Hi Folks. I haven't posted in awhile, so here goes. I took this photo of a young lady with very light makeup. I wanted to do a very light retouch, just to enhance her beauty and not make it too slick. I ran some exposure corrections and levels. Color was accurate like the org shot. I used the spot healing brush on a separate layer to get the blemishes and freckles removed. I also used the clone tool at 50% to smooth the skin out. I wanted to keep the skin texture and pores apparent, but I did apply Ro's degrunge tutorial on a layer and then took the opacity down a bit. After I finished with all the first level retouching, I went to the airbrush at about 2% output and the eyedropper tool to sample surrounding colors to smooth out some areas, but still keep the skin texture and pores. On another layer, I then went to the filter menu, to texture and selected sandstone. I took the intensity way down and sel soft light at 30%. I was pleased with the effect. It seemed to give the skin a "real" look. Since studying all the tips on retouching in the forums here, it seems the skin and pores look is becoming popular, rather than the blurred look that I used to go for. I want to get better at making my subjects look more natural now, at a higher level. Let me know how I did and if I am on the right approach. BTW, what is the dodge and burn layer technique? I can't seem to find out where the actual tutorial is on the forum. Thanks for your help and advice. Steveb

The dodge and burn layers, well. That's actually very easy:

Create a new layer, set it to overlay and fill it with 50% gray. The current effect on the picture is nothing at all, but by painting in with white and black you can dodge and burn certain areas without affecting the underlying layers. If you don't like something you've done, just paint with gray over it to neutralize. That's about it...

Back to your image, I do like it but also like the face of the girl as is, so made my own attempt. The attachment shows three stages: Basic blemish removal, stray hair, some dodge and burn and so on. Then copied the red channel over it and set to luminosity to even it out a little. Second one is with a surface blur over it (dislike that one). Stage three adds a an overlay layer with a heavy gaussian blur to make it look absolutely artificial.

I consider number one to be the best one since it looks most natural, but for say an ad or an innovative present, gift, whatever number three might be suitable as well.

P.

Hi Patrick. Thanks for the critique. You mentioned that you tried out some things, but I don't see any attachments. Are they hidden somewhere? Like to see what you did. SteveB

Hi there, Steve,

It's pretty hard to say what is right and what's wrong when retouching; like Patrick said, it will mostly depend on the final use of the image.

However, one thing I think you should have taken care of is to hide the label from the sweater (well, I think it's the label). Likewise the stray threads on the hand are distracting.

You said that you were doing a "Light Retouch", which I would interpret as meaning that the result should be more "natural" than "glamour". If that is so, then I think you overshot the target a bit. The keyword here I see as "enhance" and not "Retouch".

Nice work though. You're on the right track.

I had a shot using enhance-type tools...
1) Blurred the background more, to help the lady stand out;
2) Put in a bit more colour;
3) Rounded her face a little;
4) Very slight "de-grunge" (I will heartily disagree with anyone who refers to freckles as grunge).
5) Took out the label and stay threads.

Rô

Hi Ro. Nice job on the gal. You do have an eagle eye and to be honest, I really didn't notice the label nor the sweater fibers on her hand. That tells me to be very, very observant when I work an image, no matter what the usage is for. Now about freckles, do you feel it is ok to leave them as is or should we airbrush them out? I never really thought about that factor and just assumed they should go. Good idea about the background. I think I used a 100m f2.8 macro to get a nice blur. You took the same approach I tried to get, less is more. I never shoot any model without a makeup artist with me to help me to get the most from the image and save on the enhancements/retouch. Regards steveb

Hi Steve.

I did a full retouch and then blended it back into the original.
Corrected skintone
Removed hand
Darkened and blurred background.

This is probably still way too much for your tastes, But I enjoyed doing it.

Ken.

Theres nothing more naturual looking than the real thing. This girl has flawless skin, leave it alone if you want to look natural!!
I cant have a go at this now because I'm at work and I've only got GIMP here :(
But this is what I would do:

Soften the dark circles under her eyes.
Remove the little bit of shine on her forehead and nose.
Very slightly round the jawline - from the angle of the photo its very harsh, I love a girl with a strong jaw but thats a little too far and not very flattering for her.
Smooth the chin crinkles
Neaten up the stray hairs a little - not too much, dont want to look like a wig around the hairline.
Smile enhancement - either exaggerate the half smile to look more coquettish and less sarcastic, or straighten it out.
Enhance the eye colour a little, the bright green backdrop is overshadowing her lovely eyes.

