Hi,
I am working with photoshop CS3. I was wondering if anybody can offer any advice on how to do images like the afters in the before and afters on this page,
http://www.modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=261385&page=3

Sorry I couldn't post the images directly into this topic. They aren't mine and wouldn't feel right posting around images without consent.

I've found a lot of skin tutorials but the retouching on these images is done to the background as well as the model.
If anybody can offer any advice I'd greatly appreciate it.

I think that the skin work had been done with Imagenomic Portraiture.

That could be true, however, she was discussing using photoshop in a separate thread. She puts them out very fast, maybe takes her 5 minutes. So I'm guessing she's using the same program for both skin and background. I was thinking that possibly it's one technique that is fixing both skin and background at the same time.

If you have a model mayhem account why don't you just ask her how she does it? Jeska is a total sweetheart and would probably tell you how she does it, as she is still just learning herself.

To me it looks like she is adjusting the color of the photo first(contrast,sharpening etc...), then creates a duplicate layer. On the copy layer she uses a surface blur to blur out the skin tones. Then she masks the copy layer (hide all) and then paints white into the mask where she wants the blur to go on the skin,

I could discuss in length how to do it, but here is a website that will show you how to do it:
http://tutorialpulse.com/49/superb-skin-airbrush-technique/

I don't care much for this technique, I prefer to have the skin look natural. But it seems to be really popular with all the photographers lately.

Hope this helps you out in some way,
Dan

I saw that tutorial today when looking. I figured that only took care of the skin. I don't have an account, yet. I would ask, she seems like a really nice person. But it seems she is looking to take retouching more seriously so I figured, even if I was able to contact her she probably wouldn't share her secret. I'm sure a lot of people are asking her how she does this.

Thank you for the advice.

I don't care much for this technique, I prefer to have the skin look natural. But it seems to be really popular with all the photographers lately.

Some. Perhaps even many. Certainly not all. :)

It's a LOT faster than any technique which cleans up skin and still retains the original texture, or which properly remaps skin texture afterwards. For those in a hurry, and/or without the desire/need to maintain integrity of subject, it's very popular. (I use that for some portraits, for example, as none of my portrait clients seem to care, and it saves a lot of time.)

Can't use it for commercial work, though; it looks altogether too fake.

Some. Perhaps even many. Certainly not all. :)

It's a LOT faster than any technique which cleans up skin and still retains the original texture, or which properly remaps skin texture afterwards. For those in a hurry, and/or without the desire/need to maintain integrity of subject, it's very popular. (I use that for some portraits, for example, as none of my portrait clients seem to care, and it saves a lot of time.)

It sounds like you could answer my question but for some reason didn't.

It sounds like you could answer my question but for some reason didn't.

Short Answer:
The improved color and saturation is due to overall color correction.
The "improved" skin is due to blurring the skin.

More details:

In most of the images, she's doing a basic color correction/contrast enhancement, which is probably responsible for the enhanced saturation as well. For some of the images (such as http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4448/redphotography151afterqs6.jpg and http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/750/b4tp5.jpg), the skin is clearly blurred and masked back. There are many ways to accomplish that, but one easy and quick one is to use Select>Color Range to select the skintones, Jump that to a new layer, and blur it. A touch of cleanup around the edges, and it's done. (Or save the selection as a mask before blurring, then use the unblurred mask to serve as the starting point for masking.) Fade the opacity of the blurred layer to taste.

Gaussian Blur, Median, or Surface blur will all have very slightly different results, but they're not likely to be major issues.

The classic downside is that the shape of the face [i]is[i] altered, the texture of the skin is lost (or at least altered), and the image texture from the sensor pattern/scan pattern/film grain is altered. Compare the before and after examples of those two images mentioned above, and it's pretty obvious that's what's been done.

I'll also repeat the earlier suggestion: ASK JESKA. She's generally pretty helpful on MM.

