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

makeover hell

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 11-25-2003, 05:05 PM
pierresplace's Avatar
pierresplace pierresplace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 73
Pardon?

Vikki,
I read "excellent results," but I also read that airbrushing doesn't produce realistic results. Can you elaborate on that please?

Also, pre-digital techinque used airbrushing an awful lot. It's my impression that it's an integral technique with photographs. Why am I feeling confused here?

Sincerely,
...Pierre...
Reply With Quote top
  #12  
Old 11-27-2003, 02:53 PM
K. Johnstone's Avatar
K. Johnstone K. Johnstone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gary, Indiana
Posts: 31
Well, I never knew anybody who airbrushed anybody's face. Airbrushing was for smoothing out wrinkles in a brides dress, or for making walls, etc. Faces, just dye and a paintbrush, maybe dry dyes. Even when they retouched traditionally for Playboy covers, it was with dye and a brush on transparencies. Really overdone, but still just dye and brush. Airbrush was for making things flat.
Reply With Quote top
  #13  
Old 11-27-2003, 03:02 PM
pierresplace's Avatar
pierresplace pierresplace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 73
Well, all I can say is that I am quite familiar with traditional photography using airbrushing on faces, especially portraiture. When I find something new I investigate it for myself before I decide on using it or not, I base my thinking on fact. I let my work speak for itself and I measure my results by the clients responses and the money that they pay me. Quite frankly, using Gaussian blur on faces makes for a very strange result in my opinion.
Reply With Quote top
  #14  
Old 11-28-2003, 12:47 AM
charityk's Avatar
charityk charityk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 14
Pierresplace

I would be interested in finding out more about your airbrushing technique. I find that the technique that I linked to earlier in this thread works really well for me but as you say:


Quote:
Originally posted by pierresplace
When I find something new I investigate it for myself before I decide on using it or not, I base my thinking on fact.
I think we should all be big enough to try things out before rushing judgement calls. Do you have a tutorial you could point me in the direction of? Or some helpful tips to get me started?

Thanks Alot.
Reply With Quote top
  #15  
Old 11-28-2003, 02:44 AM
Leah's Avatar
Leah Leah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 518
Pierre, if you would like to elaborate on your airbrushing technique in a tutorial or example image (maybe one of the retouching challenges?) then we would all be interested to see the details of how you do it and the results you get. All of the images you have in your gallery, while they are very impressive, are too low-res to get a clear idea of what the skin texture looks like. The photos on your website are slightly higher res and I do find the skin texture a little too strangely flat for my personal taste, but since they are only low-res I wouldn't like to prejudge what the full-size images look like - I know from experience that a lot of subtle effects can be lost in resizing an image.

Most of us have investigated airbrushing for ourselves before deciding not to use it. For example, I personally find I get much better results using a technique recommended by Lee Varis (www.varis.com) and documented in the second edition of Photoshop Restoration and Retouching that involves use of the median, gaussian blur, noise and emboss filters in different combinations on different layers.

At the moment the facts I have available on which to base my thinking are (1) the fact of my own experience with what I can produce with the different techniques, and (2) the fact that you like airbrushing. Without any more to go on than that I'm afraid fact (1) is going to win out...

This is a genuine request - as I said above, it's clear from the photos in your gallery that you have an eye for an effective image, and I would be interested to see your retouching technique at high resolution, and to compare it with the results from other techniques.
Reply With Quote top
  #16  
Old 11-28-2003, 03:58 AM
revilo's Avatar
revilo revilo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8
Well i reckon if your good airbrushing can have amazing results. I am a 3d artist and for most 3d caharcters faces (the best ones) the texture is airbrushed in photoshop!! so if they can do it id say id is a very feasible way of retouching and restoring... if your good at it.
click here to see a pic where all textures where made in photoshop
Reply With Quote top
  #17  
Old 11-28-2003, 11:00 AM
pierresplace's Avatar
pierresplace pierresplace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 73
Interesting comments