And thats really all that she needs.

As for a critique, well I've said all I need to about the skin I think ;) Except that if you are going to use any kind of bluring or airbrushing, be carefuly around the nose - you've lost definition around the base - always a big indicator that an image has been retouched.

I thought Steve your final retouch was a tad on the blue side, and Camerataken your retouch left her pale. I haven't calibrated my monitor in a while but now I've got some incentive.

I just took Steve's retouch and warmed it up some in Lab increasing the Magenta and Yellow some.

I like your subtle approach to this picture. For me it is OK, if you wanted just a little touch up the portrait. I did my own version, just because I have a downtime and really getting bored :)

Oops, forgot to add the image :)

Thanks for the comments Phil.

Yes, I think you’re right. I increased the saturation in her skin.
I think it looks better.

Steve. I also think that yours looked a little blue. Maybe it’s because the image is posted in ColorMatch RGB Profile and not sRGB.


Ken.

Why does the world hate pale chicks? Not everyone has a hollywood tan - nor should they - it just doesnt suit them.
Cameraken - watch the scalp - dead giveaway that its a fake tan. Speaking of which - has the original had work done on it? Or has she just put makeup in her hair? ;)

Hi Phil. The retouch on my monitor actually is redder, not on the blue side. All monitors give us different readings. Some of the other examples appeared more on the orange or too bronze for my taste. There were some some good alternates on my take and I analyzed everyone's comments. To Nancy, the model was not really pale, actually she has a healthy glow. My attempt was too try out some techniques I have read about here like Ro's degrunge example. Some felt that it was best to leave the org as is, but I felt a little tweaking was in order, not too much. Thanks to everyone's attempt and comment. I want to keep trying out some new directions and ideas mentioned here also. steveb

At home now, so this is my version

Well I recalibrated my tried and true CRT monitor and looked at Steve's Retouch and checked out some numbers. The whites of her eyes were 169R; 162G;182 Blue. Her skin in CMYK ( 16%C; 33%M;22%Y;0%K). Normal yellow for skin color is about 1/5 to 1/3 Greater than Magenta (According to Katrin E. Restoration and Retouchin Vol 3 page 124.)

One formula for skin mentioned here recently is: CLICK HERE (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12944)

At any rate it has a bluish cast. Of course if thats the way you want it fine.

Why does the world hate pale chicks? Not everyone has a hollywood tan - nor should they - it just doesnt suit them.
Cameraken - watch the scalp - dead giveaway that its a fake tan. Speaking of which - has the original had work done on it? Or has she just put makeup in her hair? ;) nancy, actually, there is good reason for not favoring pale. the red of the skin comes primarily from blood. pale translates to death, that pale look of death, or, lack of blood.

when i first looked at the original picture, i thought, boy, vampire skin and was tempted to do a joke manipulation with fangs. so, it actually comes from a survival trait.

craig

Phil. I am using an iBook G4, so the monitor can fool us all. I made a color correction and some other tweaks on this example and punched up the yellow to balance out the scale. These screens aren't as accurate as CRTs. Tell me how it looks on your screen and if it appears more balanced. Also, I want to try out some other examples with different color ratios when I can on some other files if you can check them out for me. Some of the other posted examples were very reddish on my monitor, how did you read them? Steveb

Nancy, that's a very good point and Craig that's a very good reply.

As I remember, I was the first to post an image (Patrick almost posted).
I just dived in with the skin colour "correction" on instinct. Like in Craig's reply, I just thought that it was needed. But now, with Nancy's observation, I've had to look again.

I defended her freckles (as in, don't throw away with the grunge) because they were a part of her appearance. Maybe I should have thought the same way about her skin colour.

I have seen beautiful images of pale-skinned ladies and in many corners of this world such skin is highly treasured. Perhaps it was just taking the easy way out to adjust the skin to a more "healthy" colour instead of grasping the opportunity to learn how to properly retouch pale skin.