Thank you so much for your reply it is definitely helpful. Not sure if I'm going to word this reply right, lol. I'm going to try.
The finished image of the first image you posted is actually the one I was most wondering about.
http://img404.imageshack.us/img4....afterqs6.jpg (http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4448/redphotography151afterqs6.jpg)

I'm going to be signing up for MM soon. I will ask her but as nice as she is I'm sure she is being asked a lot. I'm sure she won't give up her secrets, on that site anyway, though she'll probably be nice about it. I'm not wanting to be a retoucher, I just want to learn the technique for myself. Thank you for your suggestions.

Ok, so I tried the little trick that Kevin mentioned above. I also added a few extra things here and there and actually came out with a picture I liked. I would post it here but I don't have the permission from the photographer to add it to my portfolio yet.
You can find it in the serious retouch thread at MM:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=198402&page=30
Look for the post towards the middle or bottom of the thread by Daniel LaHaie, of the girl with the black background.
Worked really well and was fast to do...Who knew???
Thanks Kevin!

I think her work looks crappy.

I think her work looks crappy.

Thank you.

You have every right to your opinions. I'm not saying all her work is perfect. Some of the images came out great. Please keep in mind that I did not ask for opinions on her work and she is not here to defend it. I'm simply asking for help on how to do images in that similar way.

Schultzy,
I tried the tutorial link you gave me. The skin came out dark gray and you could see where you missed spots on coloring it in. I noticed in the comments a few people had mentioned that. Your image came out great using Kevin's suggestions.

Kevin,
I used some of your suggestions and it definitely helped but not all of the skin was covered. When I hit color range it only covered some of the skin. So it looked uneven. Maybe I did something wrong. I tried it quite a few times.

Please keep in mind that I did not ask for opinions on her work and she is not here to defend it. I'm simply asking for help on how to do images in that similar way.

Completely fair enough.
But the most useful help you could get from anyone here, would be to let
you know this is not the kind of work you should be aspiring towards.

If Jeska was here i would say the same thing to her:
Look at someone like Chris Tarantino's Website here. (http://www.christarantino.com/)
Study the work. Work towards that.

I say this because i truly care and wish to help others.
Not to be offensive to anyone.

I'm not aspiring towards that. It is a step above where I am currently. At least it seems to be. I much rather work up then jump into something I'm not yet ready for. I feel that the type of retouching she is doing is a good step toward getting familiar with particular tools. It's also as schultzy mentioned a rather popular form of retouching.

There are many things I'd love to try I'm just focusing on this form right now.

Stop trying to learn how to make things look like shit. That is your first lesson. There is no step labeled "Make look stupid". There is no reason to learn the wrong way.

I didn't start this thread for nastiness. You might see it as looking bad but many others don't.

I didn't start this thread for nastiness. You might see it as looking bad but many others don't.

Not nasty, real. Screw many others. There is a wrong way, that is it.

Saying that type of retouching is "shit" is being nasty. I used her work as an example of a particular type of retouching I'm interested in learning. The other people who replied to my post understand this. If you aren't going to be helpful then please find another thread to post in.

Kevin,
I used some of your suggestions and it definitely helped but not all of the skin was covered. When I hit color range it only covered some of the skin. So it looked uneven. Maybe I did something wrong. I tried it quite a few times.

It's important to use the right fuzziness setting, and make enough selections to catch all the skin.

Still, as I said earlier, and others have repeated: this kind of retouching is virtually never acceptable in commercial work--which includes pretty much all photography with models. It is sometimes acceptable for portraiture.

It's important to use the right fuzziness setting, and make enough selections to catch all the skin.

Still, as I said earlier, and others have repeated: this kind of retouching is virtually never acceptable in commercial work--which includes pretty much all photography with models. It is sometimes acceptable for portraiture.

I'm going to try to mess around with it a bit using your suggestions.

I know this isn't used in commercial work. Like I said, I'm using it for personal use, not professional use. It seems like that form of retouching is only used with mens magazines anyway.

