Revenge ;)

[rondon]

always amazed by your work Vikki

[Kraellin]

this probably has nothing to do with this thread, except that i just wanted to play too took vikki's rendition and treated it with some contrast and lighting.

Craig

edit: added another

[mchawkes]

So, I may have a reputation for being brutally honest or even too critical with other peoples work so nows your chance for revenge

These are a couple of retouches of a picture from Stock Xchnge(first pic is original), I'm experimenting with some new techniques so any feedback is appreciated. Feel free to be as brutal with me as you would expect me to be with you

Do you really want brutal honesty? I dont mind the artistry, that is personal preference. But the flesh retouching is really soft and fake looking. Basically looks like a flesh mask with a gaussian blur. It seems muted, plastic and yet has heavy blotchies. Try pulling back on the opacity of the softening layer and copy/merge or merge down, and applying an unsharp mask with a tighter radius that the original blur or softening.. this holds sheen but reemphasizes fine lost detail and gets rid of the smudgy airbrushed look. Also do what you have to to even out the blotchies (dodge/burn).

BTW, pores are a good thing, you want them so your skin doesnt appear plastic, you just want the demphasized and shrunk down. I understand the concept (glossy sheen, smooth flesh) but there are some further techniques for acheiving this result while still looking real.

I have posted what it looks like to bring back some critical detail to the flesh using YOUR moves with opacities and USM. this is down and dirty and probably slightly on the sharp side, but gives you an idea. it took about 2 minutes.

Just my 2 cents.

[goose443]

Beautiful retouch Vikki. It really gives an otherwise dark image great warmth and a wonderfull skin tone.

[LQQKER]

Just another thought.

[klassylady25]

This photo has been posted before with the same question. Did you do something new to it. It was changed to the glamour shot in the first, also.

[NancyJ]

Originally Posted by mchawkes

Do you really want brutal honesty? I dont mind the artistry, that is personal preference. But the flesh retouching is really soft and fake looking. Basically looks like a flesh mask with a gaussian blur. It seems muted, plastic and yet has heavy blotchies. Try pulling back on the opacity of the softening layer and copy/merge or merge down, and applying an unsharp mask with a tighter radius that the original blur or softening.. this holds sheen but reemphasizes fine lost detail and gets rid of the smudgy airbrushed look. Also do what you have to to even out the blotchies (dodge/burn).

BTW, pores are a good thing, you want them so your skin doesnt appear plastic, you just want the demphasized and shrunk down. I understand the concept (glossy sheen, smooth flesh) but there are some further techniques for acheiving this result while still looking real.

I have posted what it looks like to bring back some critical detail to the flesh using YOUR moves with opacities and USM. this is down and dirty and probably slightly on the sharp side, but gives you an idea. it took about 2 minutes.

The 'plastic' look is intended, it was a practice run for a series of 'photographs' I'm compiling for an exhibition. I admit I could have done more work on the body to even out the blotches - you know how it is - you stare at something for so long while you're working on it you go a bit cross eyed and miss little things like that if you're focussing mainly on the face. Still looking at it after all this time (9 months) I'm still 100% happy with the face. It is exactly as I wanted it.

[oltenius]

Everybody have a good job here, except me I used gradient map and a layer mask (hide all) to paint in it, dodge tool and a shadow/highlite filter.
Regards

[mchawkes]

The 'plastic' look is intended, it was a practice run for a series of 'photographs' I'm compiling for an exhibition.

alrighty... if thats the look your going for. who am I to argue. Just looks fake, overworked and cheap to me.. like a mistake a client of mine would get really upset over if we ever did anything close (Gap, banana republic, Maybaline and the likes). I think its because the "look" that you are going for... closely resumbles the most basic amature move of applying a gaussian blur to the flesh and going "WOW" that looks neat, and calling it done. It seems you "knocked" on the gaussian blur problem in another thread and said you wouldent charge $5.00 for it, so how is this any different... I realize its not a gaussian blur thing necessarily.. but it really looks like it.

If your going to claim the artistic route.. who am I to say anything.. if its art then its not necissarlly retouching. But retouching is most assuredly an art... and as far as retouching goes.. this doesnt cut if for me.

My wife says im way too harsh.. I need to say somthing positive..before I critique so let me see....hmmmmmmmmm. The fleshtone looks fairly balanced, and I like the mood it sets... okay? cool.

[goose443]

Originally Posted by NancyJ

Still looking at it after all this time (9 months) I'm still 100% happy with the face. It is exactly as I wanted it.

If it's exactly what you wanted, there seems to be little point in putting it up for critique. Especially since in this case "exactly what you wanted" (at least from the critiques so far) seems to be very far from aesthetically pleasing or professionaly acceptable. And if we are to critique it based on the frame of reference that it should look like it looks, that gives us little to say.

If your intention was to have it look exactly the way it looks then I think it's brilliant. I don't think anyone could have done a better job.

[mchawkes]

If it's exactly what you wanted, there seems to be little point in putting it up for critique. Especially since in this case "exactly what you wanted" (at least from the critiques so far) seems to be very far from aesthetically pleasing or professionaly acceptable.

amen and amen.

[NancyJ]

FWIW, there is not a single gaussian blur anywhere in the image (as previously mentioned in the thread)

[mchawkes]

FWIW, there is not a single gaussian blur anywhere in the image (as previously mentioned in the thread)

I realize its not a gaussian blur thing necessarily.. but it really looks like it.

I think I addressed that issue.