Needs thinking about......*

Rô
(* although I know that the answer is 42 :wink: )

I've included the numbers. The second picture I just corrected by the numbers and didn't look at the screen. I used K.Eismans' numbers for an average caucasion. (C-17%; M-32%; Y-53%; K-0%).

Well here is a test image. A nice gray gradient and various skin tones. Check the cmyk numbers and stuff. It could identify a calibration problem.

nancy, actually, there is good reason for not favoring pale. the red of the skin comes primarily from blood. pale translates to death, that pale look of death, or, lack of blood.

when i first looked at the original picture, i thought, boy, vampire skin and was tempted to do a joke manipulation with fangs. so, it actually comes from a survival trait.

craig
Thats one way to look at it - but there is ofcourse the flip side of coin - tanned skin can be associated with skin cancer, premature aging and plastic barbie dolls :p

Its a cultural thing more than instinctual. In typical western culture through media we're taught that yellow/orange skin is 'a healthy glow', when in fact its the complete opposite.
In my culture, pale is beautiful and orange skin is generally associated with 'chavs'. ( http://www.chavscum.co.uk/).
So many retouches I see people quoting Katrin Eismans numbers like gospel and changing every photo they have to be a perfect 9% 35% 40% or whatever they are. Not everyone has the same skin colour, some people are pale, some people are olive, its part of who they are, who are we to say that its unnattractive?
Some people just dont suit a tan - like this girl, she's freckly, freckly girls dont tan as a rule and putting fake tan on looks awful, my sister, although not freckled, has that same skin type - very fair, doesnt tan well and looks rediculous in fake tan - she still wears in anyway but what can I say - she's an essex girl.

sorry, didnt mean to rant. I just wish people would use their heads and their eyes, instead of just 'going by the numbers'.
This 'average caucasian' doesnt exist. Caucasian is just too broad a category. Scandinavian, hispanic, italian and irish are all caucasian but for evolutionary reasons, they all have different natural skintones and colourings.

This 'average caucasian' doesnt exist. Caucasian is just too broad a category. Scandinavian, hispanic, italian and irish are all caucasian but for evolutionary reasons, they all have different natural skintones and colourings.[/QUOTE]

Very true but blue skinned people are about as rare as average caucasians (unless, as Craig said, they're dead) and in this photo there are definite instances where the skin is at best neutral and often leaning towards a bluish color. In particular check out the shadow areas on the right side of the face. Boosting the yellow in the quartertone while lowering the cyan will correct these issues while still preserving the "paleness" of the skin.

Nancy, you are right on about skin "numbers." Each person is different. I don't know much about Katrin's numbers, but it is probably just a starting reference point which has to be tweaked depending on the skin tone and if it is going to press or not.The appearance on the web and going to press has its own uniqueness. In pre-press we were taught to usually make sure that yellow was set a few percentages above the magenta to avoid a sunburn look. I have some of Scott Kelby's books and it likes many of his skin tone examples are way too magenta. Others have commented on this same thing. Each printer usually will supply their own profile. BTW, I have read that sRGB is not a good profile to have as screen reference. Adobe RGB or perhaps ColorMatch RGB might be a way to go.

Simple CMYK curve correction boosting the yellow in the quartertone and lowering the cyan. I set the layer to color blend mode over the original image to preserve the contrast lost by lowering the cyan. It's at about 60% opacity. She still preserves her light skinned appearance but the skin is forced out of the bluish neutrality into more believable tones.

Very true but blue skinned people are about as rare as average caucasians (unless, as Craig said, they're dead) and in this photo there are definite instances where the skin is at best neutral and often leaning towards a bluish color. In particular check out the shadow areas on the right side of the face. Boosting the yellow in the quartertone while lowering the cyan will correct these issues while still preserving the "paleness" of the skin.
FWIW, blue skinned people do exist ;)

There is a discolouration on the right side shadow (which could be caused by a number of things) but it isnt in any way indicative of the rest of her skin colour - which is highest in magenta, not cyan.
Just colour correcting for flash (on the whole image, not just the skin) this is what I come up with.