If you aren't going to be helpful then please find another thread to post in.

My comments and Ants were THE most helpful.
You just don't realize it (yet?).

My comments and Ants were THE most helpful.
You just don't realize it (yet?).

They weren't helpful, you're just not getting that.

You just don't realize it.

..........

I really hope you're not an adult acting this way. You're not getting it so I'm not going to reply to any more of these usless posts that have nothing to do with the thread I made.

I know this isn't used in commercial work. Like I said, I'm using it for personal use, not professional use. It seems like that form of retouching is only used with mens magazines anyway.
"Men's magazines" are considered commercial work. If you're comparing this kind of results with, say, Maxim, FHM, or Playboy, you probably want to re-examine those magazines' images.

I really hope you're not an adult acting this way.

Where as personal insults ARE adult?
All i said was you don't realize we are being helpful.

Reach for the stars, even if you fail you'll probably end up at a better
place than aiming for the bottom rung.

Training your eye to what looks good is no personal attack,
it's advice meant to help you improve. Why are you so
defensive towards this suggestion?

If you went to a forum for chefs asking how to make a
big mac you'd probably get similar responses.
"Why even aim to make that? Here's something better."

I must say i agree with CaptianHook and ant in this thread, its a horrible retouch, and not proper for any kind of publication...

I Work full time as a retoucher, i mostly do fashion, but once in a while ill do some FHM work... It usually takes me 8 hours for a fhm cover.. Not a 5 min retouch with some program...

The images have been given a heavy blur. Way too much for my taste.

But if its the look your looking for, you can try this:

First of all you should do the color correction, use some curves, pump the saturation or perhaps try a 20 % overlay... Just try around until you get the feeling you want...

Spot heal a lot...

Add a heavy surface blur on a duplicate layer. Add a black layer mask, and paint in the blurred skin.
Lower the opacity to you wanted blurness...
Add some nois, on an empty 50 % gray overlay layer... adjust the opacity..

Add a heavy highpass onto a new layer, to bring out some more details in the skin...

There you have quick 10 min retouch....

But i would probaly learn to do retouching a better way... :)

CaptainHook and Ant and all the other retouchers who say that there's a better way.

I know there is and I love Chris Tarantino's work. The blurred effect definitely doesn't do it for me when I want to do quality work, but I'm just not at that level yet. I've tried dodging and burning to some success, although I still have much to learn. Yet for all my searching and reading in various RetouchPro threads, I have only come across a few very good posts or tutorials about high-end retouching. I was wondering if any of you could provide some insight into the matter.

As you suggest that we newer retouchers use a better method, perhaps you could explain or give some tips on what this newer method is. Maybe I'll make a new thread for this, as I'd be hijacking this one.

Many thanks.

EDIT: I've created a new thread for this topic. http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photo-retouching/21170-high-end-retouching.html

Ok i see that your feeling a little beaten up so im going to try to explain what the others are saying in a more gentle way. The technique she is using is the degrunge technique, also called the high-pass way. The reason i think her work looks crappy is because ive done it that way for a while until i realised what the RIGHT way to do it was. Hers looks very blurry, In almost a mythical way, and its because she feels as though she needs to rid ALL of the skin of imperfections, ending up with an unreal slightly cartoonish look. I use the same technique she is using, and im not the best at it, but you have to learn to use it in moderation.

This is what she is doing, just not using it the right way:
http://retouchersblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/high-pass-way/

Here is the way i do it:
http://i26.tinypic.com/2uomeqf.png
Theres a lot of things that i need to go back and touch up, including her nose and hair. But if you see, her skin is still done using the high pass way. It just dosnt look foamy. You have to play around with it because in the end you will find out, it is really a great tool.

......awful......

Even though your Avatar isn't Simon Cowell anymore, i still hear his voice every post
of yours i read whether it's here, photo.net, luminous-landscape, whatever.
Maybe that's why i laugh instead of getting offended.
Then again i generally always agree with Simon Cowell too...

