catch the light, when he photographed, her, making her seem as if she was glowing...

PanPan, if you want to have the .swf file instead of a screen shot, IE downloads a copy of it to your Documents and Settings> User Name (yours)>Local Settings> Temporary Internet Files. This image is called retouch-alina.swf Best Rgds, MM

Thanks briarrose for clearing that up! :happy:

On a side note I really like the way the show the before and after, very original and effective method.

I loved it too. I have asked a friend who does web design if this is done in Flash and if he has any idea how to do it.

PanPan, if you want to have the .swf file instead of a screen shot, IE downloads a copy of it to your Documents and Settings> User Name (yours)>Local Settings> Temporary Internet Files. This image is called retouch-alina.swf Best Rgds, MMThank you, MisterMonday. I use Firefox, but I did find the file (retouche-skin[1].swf is the one under discussion). However, I can not extract either the before or the after images from the shockwave file.

Pierre

You can do it in Flash. I "invented" something similar a while ago, but I can't remember any specifics, nor do I have the file, since I wrote it on my dad's computer. I might be able to dig it up when I go and visit over Xmas.

Basically, I followed a simple tutorial showing how you can make a shape follow the mouse cursor. In this case that would be a rectangle the size of the pic. I turned the shape into a mask that reveals the bottom layer, so wherever you dragged the shape, you could see the enhanced image layer. I'm not entirely sure how you would prevent the shape from moving up and down as opposed to just sideways though.

My main problem is that lately everything I get is shot digitally on 22 megapixel backs kev, what are 'backs'? (boy, i need a photography dictionary)

Craig

Thank you, MisterMonday. I use Firefox, but I did find the file (retouche-skin[1].swf is the one under discussion). However, I can not extract either the before or the after images from the shockwave file.

Download this free screen capture camera (free of adware or spyware), select "any rect. area" to snap the before and after images:
http://www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/mwsnap.html

kev, what are 'backs'? (boy, i need a photography dictionary)

"Backs" mean digital sensor backs attached to the conventional medium-format film camera like Mamiya RZ67/645 or Hassey..etc. These camera can use both interchangeble film backs or digital backs.

And they are super expensive to boot!! They are called Backs b/c they'll get you for the shirt on your back... Hopefully you can still afford underwear b/c it would not be a pretty site someone running around shooting with a Back and no clothes!!
Just joking but they are REALLY expensive and not much better than a 1DsMII, some will argue ofcourse, Mainly those who forked out the BIG $$$ for a back, But I have done several test and I use the 1DsMII daily. and saved about 20,000$... :nod: :lmao:
Snook

And they are super expensive to boot!! They are called Backs b/c they'll get you for the shirt on your back... Hopefully you can still afford underwear b/c it would not be a pretty site someone running around shooting with a Back and no clothes!!
Just joking but they are REALLY expensive and not much better than a 1DsMII, some will argue ofcourse, Mainly those who forked out the BIG $$$ for a back, But I have done several test and I use the 1DsMII daily. and saved about 20,000$... :nod: :lmao:
Snook


I almost bought a 1DsMKII a bit back. I'll agree that they aren't that much better. I've found a nicer skin tone reproduction from the imacon backs, and had actually considered one before I gave up shooting. Prices have come down somewhat. I think a Mamiya ZD body (22 megapixel sensor) is going for about 14k or so. Imacon has a 16 megapixel back paired up with a 503CW in a kit under 10k. Most people though only use them on big jobs, where they hire a tech who brings a back+portable G5 setup with raid 0 or raid 2 config plus a bunch of other garbage. This goes for between 1200 and 1600 per day. Anyway, back to work.

"Backs" mean digital sensor backs attached to the conventional medium-format film camera like Mamiya RZ67/645 or Hassey..etc. These camera can use both interchangeble film backs or digital backs. so, this is something you add onto a traditional film camera to make it digital? and i suppose this could work the other way around as well, going digital to film and all you do is replace these 'backs' to make that so?

Craig