BTW, the more I work on this image, the more I'm convinced it isnt an original, I could be wrong but there are some indicators.

ok, just in case some of that 'rant' was directed at me, i made no comment on whether 'pale' was good or bad, or attractive or not, simply that that may have been where the trend comes from, at least in western culture.

i also recall something regarding what Ro said about 'pale' being highly valued. good point.

and nancyj, i NEVER go by the numbers. Katrin who? ;)

i'm only posting this because you quoted me, nancyj, and that made me wonder if you were directing that post at me.

craig

Phil, let me know how this update appears on your monitor. Also, I'm getting the sense that there is some tense stuff going between some folks here. It's ok to agree to disagree, but...
Have I opened a can of worms here? It's just a critique and all this is supposed to be fun and a learning experience. steveb

ok, just in case some of that 'rant' was directed at me, i made no comment on whether 'pale' was good or bad, or attractive or not, simply that that may have been where the trend comes from, at least in western culture.

i also recall something regarding what Ro said about 'pale' being highly valued. good point.

and nancyj, i NEVER go by the numbers. Katrin who? ;)

i'm only posting this because you quoted me, nancyj, and that made me wonder if you were directing that post at me.

craig
I wasnt ranting at you craig, but I do disagree that the fondness for tanned skin is primal/instictual or some kind of survival trait. Throughout history in a variety of different cultures - not just western, pale has been considered to be the height of fashion. Tanned or pink skin was the mark of someone who worked outdoors - which is ofcourse, terribly common and not at all fashionable ;) High society ladies would whiten their skin with egg whites and lead powder (beauty at any cost, ladies?)
Its only really since hollywood and colour movies that this look has become popular.

I like all women, so I don't care what colour skin they have. Blue skin? I like blue skin.

I didn't read thru the whole thread, so I'm not sure if anyone gave feedback to the orginal poster regarding the retouch of this woman. The only thing I didn't like was you overlooked the tag on her sweater.

Mig

:bow: :bow: a picture is worth a thousand words :bow: :bow:

Now there's a beautiful blue lady!

Rô

Mig, I like the "special effect" you did on the gal. It came off like an illustration for a concept. And yes, she is beautiful no matter what anyone says. I should know, I shot over 100 photos of her in the park. steveb

Mig, I like the "special effect" you did on the gal. It came off like an illustration for a concept. And yes, she is beautiful no matter what anyone says. I should know, I shot over 100 photos of her in the park. steveb

I made a mistake :), I was trying to say, that blue color just don't fit with that image, that's all, nothing about a beauty. :thumbsup:

nancyj,

ok, good. glad the rant wasnt at me.

mostly, i agree with you about the numbers thing. i find 'the numbers' tend to ignore other conditions, especially lighting. a fixed 'norm' always tends to give me the willys.

i do find this discussion interesting. you're attributing the recent 'tanned' look to hollywood, or their influence. i may have misunderstood you earlier then. i was referring to just an untouched, untanned skin; sort of its 'normal' state for a given person. my comments were directed at that and not the tanned stuff. so, ok.

you also mention the artificial whiting of skin with powder and egg whites. i wonder if that was a similar condition to why men wore powdered wigs. the wigs came about, at least to my understanding, as a health issue. back then, head lice was very common. shaving and wigging the head was done as a preventive measure...at least in part. i'm sure there was also a fad reason also, but i have heard the wig thing attributed to being a health issue.

so, that makes me wonder in general, where do all these trends and fads and considerations on 'beauty and ugliness' come from? it might make for an interesting book. 'skin tones, beauty, history of'. was hollywood the big influence on the tanned look? were powdered wigs a health thing? did women use egg whites and powder as a health thing also, or was this for some other beauty reason or consideration? it might well be an interesting study in cultural considerations on beauty and ugliness and the history thereof.

and then, taking all that, apply it to retouching, restoration and colorization.

in addition, was ted turner correct in colorizing all those old black and white movies, and if so, why, and if not, why? and, did he do a decent job by retouchpro standards?

and like you and Ro rightfully pointed out, some cultures favored paler skins. where did that come from? did my point of blood and death really have any bearing on today's considerations? all interesting points to study.