Completely fair enough.
But the most useful help you could get from anyone here, would be to let
you know this is not the kind of work you should be aspiring towards.

If Jeska was here i would say the same thing to her:
Look at someone like Chris Tarantino's Website here. (http://www.christarantino.com/)
Study the work. Work towards that.

I say this because i truly care and wish to help others.
Not to be offensive to anyone.


You are right, but how to do this except d&b? I think you have alot of experience....

Why not d&b?
This is supposedly a retouching forum after all. ;)

what settings did you end up using for that image?

Was that directed at me Mr. Ant?

Stick with the basics of healing & cloning.
It will take you the same amount of time and it will look clean and natural.
Also play around with different blending modes.
My guess would be that she duplicated the layer and set it to "softlight" to get those saturated colors.

The first thing of all that is important in this case imho, is the definition of aesthetic.
we can talk all day about which technique is better but if the eye itself won't see what looks good or bad, even high end techniques won't help.

Those links to model mayhem to some are obviously far from being professional, and are far from having a "magazine" look.

I suggest you compare them with some of the Vogue pages and start training your eye by defining what is good or bad work, and asking yourself what makes it looks good or bad.

Then if you really want to learn it the way things are done in those printed and renown works, i would highly suggest you stick with Ant or CaptainHook or Chris Tarantino's precious advices.

Yet for all my searching and reading in various RetouchPro threads, I have only come across a few very good posts or tutorials about high-end retouching. I was wondering if any of you could provide some insight into the matter.
...but once in a while ill do some FHM work... It usually takes me 8 hours for a fhm cover.. Not a 5 min retouch with some program...
There's your first clue. There's no rule that says you have to get it all in one step, or that the winner is the guy who finishes first. I'd bet you already know how to use all the tools that are needed, including the fabled Dodge and Burn rituals. But are you willing to zoom in and work at something near the pixel level, sculpting each shadow and highlight to make them consistent and smooth? Are you willing to edit each pore, one at a time? Each blemish? Are you willing to work on the highlight side, then the shadow side, of each wrinkle?

These kinds of threads pop up about every 6 months or so and they always contain the same suspicion that there is a body of hidden knowledge jealously guarded by an elite few who are content to let the masses rot away in a cesspool of blurred skin and blown-out highlights. I've said it before and since then, nothing's changed: retouching is a pain in the ass. You don't actually need OCD to succeed, though you'll probably develop tendencies in that direction if you keep at it. But none of it is rocket science, just common sense. You start by looking at the images that are successful, i.e. published in ads for high end brands and layouts in any of the commonly accepted magazines that offer beauty, fashion and, yeah, skin, and taking note of the difference between what you see there, and what you yourself are turning out. Self-editing is far more effective than any forum post.

But there are no secrets, no passwords, no mystical handshakes; retouchers don't recognize each other by the rings we wear or odd ways we scratch our ear on those rare occassions when we emerge into the daylight. We're just oddballs willing to spend the major part of our lives in a sedentary state, slowly going blind, drinking lots of coffee and blasting our eardrums out with iPods.

Hi all ...she is using a program that is marketed from MM, I have a client
that uses it on her photos as well ... I forget the name of it ...I don't use it.

not too long ago, in order for one to share his/her photos online the images had to be digitally scanned. they had to be enhance with photoshop (or other softwares) before they could be upload online. some didn't give a crap, uploaded anyway and the photos looked like crap. with inexpensive digital cameras nowadays, anyone can share their photos, without using special softwares, and they look pretty decent (way better than cheap digitized images in the past). i see photoshop kind of the same. if there are quick ways to enhance the photos for the mass, why not use them. not everyone cuts out to be a retoucher (i don't mean to sound arrogant). not everyone wants to sit down and plays with pixels like some of us. retouching is a "pain in the ass" haha.

if there are quick ways to enhance the photos for the mass, why not use them. not everyone cuts out to be a retoucher.

