first real, in depth, beauty retouch

[dangerwoman]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/...49080b342a.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/...2154f15629.jpg

[bazza64]

Your work is very good, I like the natural skin texture and colour.
When you magnify your image there is a white mark on her right cheek and a brush mark above her top lip that need to smoothed out. Once thats done it will look very good indeed.
Would you mind telling me what you did to achieve that look.

Barry.
(Is there a name we can call you besides 'Danger woman')

[TommyO]

Very nice for your first in-depth one.
Obviously, you worked hard on the skin.
I won't get too picky. But, correcting lighting is a normal part of the retouch process. Hence, the shadow to the right of her right eye - that should be removed partially if not completely. The shadows to her left could be lightened some.
How do you feel about the catchlights in her eyes ? I might lessen them some.
Otherwise, nice work and let's see what the others say !

[JD Spears]

Yes! I agree with what Tommy said. However, I do like to nit pick. I feel that if I'm critical of other peoples work it will help me to be more critical of my own. Anyway, personally I would turn off the retouch layer or layer set and put a new layer between them. Carefully diminish the blemishes as much as you can without disturbing the skin texture. Then turn the retouch layer back on, but put it to around 50%, give or take. Then another layer to take care of things Tommy mentioned. Also, I like to see a little more shine back on the lips and maybe clean up a little around the iris. As is you've taken an attractive girl and made her a VERY attractive.

[flice]

Originally Posted by TommyO

Very nice for your first in-depth one.
Obviously, you worked hard on the skin.
I won't get too picky. But, correcting lighting is a normal part of the retouch process. Hence, the shadow to the right of her right eye - that should be removed partially if not completely. The shadows to her left could be lightened some.

Sorry, have to jump in here because that's is the worst approach I've ever heard. If you were my retoucher I would ditch you in a sec...
Unless the photographer has specifically said the above himself you shouldn't touch it.
A photography is a piece of art carried out by the photograper not the retoucher, unless the photographer doesn't know what he wants or has no clue what so ever about what he is doing.

[JD Spears]

I'm not on the same page. I'm not as of yet a professional retoucher so maybe I'm not understanding the workflow correctly but I though it went something like; Client (photographer, art directer, whatever) tells you what he wants, appreciates your suggestions and input and you do what ever final decision he makes. If a piece of art is carried out by strictly by the photographer why would he even use a retoucher to begin with?

[TommyO]

Flice,
Maybe the difference in workflow comes from our differing industries. Mine is one of a large professional industry that gives retouchers greater leeway in what they can change. It is their responsibility to bring each image in line with the company standard for marketing their product.

Hence, they follow a standard workflow that includes:
- color correction;
- removing distracting elements;
- balancing body and facial symmetry;
- reshaping & rebuilding the body;
- perfecting the skin, eyes, hair, etc;
- improving lighting to enhance the product;
- sharpening, soft and hard proofing.

So, unless I am given other guidance from the contributor, I do not assume the image is from a photographer/artist who may be more protective of all aspects of the image - they do their own retouch work. I assume that it is simply a practice session from someone learning their way through Photoshop and that the image is a beauty retouch with emphasis on marketing a product, not a model.

Our perspectives are just critiques, not a hard and fast rules. Our perspectives may not work for every image. However, that is for the contributor to decide.

Everyone enjoy and have a great day !

[bazza64]

Well said TommyO, I applaude your restraint,(you must have been biting hard on the bullet when you wrote this).(LOL).

Barry.

[MrAlexajlex]

TommyO made a good point but I agree with flice.

I tend to side more with flice because I've had similar experiences.
I did a few self portrais with a high key softbox.
Had hard shadow lines.
I send this to a retoucher.

I did this on purpose because it tempts people to "fix" things'

Sure enough the "retoucher" changed the lighting+changed the color transition which completely got rid of the hard shadows and transformed the pic into a Dior style piece.

I was very pissed. If this was a real assignment I would've fired him straight up.

The retoucher (as I understand it) is there to fix things without drastically adding and changing key elements (like light and such).

Most clients have art directors, layout designers, etc. that are in charge of any drastic changes that affect the final look.

I'm not a retoucher , I'm a photog.

Anything that goes too far can be bad for repeat business.

Of course if you are doing wedding pictures and portraits then yeah you can throw the whole PS bucket of tricks at it (skinnify, smooth skin, re-light, etc.). Then bring the pic in Portrait Pro and go to town on it

[Insensitive.]

Originally Posted by flice

Sorry, have to jump in here because that's is the worst approach I've ever heard. If you were my retoucher I would ditch you in a sec...
Unless the photographer has specifically said the above himself you shouldn't touch it.
A photography is a piece of art carried out by the photograper not the retoucher, unless the photographer doesn't know what he wants or has no clue what so ever about what he is doing.

Hmmmm. Im not sure what to think about that.

[Skin Sin]

Hello to all forum members! (this is my first post here)

I guess, like in photography, there are different styles of retouching, and there is no wrong and right.

My personal opinion is: when you see it's been retouched, it's not my thing.

Life's beauty is not about symmetry, it's about feeling the breath of big principles going through individual things.

I am doing mostly portraits professionally.

I see retouching as bringing the electronic perception of the camera to the quality of human perception ( in whatever emotional state such a human being would be).

To the OP: congratulation to your good work!

[Verywierd]

Just as in any service or support industry, the first thing to do is to find out what the client (or employer) wants. This avoids potential conflicts with the client as well as internal agonizing. With regard to MrAlexajlex's comment, I agree that the retoucher should be fired, but not because of what he did, but because of what he did not do, which was to ask for guidelines.

[Verywierd]

With regard to the posted images, I agree with TommyO that you have done some nice work cleaning it up. Unless you are indeed restricted as to what you can do to the image, I would adjust contrast and brightness very slightly (without darkening the shadows on the face) and perhaps add a touch of highlight to her lips, as they look a bit dry.