i've also been wondering of late, since we're in a bit of a digital revolution/evolution here, how did the earlier, analog methods of retouching affect our cultural considerations of what looks right in a magazine ad or a hollywood movie? were those old boys better or worse than today? if they had a harder time with a more limited set of tools, did that affect our overall considerations by the jobs they were able to do back then? as a for instance, i remember Life magazine and how the pictures all tended to look a bit grainy compared to today's. the saturation was less as well. so what influence did all this have?

i've also noticed in the forums here, that there can be quite a striking difference in results on the same image. this thread is no different. is this due to skill, calibration, perceptions of the individual, simple considerations of what looks 'right' or 'wrong' or 'beautiful' or not? it's an interesting study. i know first hand that perceptions are not always the same. and i'm talking about physical perceptions here, like sight and sound. not everyone sees things exactly the same regardless of monitor calibration. i remember as a kid having an arguement with a brother over whether a piece of metal was painted a very dark green or whether it was black. i swore it was dark green and he swore it was black. we never did come to an agreement (and frankly, he still owes me $5 on a bet made on the subject ;) ) so, even perceptions can vary.

so, yes, i tend to agree that 'by the numbers' is a very limited way to assess and evaluate an image.

craig

The large wigs were made fashionable in europe by Louis XIII, who was prematurely bald. Later on, lighter coloured wigs became popular and fashionable , but the technology just didnt exist to make a stable bleached wig - hence the powder. FWIW, wigs were just as full of lice etc as hair, but considerably easier to maintain as you could give your wig to a nitpicker to delouse.
The egg whites and lead powder were not a health concern! Quite the opposite, lead is terribly bad for you ;) Fashions were largely created by Royalty - who did very little, therefore were very pale - they stayed in doors and were attended to etc, they did no manual labor, thus the 'healthy outdoorsy look' was associated with peasants - very unfashionable. The whiter your skin, the less work you did, therefore the richer you must be, is basically how that one went.

Generally speaking 'the common masses' have always emulated high status figures, even just a century ago, that was often a royal figure or the head of state. With mass media that has now become popular actors and musicians. In early films, the female stars often had dark hair, pale skin and dark lipstick because thats what looked good on B&W film.
One of the reasons 'holywood' is in california, is the light is very good for filming and spend a lot of time in the sun and your hair gets lighter and you skin gets darker, so that becomes the fashion - its a reverse of the 'royalty look'.
Now we have the full realisation of the effects of sun damage on the skin - cancer, premature aging etc. and the media fashion seems to be moving away from that look and back towards a paler tone. We've seen here many threads asking how to get that very white look in skin of late - fashion is fickle ;)

As to the thing with your brother, if you are more artistically inclined than him then it is likely that it was green - an artistically trained eye is capable of perceiving more colours than most people.

nancyj,

excellent! and thank you. that made a lot of sense.

fascinating, isnt it. and certainly fickle! :)

craig

nancyj,

excellent! and thank you. that made a lot of sense.

fascinating, isnt it. and certainly fickle! :)

craig
Thats not even to get into divergent subcultures that purposefully subvert the 'norm' and seek to be 'different', ironically, by doing so they form fashion cliques of their own and are just as much subject to rules of fashion and current trends within that subculture - people with thier own truely unique personal style are VERY rare!!!

Something else of note, cultures with very little diversity in characteristics often value that which is different to the 'norm', such as arabian cultures very much valuing blondes - I went to tunisia as a child and my blonde hair and blue eyes were a valuable asset - I believe my parents were offered several camels/donkeys for me ;) This could be an instinctual thing rather than cultural - it makes sense as a population to want to increase the gene pool.
In the UK and the US where there has been a lot of conquering and immigration etc we have a much more genetic diversity, we've got from the palest platinum blondes to the blackest black and everything in between.
Whereas more insular cultures have very little variance in genetic traits.

I believe my parents were offered several camels/donkeys for me done! ;) (now where the heck do i find some camels?)

This could be an instinctual thing rather than cultural i would guess that it's probably more of a 'rare being more valuable' thing, but ok. if gold were as common as dirt it would have a lot less value. in a culture where dark hair and dark eyes were the commonplace, then light and light would tend to be prised for no other reason than scarcity, with the exception of some cultural taboo.

craig