Greetings to all
Last I see and I read much in this forum on the treatment of the skin adjustment. Concretely, some time ago I read something I believe that it was of ByRo (sorry if I am not in the certain thing) on a technique of skin adjustment. After being in contact with important retouchers of cosmetics and beauty, all reached the same. YOU NEVER USE THE GAUSSIAN BLUR LIKE PART OF A PROCESS OF SKIN ADJUSTMENT. With a Gaussian, always we will lose quality of the skin texture. The saying, the great retouchers of cosmetics and beauty never use the Gaussian blur. If somebody wants a professional use to always have present this. Greetings to all

What would you recommend instead?

Greetings superfrasky :bigthmb:

I'm not too sure what you are asking, or what you are stating - but I'll take the opportunity to straighten a few things out:


I think you are referring to my quick deGrunge technique (http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=213);
I have never defended the technique as a full professional resource. I have always said that it's a way to get a good result very quickly. Which, except for the highest of high-enders will usually suffice;
The technique may seem to involve blurring but, in fact, the details (which would be eliminated with blurring) are all preserved. What is eliminated is a band of frequencies - between the high-pass and low-pass (blur)- that usually correspond to the "grunge" in the skin;
This is not a one-stop fix-everything technique, just another tool in the tool-box.

Hope that clears things up.

Rô

Otherwise the process depends on original, i think. I use different method for dng, and 4x5' slide on coolly used gausian blur, You can keep every detail.

saby

byro is totally right. The quick de-grunge technique is definitely not something you would use in high-end retouching, but for home/fun stuff, it's a totally acceptable form of cleaning up skin. It's also good to read through it and understand how it works, and why. There are certain techniques in his tutorial that we'll sometimes do to sharpen/'blur' just a tiny tiny bit.

with a little modification the degrunge trick is perfectly serviceable in commercial work - albeit not real high-end poster campaigns but for your standard magazine shot - unless its a full page extreme close-up - then d&b pixel perfect correction are way too expensive and time consuming.
Done well the results are almost identical at that sort of quality level, why pay for a few hours work when you can get essentially the same look (remember, your general consumer is also not a professional retoucher - they dont have the same eye we do) in minutes. It just wouldnt make financial sense

with a little modification the degrunge trick is perfectly serviceable in commercial work - albeit not real high-end poster campaigns but for your standard magazine shot - unless its a full page extreme close-up - then d&b pixel perfect correction are way too expensive and time consuming.
Done well the results are almost identical at that sort of quality level, why pay for a few hours work when you can get essentially the same look (remember, your general consumer is also not a professional retoucher - they dont have the same eye we do) in minutes. It just wouldnt make financial sense

for the web or retail maybe, but otherwise I whole heartedly disagree. the degrunge is not viable for a quality image. Perhaps it may work on a garbage file, but from a professional standpoint it is not viable. No offense to byRo, but apply that to a quality file that is over 30 mb and no matter the modification, it's not viable.

For a high profile ad campaign a few thousand dollars on a single image wont even get a reaction but for your every day magazine picture that would just not be feasible.
Your average lads mag still uses blur + add noise in a lot of the pics - its not like the readership is looking at skin texture ;) so for them this technique would be a step up.

For a high profile ad campaign a few thousand dollars on a single image wont even get a reaction but for your every day magazine picture that would just not be feasible.
Your average lads mag still uses blur + add noise in a lot of the pics - its not like the readership is looking at skin texture ;) so for them this technique would be a step up.

Yes, the average lads mag - FHM, Maxim, Playboy even (but they are better than ever). But by saying magazine as a blanket statement you are leaving out Vogue, Allure, Harpers Bazaar, V, etc. Ain't no blur nor degrunge. By magazine I mean a magazine of merit. Just thought the clarification needed to be made.

Everyday magazine pictures, even those thrown in the trash after a week do not utilize retouching that involves degrunge or other shortcuts. I've spent as much as a week on a Harpers story personally. Even Italian Glamour which is a very small format mag and let's face it, isn't the most high brow magazine pays up to $700 an image for retouching (rush, but still). The photographers only get $150 a spread...

