I'm using demo of this plug in and can't seem to get any kind of fade to work to adjust opacity.

Also curious of opinions on this tool. I'm doing high end beauty tests, and one retoucher I met said he would not use this -- i.e. too phony looking . thanks

I assume you're talking about the Digital GEM Airbrush (http://www.asf.com/products/plugins/airpro/pluginAIRPRO.asp) plugin. I rather liked it, but you'd definitely need to use it on a separate layer with a layer mask.

As for phony looking, that's kind of the point :)

thanks Doug:
So that's how you control it? by doing it on a separate layer and then adjusting opacity to taste. No fade?

Now you say that's the point. So this is just for like People magazine work? Or do serious beauty shooters use it? A shooter for a beauty magazine or cosmetic AD would not use it? It's too obvious?

Also, how does it work? It's essentially a blur thing? And why does it seem to leave the eyes alone ok, but then effect the hair and clothes?

Reducing opacity might work, but my suggestion is to use a layer mask.

As for eyes vs. hair, fine detail will be the first thing lost. Eyes are only saved by virtue of their being bigger. But you can overlay the real hair and set the blend mode to darken and the full detail should be restored.

It's a blurring method, the actual math is proprietary. But I suspect some sort of luminosity blur, perhaps with some edge detection.

As for looking fake, it depends on how much you crank it up. It's a plugin, so it will never replace actual skill and experience. I doubt any major outlet would use this or any other plugin. But the idea is to look flawless, which is by definition "fake".

thanks Doug:
The mask for selective using where you want the filter to work? use the mask to save hair, eyes etc. correct?

thanks for frank reply on that. I'm meeting some retouchers who will work on my fashion shots for trade, so maybe I'll blow off the kodak idea except for quick shows to models.