What do you think?

[Godmother]

http://www.deviantart.com/view/35009121/

Hope you like it, it's the first I've done for my RETOUCH & MANIPULATION portfolio

[olehippy13]

well.....I"m no expert, but I think you did an outstanding job on the nurse....

but, grin...I'd have to say YIKES.....if she were MY nurse.


Thumbs up on your Nurse.

oh and ah...
keep smilin,

olehippy13

[fyrehair]

Very Nice! I think it's a fantastic job.

The only suggestion I would make is to tone down the eyes. They appear a bit too bright which doesn't look natural to me.

[RokcetScientist]

But can she whistle?

[Godmother]

I know that for a fact.

This is suposed to be a glamour retouch. Am I There yet?

[Duv]

Perhaps a little more attention to the skin just above the lip.

Cheers
Dave

[Gigadals]

What i think..

Very very nice!
Though the eyewhites are too white. The nurse left cheek, where you slimmed down a bit, i don't think they are straight, you might want to push it a bit more.


Stan

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by Gigadals

What i think..

Very very nice!
Though the eyewhites are too white. The nurse left cheek, where you slimmed down a bit, i don't think they are straight, you might want to push it a bit more.


Stan

Thanks I didn't notice that

[MajorSONAR]

Godmother,

Very nice! IMHO The eyes are just a tad bright, but overall a very nice retouch.

Don't take this wrong, but I think the first, (untouched) photo captures the true essence of the model. (That slightly unkept, goth-like appearence)

Keep up the good work!

Kevin

[mchawkes]

Originally Posted by Godmother

This is suposed to be a glamour retouch. Am I There yet?

Yes and no in my oppinion. There is definetly some talent here, but a little more attention to details would put you in a new class. Overall there are a few areas of smudgyness and incossistant detail (i.e. detail in one area, lost in another) that my eye is drawn to. Also if this is supposed to be "glamour" retouching, there should be a softer transition through the fleshtone range with more sheen. I agree the eyes are little bright, at least on my display, if you want the eyes bright but still seated in the shot.. try lightening through a softer mask to keep the edges darker. This holds the brightness and gives a better sense of depth as well. Also when retouching flesh there is a tendancy to flatten out the range giving it a very flat feel. Try to maintain the depth of the face or even improve upon it. This helps the image jump off the page and feel more "natural" or "transparent" (i.e. it feels like your in the shot and not looking at a picture). The make up needs work as well. In addition to retouching, the color you applied could not be acheived without the makeup illuminating (i.e. it is reflecting more light than is hitting the surface... a physicial impossibility even with the flouresence). This is most noticable in the blush area that fades into shadow. its as if someone is holding a flashlight behind her cheek giving the "luminesent"feel to her cheek (very subtle I admit). In same cases this is desirable as flesh does exhibit a quality known as "subsurface scattering" But unless her head is lit from within, it wouldent work for this case. Mostly this can only work with strong lighting in areas like the ears, fingers, nose, etc.

I must admit that overall the retouching on the flesh is very natural and convincing. Some of the better flesh work I have seen, especially through her chest area.

So while this wouldent get you booted off stage, it wouldent place you at the highest rung of the ladder either.

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by mchawkes

Yes and no in my oppinion(...)So while this wouldent get you booted off stage, it wouldent place you at the highest rung of the ladder either.

Thanks for the review, I'll try harder for the next one.
I want a good portfolio.

[mchawkes]

It may seem I am coming accross too harsh or critical, but just so you are aware, I actually hire people for our studio and evaluate portfolios all the time. 95% of what I recieve is no where near what we are looking for. This really isnt bad at all, with a little more convincing I might actually consider interviewing you (flesh/beauty retouching is a tiny part of the big picture). However when we interview there are four things I am looking for, Talent, experience, attention to detail,... AND the ability to withstand exteemly critical evaluation and critique. This prooves you are teachable (thus able to improve), and that you will be able to work with clients who arent afraid to hurt your ego. The advice im giving would mean the difference between " a retoucher " and a retoucher that top clients ask for by name, insisting that you do their work.

So when I get critical, I am not trying to offend, but add my experience to what top boutique studios are usually looking for. When you say this is a portfilio shot, I will hold it up to a professional standard. When you say "I did this for my friend whadaya think" I would say great, it looks awesome!

[Kraellin]

along with everyone else, i think this is very good. i'll just add two other small areas i noticed that bothered me a bit. one, the hair is a bit too crisp as if sharpened or contrasted too much. it tends to look a bit dried out this way. it's most apparent where the hair falls down and ends on her forehead. and two, there is a bit of fleshtone creeping onto the jacket camera right, low, as if fleshtones were airbrushed over this area a bit.

craig

[rutherford]

hi!

First if all, congratulations on the good work!

I would just like to add a few suggestions:

I don't know if you intend to retouch for press purposes, but if you are, you should be carefull with your highligh areas (they should be always at a minimum information level of 3%Cyan, 2%Magenta and 2% yellow, and the white areas in your image - specially the eyes are pure white 0c 0M 0Y 0K). This is easilly corrected by adding a selective colour adjusment layer on top of your image and adding 3 points cyan, 3 magenta and 2 yellow on your whites.

The other thing that bothered me a bit was the lack of skin texture on the retouched areas, and the loss of contour information on areas such as the nose (this could be solved by masking the skin blur layer very mildly on the contour areas). I think your could bring back a bit of the original skin texture. As seen on the channels information of the image you posted, after having the skin cleaned up for spots, pimples and eventual dust, I think you could try to make a copy of the red channel and place it in overlay blending mode at about 30% oppacity on top of your skin blur layer, this can help you bring back some texture.

I think you could try and darken her right cheek a bit. By looking at the images channels you can see there is not much information there anyway, so by making it lighter you start to have blemishes on the area, and since there is no skin information on the channels this part of the image tends to have no texture, just colour.

Overall, I'd say you've done a very good job!

I hope the comments can be of any help.


Cheers!! And keep up the good work!!


George Rutherford
www.seagullsfly.com

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by mchawkes

It may seem I am coming accross too harsh or critical(...)When you say "I did this for my friend whadaya think" I would say great, it looks awesome!

I actually meant what I said I want a profetional portfolio, and I will try harder and harder untill I get really good.
Thanks, really, for your pointers.

rutherford- Thanks I'll try that.

Kraellin- I haven't noticed that THANKS


THIS IS ANOTHER ONE I'm Planing to put in my portfolio.

http://www.deviantart.com/view/35119656/