Its no more of a blanket statement than saying professionals dont use blur or even that this degrunge trick isnt professionally viable - professional just means you get paid for it.
For example, Greg Apodaca posts on his site about skin smoothing
"It involves cloning at low opacities to a new layer, then using blurred noise on the layer to match the surrounding areas. Duplicating the layer, running a median filter and setting the layer to 50%, can be substituted for the cloning."
I've also seen, though I cant find it now a tutorial, using one of his images - though I cant say for sure it was his technique that used surface blur on the underlying skin then a high pass filter to bring out the desired skin texture. While I'm not a fan of his work, there is no denying he is a professional retoucher.

Business is business, why pay $700 for something you can get for $200? The client cares about the result, not the technique used to get it. Like any technique, it takes skill, experience and a good eye to get right, but if you're really good at it, the end result can be as good as d&B - Just this technique alone wont give you perfect skin, theres still work needed before and after but it is a big time saver.

I think particularly in the amateur and semi-pro circles theres too much focus on texture, to the point of adding it in where it wasnt. In a 3/4 length shot or even a low res head and shoulders - unless the model has pores the size of craters - you're just not going to see them. Theres a difference between preserving texture and obsessing so much that you're putting it where there shouldnt be much.

nevermind. point is, a shortcut is a shortcut and it shows. No one in New York is getting paid good money to use a shortcut. Do whatever you want and can get away with. You aren't going to make a good living pushing buttons and that is what everyone should remember.

I don't want to argue texture or not, nor technique. It's the final product that counts.

You speak as if you have no experience with high quality imagery. Perhaps that is where we are differing.

I had no idea who Greg Apodaca was until I googled him. Guy is a douche of the highest order and for you to even mention him in this discussion is pointless but very telling. Some of the worst looking stuff I've seen. Simply horrid. I don't know who pays him, but it would be funny for him to come work here. He even has a .mac homemade website....

retouchpro kills me.

Just thought I'd point out.....

..... his technique that used surface blur on the underlying skin then a high pass filter to bring out the desired skin texture.

.. is pretty much equivalent to deGrunge. If carefully done it can give better results because you don't have to worry about getting too close to the edges.

i used to cheat skin....then basically had the hi-end guy who took me under his wing slap all that nonsense out of me, but more importantly, going beyond skinwork, it really helped me develop my eye.

d&b is only way i go, no matter what the project...and if it's a low paid editorial, still do d&b. no matter what the deal, i do it the right way 1st time around.

I don't know who pays him, but it would be funny for him to come work here. He even has a .mac homemade website....

...maybe thats because he works for Apple Computer as a Senior Print Production Designer

You seem to be completely missing the point - the point being, regardless of what you think of his work he is a PROFESSIONAL in the industry, so to say that professionals dont use these techniques is clearly false.

But lets be realistic here ant, you're all mouth and no trousers, you talk big and rubbish everyone's work - but you've not the balls to show any of your own work, or even prove that you're not just a pretentious forum troll. If you really feel the way you post, why bother coming here at all? You're completely closed minded and have no desire to contribute to the learning environment of this forum. You have nothing to offer and you clearly feel you have nothing to learn so whats the point?

I have evidence to backup my arguments, where's yours? Sweeping statements without any citation or even annecdotal evidence dont equal truth.
This technique is shunned by ignorant industry snobs who see the word blur and turn up their noses, without considering the fact that a) the blur isnt applied to the skin at all, and b) the technique is founded on solid principles of image theory.
The attached image took around 5 minutes - and would take that amount of time regardless of the size of image. Its far from perfect/finished but its a lot closer than it was 5 minutes before I started.
Blur is just another tool, its not evil or dirty or forbidden.
If you work exclusively in very high end ad campaigns then your clients can afford to have you fix every single pixel by hand but thats not the 'norm'.

You would be hard pressed to find this sort of snobbery in other industries - my mum works in cosmetic research - I can just imagine her telling her clients that she *could* run all their results through the stats package on her computer but instead she's going to do it all by hand and bill by the hour. I can really see them queueing up for that one.

BIG DEAL HE WORKS FOR MAC. He also doesn't do retouching there. Because some moron gets paid to retouch and uses blur means what anyway, that it's viable? NO.

Point is is that you don't get it that you are arguing a ridiculous thing.

Your example image LOOKS BLURRED. It's glowing!It looks bad. PERIOD. Also, it's a tiny web jpg.

All mouth and no trousers? One, I give valid advice here and never troll. I have never called something a piece of shit that did not deserve that name. Do a search for 'find all posts by this user' before you slam me in a public forum with untruths. If it's not put in a way that is polite enough for you then gfy or get over it. I could care.

Two, you want me to put up examples for YOU or others here to critique? Like I said in another thread, it would be much like asking 4 year olds to a wine tasting. I have been a high end retoucher for over 8 years, 5 and a half in NYC. I put in 2250-3500 hours a year doing this, mostly on ads. Also, you want me to participate in the retouching or manipulation of tiny, low quality jpgs here? My time is very expensive and I'm a busy individual. What do you do for a living, where do you live?

My evidence? High end professional job experience in the retouching capital of the world, education, peers and industry standards. Yours? Katrin Eisman, Greg Apodaca and other hacks and their websites and books for people just like you? Those that will never make a decent living manipulating photos - Doodlers.

LISTEN TO YOURSELF. YOU ARE ADVOCATING SHORTCUTS/BUTTON PUSHING WHEN IT COMES TO RETOUCHING. YOU HAVE NO LEGS TO STAND ON AND SEEM TO BE ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING.

What I'm really saying is that you should stop giving advice. I'm most adverse to the inanity here. The poor advice, the glad handing, the ATROCIOUS examples... the list doesn't stop.

Why don't you start a Poll or something as to the validity of my critiques. See if others want me here and keep your doodling to yourself as well as your poor technique, advice and taste.

I'm a huge fan of byRo's Degrunging technique. In combination of other things (i.e., air brushing/smudging, cloneing, and/or healing brush work), you can get pretty good results.

Hope Nancy doesn't mind me using one of her images. I've been working on another way to degrunge using Adaptive Contrast Enhancement (GIMP). Dup for a total of three layers, run ACE on the Top layer and set to Grain Extract. Merge down and set to Overlay at 50% Opacity. Now dup the base layer and blur the middle layer and adjust the Opacity (hat's off to byRo for this as part of his quick technique that I used here). Copy the Base layer on Top and commence to erasing. Now I did not do any cloning or healing brush (GIMP doesn't have a healing brush) work. Just wanted to show this variation in it's pure sense. Note that facial indentions turned into pimples. lol

Ant, you're just showing your complete ignorance of image theory. Just because you do it by hand doesnt mean your method is superior - far from it, there is increased opportunity for human error in a manual technique.
The technique - or certainly the variant that I use, is dodge and burn but it takes a fraction of the time.
In the attached image, the skin has been smoothed using dodge and burn - it took < 1 minute and aside from the masking and computational time, it would take that amount of time on a 3Gb file (many of which I have worked on) absolutely no blurring was used in this image - what was used is a solid foundation in digital image theory. But ofcourse, if you knew as much as you think you know then you'd know how it was done and know why it is faster and superior to a manual technique. Yes there are still flaws that need to be fixed by hand, but they are few and quick to fix.
But I'm sure you'll say this one is blurred and glowing too - still not backing up your statements with facts or evidence though are you? You think its blurred because you know that gaussian blur was used in the process and presumably you think its glowing because you think I'm using a technique that I'm not. There is no edge glow in my technique.

As for your valid critique - I did do a 'find all posts' by user before posting last night and what I found was around 90% rude obnoxious trolling or otherwise pointless posts and at a push 10% containing genuine constructive critique or helpful commentary.

You're such a 'busy man' and your time is so 'expensive' yet you find plenty of time to berate those you consider to be '4 year olds' in comparison to yourself. My time is very expensive but I'm not a busy woman, because I make a damn good living working 20 hours a week. Theres a limit to how much money you actually need or could usefully spend.

Unless you're prepared to put your money where your mouth is and back yourself up with more than just your self-inflated ego, you're just a little man trying to look big on the internet.

You are hilarious. Your image looks like crap. Stop while you are way behind.

You are hilarious. Your image looks like crap. Stop while you are way behind.

yet again you completely miss the point, further showing your ignorance and fail to back up your opinions and statements with anything based on fact

What is your point? I'd love to know. If someone gets paid to blur something or take a shortcut that means it looks good? no.

