RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Critiques
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Critiques The place to get serious, in-depth analysis and opinions of your work

Revenge ;)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 06-15-2006, 08:46 AM
klassylady25's Avatar
klassylady25 klassylady25 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma
Posts: 342
This Has Been Posted Before

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.
Reply With Quote top
  #22  
Old 06-15-2006, 09:17 AM
NancyJ's Avatar
NancyJ NancyJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 729
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote top
  #23  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:01 AM
oltenius's Avatar
oltenius oltenius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Romania
Posts: 617
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
Attached Images
File Type: jpg topless_after.jpg (99.3 KB, 55 views)
Reply With Quote top
  #24  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:57 AM
mchawkes mchawkes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF bay area
Posts: 29
Gotcha

Quote:
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.

Last edited by mchawkes; 06-15-2006 at 02:53 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #25  
Old 06-15-2006, 12:08 PM
goose443's Avatar
goose443 goose443 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 225
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote top
  #26  
Old 06-15-2006, 12:39 PM
mchawkes mchawkes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF bay area
Posts: 29
Talking exactly

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote top
  #27  
Old 06-15-2006, 12:41 PM
NancyJ's Avatar
NancyJ NancyJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 729
FWIW, there is not a single gaussian blur anywhere in the image (as previously mentioned in the thread)
Reply With Quote top
  #28  
Old 06-15-2006, 01:00 PM
mchawkes mchawkes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF bay area
Posts: 29
Talking

Quote:
FWIW, there is not a single gaussian blur anywhere in the image (as previously mentioned in the thread)
Quote:
I realize its not a gaussian blur thing necessarily.. but it really looks like it.
I think I addressed that issue.

Last edited by mchawkes; 06-15-2006 at 01:26 PM.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Critiques


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved