April 2008: Contest Discussion

[Gilbert]

Originally Posted by LonK

My RetouchPRO Magazine covergirl effort...

Love the hair ..LonK

[byRo]

Gilbert, moved your post to here.

The contest thread is only for the entries.
Comments go here.

Rô

[LonK]

Thanks for the compliment, pixeltek. Even though I use an old, cheap, obscure editor (PhotoImpact 8), I do my best to compete with all the Photoshop folks in these parts. I'm glad you also decided to enter.

Thank you too, Gilbert. My first thought when seeing the source image was that she had a bad hair day that would require special attention. I spent quite some time finding a suitable style and getting it just right.

[AltIvan]

Savy; is a really good retouch but a really bad title design; take your time for it.

asims28; is a nice font but some stuff in the retouch like her painted eyelid looks fake; soften those and also blend the image with the original face (with some basic retouch maybe) and you will get a really nice effect.

Critique on mine retouch is very welcome, plus you can make the other voters notice some problem on it.

[samoflak]

maaaan.... i've found this really hard getting frustrated with mine now, will post regardless tho

[AFrazier]

laura.lara, you should consider using a displacement on the image if you're going to put it on crumpled newspaper, or whatever that is. It would give the image the appearance of following the contours of the folds, shadows, etc., rather than being flat. It might give it a more realistic look.

[laura.lala]

Originally Posted by AFrazier

laura.lara, you should consider using a displacement on the image if you're going to put it on crumpled newspaper, or whatever that is. It would give the image the appearance of following the contours of the folds, shadows, etc., rather than being flat. It might give it a more realistic look.

Thanks for your advice. I must admit I've tried, but the final result was kind of deformed. I mean the faces were. As the project seems to be so difficult (I totally agree with what was written here previously) I don't know if I'm going to keep this choice. I have one "reserve" and I might change my cover if it is allowed.

[laura.lala]

Originally Posted by artofcmarie

Well, I'm a new member and decided I'd submit my sample work too. Everyone's work looks great, BTW!

Nice job!Welcome to the contest.

[AFrazier]

artofcmarie, if I might make a suggestion ...

Two things.

1) The top two images, the eyes are almost Thriller-like. Either they are too bright, or the pupils are too small. I can't quite tell which with the images being so small. Unless you are going for that sort of look, you might consider toning them down somehow. Back off some of the brightness in those two, or enlarge the pupils to their original size (again, I can't quite see which the problem is).

2) The background images in your three alternates look great, but the contrast doesn't match the foreground subject matter in any of them. They all have a suitable depth of field, but the lighting looks like it came from another photograph (though the top left image is close). Try adjusting the contrast (you might even try the legacy mode in this instance if you're using CS3) to match that of the foreground subject.

Your overall presentation is fabulous. It just needs to be tweaked.

[byRo]

Time's nearly up!!

If you wish to enter and haven't posted yet - better get a move on.

Rô

[The_Enhancer]

Lonk, I love it!! "No country for cover contests"?!

[byRo]

Ladies and Gentlemen !!

May I invite you all to vote

Rô

[Cassidy]

Well I've made a right dog's dinner of voting this month. Realising a post I thought I had cancelled had posted, in my haste sought to amend, and being in a rush this morning, made a bigger dog's dinner of it. Under the rules can I amend the incorrect spelling of KathyH to CathyH and can I post another vote for 5th place. Trully embarassing.

[LonK]

I agree with 0lbaldy about the branding issue, but I didn't place that much voting emphasis on it. I did find some of the masthead creations just plain garish though. Branding is a very sensitive issue with publicists.

Since this is "RetouchPRO", I looked primarily at the facial retouching. Most (like the source) remained too washed out. I think some got too carried away with trying to modify the subject's facial structure and features. Indeed, a few no longer look like the same girl. I feel many put too much emphasis on the distracting background and layout aspect rather than concentrating on retouching/enhancing the main subject.

Didn't care much for the 2-in-1 renditions or those that included a "before" image. These looked too "busy". The 4-for-1 entry was really confusing -- didn't readily know who did it anyway as the filename lacked requisite identity (walk-cover-I.jpg ?).

I was surprised that noone addressed the subject's cross-eyed gaze (possibly caused by the photo being taken close-up with a wide angle lens). I think moving her right eyeball just a bit would make quite a difference (see attached). Of course in my case, I just concealed that eye with hair!

Was this a self-portrait byRo? I suspect the deep shadow on her face was cast from her own outstretched arm holding the camera?

Overall I think everyone did a wonderful job. The diverse approaches taken are truly reflective of the vast talent of RetouchPRO members.

*Please note that these are ONLY my personal opinions, not meant to offend anyone, offered only as food for thought.

--------------------
"a photograph is usually looked at — seldom looked into."
— ansel adams

[byRo]

Originally Posted by LonK

Was this a self-portrait byRo? I suspect the deep shadow on her face was cast from her own outstretched arm holding the camera?

Congratulations !!
...and, yes, I didn't want to tell before the contest.
This is my daughter, who is doing a Doctor's degree in Biology in Stuttgart (Germany) <- proud Dad.

She was experimenting the cell phone she had just bought.

To those who thought the picture was taken in autumn, sorry but it was taken a couple of days before the contest started. (It's autumn here in Brazil, but that doesn't count)

Ah, and I didn't mind the comments about cross-eyed, bulging lips, bulging eyes, not a fashion model etc. - and I'm sure she won't either.

As to the "silk purse out of a sow's ear" discussion......

Images could be rated from 0% (useless) to 100% (wonderful). But if we invert that by measuring the defects instead, we get a more useful scale.
So rubbish = 100%, perfection = 0%.

Clearly, a retoucher will try reduce the defects.
Let's suppose a good retoucher will reduce the defects by a factor of 10x.
Starting with a bad image 90% he can get to 9%.
Starting with a good image 10% he can get to 1%.

By my little mathematical treatise here, we get:
1) A good (10x) retoucher can take just about any bad image (90%), and make something presentable out of it (9%);
2) However, taking that same bad image to magazine quality (1%) is going to take an awful lot of retouching skill (90x);
3) Inversely, to get to magazine quality (1%) a high-end retoucher should rightly demand a good base image of maximum 10%.


(Hope this makes sense to some one out there)

Rô