Your continued personal attacks are amusing. FACT. I don't care what your technique. It's the end result that matters. Your examples do not look good. You would be laughed at. This isn't 1992. That may fly in Norwood or West Sussex or Oklahoma, but not in the real world.

It's the end result that matters. Your end results, no matter the methods achieved to get there, do not look acceptable.

The FACT is you are a button pusher and advocating button pushing. The results are not the same. Your kind are found all over - most especially in photography. Take the science and tech part of everything, but can't make a decent image for the life of you.

There is a reason people pay many thousands of dollars for work on their ads. The effect they are after cannot be created by pushing a button. FACT.

I refuse to respond further to this thread. If you find me rude, so be it, and my original statements stand. Get thicker skin, don't ask for a critique or GFY.

Ant.. Not wanting to waste your time but could you please give us...button-pushers.. a thrill and post a before and after. Don't bother wasting your time on one of the images from this forum, but maybe one of the ones you've done in the past? It would take tops two seconds of your time but we'd be eternally grateful to see how it could and should be done.

Thanks,

Lasa (a button-pusher with high hopes)

"Business is business, why pay $700 for something you can get for $200?"

you can't get it for $200, you know the statement.

I want it good,fast and cheap.

you can have it fast and cheap but not good
you can have it good and cheap but not fast
you can have it good and fast but not cheap

same with retouching

you can have it fast and cheap but blurred
you can have it good and cheap well not really it will probably still be blurred
you can have it good and fast but it will cost you $700+

I come to this forum to learn, and I have learned about quick not so good ways of doing things that are great when on set shooting and need to give the client an idea of how an image will look down and dirty. I have also learned how things should be done for my style of work and it is d&b with no shortcuts.

I miss Shelby being on here as she was always was pushing for the best way to do something and never was satisified with all the short cuts offered up. I think she learned all she could here and moved on and hopefully after a while she will be back to help others.

I have to say that for me there are only a few people who have really helped me progress. Shelby,Hayrad,cricket1961 and Ant.

I like to see a good harsh critique over all the pussyfooting that goes on here. If your here to learn be prepaired to hear the truth.

i did about 20 min of d&b on nacys pic, and left her degrunge on the right side.

def not looking to waste my time arguing with anyone, just posted it to show my OPINION of realistic looking skin opposed to blurred.

obviously it's still a little blotchy, without the resolution, i can't burn the counterparts to where i sloppily dodged.

--but my point being, this method is a lot more time consuming, but once you get the hang of it, it gets a whole lot faster, and can be a whole lot more worth it.

even on lower end pieces.

you may like it, you may think it sucks, whatever. could care less, but i would help anyone if interested.

Who is Ant? http://anthonyhague.com/ :question:

Seems NY sent in its top reps...all of which are outrageously gifted retouchers... I for one stand in awe of their talent and presense here..

Lasa, button-pusher-extraordinaire

There are a number of threads right now, in addition to this one, with people asking about skin and texture.

Skin is probably the #1 factor when it comes to retouching, be it high-end or for home use.

But like so many have already stated, there are a multitude of various methods that people can choose from to retouch skin.

It would be interesting if we had a gallery or challenge or something, where we all had the same image, and used different techniques on it. That way, people would have a better understanding of what they want to achieve, how much time it would take, and how they could incorporate certain techniques into their own personal use. I think something along these lines would be a good learning experience for everyone, really, be it novice or expert.

And that's the point of this forum, to share the wealth.

It's all down to the time versus results equation. The more time you spend the better results you'll get. Doing a cover shot? (not that I ever have) spend a day on it and it'll look great. Whizzing thru an album of friends and family? Setup a degrunge action and spend a couple of minutes on each.

Ant, fair enough you think you're the 'dogs' but so often on forums you get one person like you who rants and rants, when push comes to shove they turn out to be worse than everybody else. So post something or STFU.

You can say what you like about my attempts, I've been doing it two months as a hobby and this place has been a great resource. Who knows (the way it's going) maybe one day I might actually commit to trying to make a go of it professionally but for now I'm happy soaking up all the knowledge I can.

Ant, judging by your Avatar and the tone of your signature statement you obviously think you are better than everyone else here. So I ask you, W H Y D O N ' T Y O U G O A W A Y? Because clealry, and according to yourself, you have better things to do, are much more talented, we produce atrocious examples, are glad handers...oh and the list goes on. So why don't you take your too good for everyone attitude, snobby, up yourself remarks, offensive opinions and get the f outta here? Gotta laugh, you're such a fool and you don't even know it...lol

I'm mostly a lurker on these forums but I just had to reply to this thread. Instead of Ant going away, how about people get some thick skin when someone says they don't like your work. There have been many threads where Ant's given some really good advice and yes there have also been many threads where his only advice is "it sucked, quit trying to retouch." And on most of them, after looking at the image I tend to agree. I'd rather have someone that's gonna be up front and critical about my work than someone who "sugar coats" things all the time. I'm glad there's someone like Ant on these forums. I have to admit I'm a dreaded "button pusher." But thanks to reading posts from him and others on here, they've shown me the "error of my ways" so to speak. The only way you're going to get better at anything is from people pointing out what you're doing wrong, not people telling you how well you're doing things right.

(sorry... I got a little "quotation marks" happy there)

Ok guys...this is something I have never seen on these forums and quite frankly, it saddens me.

Ant, you obviously know what you are talking about but you do have a way of putting your opinion across rather obnoxiously. We are not asking you to 'pussy foot' with your critique but to just say 'it is crap' is just not good enough. Be honest but please try a little more tact...that is all that is being asked of you. I for one, like hearing good honest critique that is to the point...that is how we all learn...but how are we to learn if the image is just torn to pieces without a being told how to fix it or being pointed in the right direction? ...and this goes for everyone who just walks into a thread, tears an image to pieces without offering a solution.

Anyway, I think it best now that everyone stop 'dumping' on each other and continue to keep RetouchPro the harmonious site it once was.

Having said that, I decided to work on Nancy's image and would like critique. :D Be honest but let's play nice. This is the first retouch I have done in ages!

I lightened the image as a whole so we could see her eyes more. Too much texture perhaps?

Looks like I missed a bit of fun - for some reason this thread isnt appearing in the RSS feed.

Just to clarify - the image has been posted on the forum before - some time ago - its not mine, its Shelbys.

Ziaphra, the first thing that strikes me about your image is that you've compressed it too much, its destroyed a lot of fine detail - the limit is 100k and your file is only 55k. Its much harder to critique your work if you destroy it all with compression.
A lot of the skin texture is artifacted so its hard to comment but it is still a little uneven and blotchy in places.
The bags and wrinkles under her eyes need a lot more work - interestingly you removed the hair from her skin but left it hanging over her eye?
You've lost the natural crisp line of her top lip, I dont know if that was intentional, but imo the softening doesnt look good.
It appears - though again, its hard to tell precisely with the artifacting, that you've added texture where there was none originally and really shouldnt be - ie, upper lip and tip of nose should be mostly smooth but in your image they're bumpy, pores in those areas are very small and would not be visible on a photograph of this size.
On the right side of her face, near her nose, there is a deep wrinkle/smile line that is really out of place with all other facial lines removed.
On the left side I can almost see an outline of an S shape, presumably, track marks from whatever tool you used to remove the blemishes in that area.
I probably would have lightened the eyes a little more - but thats purely preference, in the 'real world' the photographer/art director would tell you whether or not they wanted that doing.
Overall, for me, the image is oversharpened but opinions on that will vary depending on quality of monitor (and eyes)
The sharpening looks particularly bad on the hair because it emphasises the split ends and makes the hair look dry and brittle.

was just going to say that is from my website

Why would anyone waste time watching TV when all the entertainment one needs is to read this thread?

As Willie S would have said, "A tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing".

Howdy folks,
I struggle with skin, so I thought I'd give this one a try. For what it's worth

jh given the resolution of the image I didn't think your retouch was too shabby at all

Hi NancyJ:
I am Eduardo from Mexico, we are having problems down here, I like the "grunge" Technique, well, seems it works, Ant did not give one technique ...
Well I have a problem with my photos, after i retouch them, i have to get them small, in Mexico you use ID photos of about 2.5 cm by 3.0 cm color or BW,
when I crop them ( I have to use resolutions about 200-254 for the different printers) they get flat or like a plast the details get lost, do you know why? or what do I have to do?...THANKYOU VERY MUCH!.