Revenge ;)

[NancyJ]

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

[pawprints]

Originally Posted by NancyJ

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

No Revenge...I like it
Maybe a tad lighter??

Dee

[NancyJ]

Lighter

[pawprints]

Originally Posted by NancyJ

Lighter

Yes...I like to see the brightness in the eyes.


Dee

[Vikki]

Not sure what look you're after, but will critique anyway.
I don't think the final image is an enhancement of the original. Because it is very dark and pretty much devoid of color, the highlights stand out. Perhaps with a different image this could work, but here the highlights are not flattering or interesting (the whites of her eyes, gray jewelery, her ear, and highlight on her breast are drawing the attention.)
Truthfully, I don't think the photo is that great (no fault of yours), unless the goal was to spotlight the jewelery.
Finally, the entire image has a Gaussian Blur look to it, which is, dare I say it, common.
I have no "revenge", just an opinion.

[NancyJ]

The revenge thing was just a joke Couldnt think of a title

The dark and lack of colour was intentional but it might not be to everyones tastes. Just wanted to do something a little different from a standard retouch.

Not even a 1px gaussian blur on this one - which is unusual for me, I generally use it at least on the masks heh.

Finding good photos is hard, without having to bug photographers and negotiate copyright etc. I'm saving up for a digital SLR, then I'll be sorted lol.
You might be right about the effect not suiting the picture very well. Its similar to what I used on the latest retouching challenge http://www.retouchpro.com/challenges.../cat/638/page/

[Vikki]

Perhaps the word "retouch" is throwing me here. When I think of that word, I think, improve or enhance. It sort of looks like you are going for artistic. I've seen a similar technique that is popular now (dark and desaturated with shimmer type highlights), but it is done with very high end images, with specific intent, whereas the images you've found are not really worthy.

Curious though, no "Gaussian" blur, but some other type of blur?

[byRo]

I think I'm probably just echoing Vikki's words but....If you are going to smooth the skin then it would be nice to compensate by making some other part of the image really sharp. In this case the jewelry, eyes and the hair. Otherwise it just looks pretty dead.

Likewise the strong point in favor of darkening an image is usually that it will call (even more) attention to the highlights. (...echos of Dragan etc...). Just darkening without without bringing back some light in selected places just looks....dark?

As the picture stands there are two areas of interest: a pretty face, and ample breast acreage. Fighting back my "macho" instincts, I would say that this is an example where less is more. A crop, removing the lower part of the breast could be an improvement (leave the rest to the imagination ).

On a picture of a pretty young lady I would also do some armpit plastic surgery to remove a fold of two.

Now, how did you do the skin smoothing?

Rô
(PS. Sorry if I offended in any way, OK?)

[NancyJ]

Attached a new version

Originally Posted by byRo

I think I'm probably just echoing Vikki's words but....If you are going to smooth the skin then it would be nice to compensate by making some other part of the image really sharp. In this case the jewelry, eyes and the hair. Otherwise it just looks pretty dead.

TBH I completely forgot to mask the hair back in, you know how it is when you've been looking at something too long, sometimes you just cant see these things.

Originally Posted by byRo

Likewise the strong point in favor of darkening an image is usually that it will call (even more) attention to the highlights. (...echos of Dragan etc...). Just darkening without without bringing back some light in selected places just looks....dark?

What can I say, I guess I'm just in a goth mood this month I've modified the highlights and shadows in her face, let me know what you think.

Originally Posted by byRo

As the picture stands there are two areas of interest: a pretty face, and ample breast acreage. Fighting back my "macho" instincts, I would say that this is an example where less is more. A crop, removing the lower part of the breast could be an improvement (leave the rest to the imagination ).

Cropped just below the jewellry, tbh regardless of macho instincts I dont think there is anything interesting about her breasts, not in this shot anyway.

Originally Posted by byRo

On a picture of a pretty young lady I would also do some armpit plastic surgery to remove a fold of two.

I did originally, but it looked awful, must have forgotten to redo it.

Originally Posted by byRo

Now, how did you do the skin smoothing?

By separating the colour from the texture. I used a heavy surface blur on a colour layer then took the green channel from the original to put the texture back in, then did a lot of cloning, dodging and burning on that layer to correct all the skin flaws.

Originally Posted by byRo

Rô
(PS. Sorry if I offended in any way, OK?)

:p If I was going to get offended then I wouldnt post here. This is a critiques forum. If all I wanted to hear was 'its great' then posting here would make me a hypocrite
The only person here I've got to ask opinions of is my boyfriend and he cant tell the original from the 'retouch'.

and yes Vikki this is more 'arty' than retouch but retouching does come into it heavily.

[Photo678]

It looks good.....still not 100% sure what you are practicing, but the skin looks good for a drawing/painting type of look to it. As a higher end fashion shot, to mirror what others have said, you have lost all the details in the skin, there is no texture left.

If you are in fact trying to go for that painterly look, then you are def. on the right track. My only issue is with that necklace....when i open the image up in my browser, the face is the first thing i see....you have taken it from the realm of photograph and have succeeded in giving it painterly qualities, devoid of the typical PS filter look......but then i see the necklace and it is still far too photorealistic. But great job so far.

[byRo]

OK, Nancy, now I'm going to risk being the hypocrite

I liked the crop, gave it much more movement.
The smoothed skin came out very well. I myself don't have any problem with un-textured skin. If you do it well, and if that is what the customer (or yourself) wants, them go for it. (this would appy to pageant work too - maybe way over the top, but that's what the customer wants)

Your technique looks perfectly sound, anything beyond that would be in the ART realm.

Another comment. The young lady is at the left side of the photo and looking to the left. Often people will try and get a more balanced image by moving her to the right a little. Giving her some "eye room" as they call it. However this also might be an ART call.


Rô

[Vikki]

Agree with much of what byRo says.

Back to what I was saying about the image itself.....I would have to change some things about the image, and do all the retouching before apply any mood techniques. As it is, I can't get past the gray jewelery, which matches her eyes, and that big ear (which seems to be the focal point).
My changes here eliminate the ear (excuse my quick artistic redo's), minimize the jewelery, and close her eyes, which didn't really do much for the shot IMO.

Regarding your retouching, and this is just my personal taste, the image comes across as muddy. I think this is a combination of the blur, and coloring. Also, there doesn't seem to be a point of interest.

[snook305]

I agree in the first post the last picture looks just like a noise reduction (blur) was applied, Nothing else.
I woud not consider that "retouched"
Snook

[twinkissed]

I'll get more into it later and this may be silly but there is a dot to the side of her face on the wall that keeps grabbing my attention. Still, I'll get more into the girl later today.

[suchyy]

I gave it a try too, full version is here:

http://suchyy.pcmaniak.pl/works/16.htm

I also like Vikkis work, closed eyes and hidden ear look very naturall. I like colors and skin, can you please provide some information about your technique ?

[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.