Maybe the domain should be "www.retouchquickandeasy.com" then.
Otherwise i don't understand people that come to a website called
'retouchPRO' and complain when they're told being 'pro' isn't quick
and easy.

Maybe the domain should be "www.retouchquickandeasy.com" then.
Otherwise i don't understand people that come to a website called
'retouchPRO' and complain when they're told being 'pro' isn't quick
and easy.

so then a lot of people don't qualify to be in here since this site is "retouchpro" :) the point i am making is some people join this site so they can learn and improve their photoshop skills to the point that they feel comfortable doing creative photography but not at amy dresser or chris tarantino level. they just want to have a little fun with photoshop without getting BEAT DOWN by some advanced photoshop experts for not learning the right way. it's nice that everyone learning photoshop the hard way but that's not the reality.

And How do you get this color?
http://amydresser.com/img/BacardiPeach.jpg
Must be several ways but its amazing.

so then a lot of people don't qualify to be in here since this site is "retouchpro" :) the point i am making is some people join this site so they can learn and improve their photoshop skills to the point that they feel comfortable doing creative photography but not at amy dresser or chris tarantino level. they just want to have a little fun with photoshop without getting BEAT DOWN by some advanced photoshop experts for not learning the right way. it's nice that everyone learning photoshop the hard way but that's not the reality.

I agree.
I didn't come here looking for "quick and easy". I came here with just a question, I don't care if it's easy or complicated. It was a style I wanted to try either way. I mentioned previously that I am NOT a professional retoucher and I don't aspire to be. Some how that seemed to get over looked. This was for my own use for fun. If I was looking to get into retouching professionally, I'm sure it would be different. I'd probably take photoshop classes. But this was just for fun. Many people use photoshop for fun and I guarantee a lot of professionals would view their work as not being any good. You wouldn't go to a park and walk up to people playing two on two basketball and tell them they need five on five, two halves, uniforms, etc. That is the difference between professional and fun. I'm surprised this thread is still around, lol.

"Insensitive", Thank you so much for the links. I completely see what you're saying now, "the cartoonish look". I've been doing the suggestions on the first page and playing around with things. I'm going to bookmark the links you gave me and play around with those. Again, thank you very very much.

You wouldn't go to a park and walk up to people playing two on two basketball and tell them they need five on five, two halves, uniforms, etc. That is the difference between professional and fun.

That is true, but absolutely not the point, as you already mentioned, people using the same program for their "fun". Illegally btw, or who paid 600 bucks to buy CS3 for their "fun2"? :)

Anyway, back to topic: When it's about baseball, I have never ever seen those fun guys waltzing into the next stadium and asking "Hey guys, we have seen you playing for a while now and it's amazing how people love your play and how great it looks like. What technique do you use?" And even if they did, the answer would probably be something like "Well, in general we try to hit the ball and run around this white cushions on the ground, that's it" But the fun guys keep bouncing back after 10 minutes yelling "Hey, you were lying!" We exactly did what you said and there is still no crowd cheering! There must be some special technique and you just won't tell us because if you did, we'd become better!"

No, those guys are smart enough to know it's a totally normal thing to just keep playing in the park, having fun and admiring the pros from the distance. Yes, they use the same gear and play by the same rules, but they play in a way the fun guys just can't keep up with.

Luckily I got my program legally. I once bought a game system for $400. Fun can be expensive. No need to make unfair assumptions.

Not every single person on this forum is a professional. Professional players get asked for tips a lot and some teams hold clinics for fans. There are often many ways to get the same result. This was actually mentioned on the first page by another poster here. Those guys that play for fun still play hard and many of them play well.

No need to try to "argue" or condescend over the Internet. I asked a simple question and some replies were the helpful tips I was looking for. I've been done posting in the thread but wanted to thank "insensitive" for the helpful link. I just added in my reply an agreement with anther poster here. It was definitely interesting to see the thread still around.

No problem hun. Its a really fun technique if you use it well