To the Members,
It seems I may have offended some people. Others seem to share what I have offered. I believe we're all aiming for the same thing... quality work and learning. I ask myself, why do my clients love what I do, and the professionals on this board criticize it, or seem to do so? If I am perceiving this correctly why is this so, and if I am wrong, I apologize. I can only go by what I read on the thread. I'm in wonder at reading that the "rez" of my images makes them hard to evaluate and that airbrushing in photograhy is for the purpose of making elements of the photo "flat." I output to the Fuji Frontier at 72 dpi and they are excellent photographs. and that is what the clients seem to appreciate and gladly pay for. And yes, I'm still happy to participate in the tutorial program if it is welcome.

Leah,
Do you think I'm saying that I am airbrushing for image manipulation/repair exclusively because I am not. Airbrushing is primarily for skin toning adjustments.

Last edited by pierresplace; 11-28-2003 at 11:06 AM.
Reply With Quote top
  #18  
Old 11-28-2003, 01:26 PM
Vikki Vikki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 883
Pierre, you asked about airbrushing, and we responded. Speaking for myself only, you have not offended me at all.

I personally do not use airbrushing because I don't care for the results. I just prefer my method (as you do yours).

Also, gaussian blur is not the alternative to airbrushing.
Reply With Quote top
  #19  
Old 11-30-2003, 04:53 PM
Leah's Avatar
Leah Leah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 518
Pierre, I am not offended and I don't for a moment think you are airbrushing for image manipulation/repair exclusively. I'm not sure why you think I am under that misapprehension (in case it's related to my quoted source, I should mention that the second half of Katrin Eismann's book relates to retouching and enhancement of portraits, nothing to do with image repair).

My comment about the resolution of your images is that your Gallery photos on this site are mostly at resolutions of around 300 x 400 pixels - printed at 300 dpi this would equate to about a 1 inch by 1.5 inch photograph. The images on your site are around the same resolution.

Like I said, I cannot comment on how effective a technique is based on an image this size - it doesn't give anyone a fair chance to show what they can do. I am glad that your clients are happy with 72 dpi output, and I am definitely not trying to suggest you should change the workflow that works for you, but personally I'm not happy operating at less than a print resolution of 200 dpi minimum and preferably 300 dpi - it means more work but I find the results appreciably better for me - and I don't think I'm being fair to anyone else if I comment on their images at 72 dpi resolution if what I'm comparing them with is a 300 dpi image.

So far as I can see, the professionals on this site are not criticising your technique - everyone has said that while up to now we have not liked airbrushing as a technique, we would love to see a detailed description of what you do if you have an effective way of using airbrushing. I see no one saying they are offended and lots of people asking for more details, so I'm not sure where you get the "It seems I may have offended some people" from...
Reply With Quote top
  #20  
Old 01-09-2004, 08:25 AM
darlanne's Avatar
darlanne darlanne is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Way up a mountain in CA
Posts: 9
Interesting topic. I wanted to throw in my 2 cents, for what it's worth. I think airbrushing, if used sparingly, rather than generously, can have it's benefits, but agree with most, in that if I am working with an actual retouching or restoration project, it gets rid of too much detail, unless used overlayed at a lower opacity. However, and I don't know if this rings true for other retouchers, I do get those requests. When I do, I explain to the client that airbrushing will give them more of an artistic result, rather than realistic, and for some, that's just fine (speaking of more of a high-glamour makeover type project) ...

I think airbrushing has it's pros and cons, but like any other retouching tool, it's how, and how much, it is used
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Halloween Makeover T Paul Salon 0 09-06-2007 08:49 PM
Chuckle for the day (jokes/humourous tales here please) jeaniesa Salon 391 11-26-2006 02:33 AM
A Ring Makeover SteveB2005 Critiques 17 01-10-2006 07:00 PM
Stuck in restoration hell moofactory Image Help 10 04-29-2005 07:42 AM
Google search leads to Gates of 'hell' CJ Swartz Salon 10 09-30-2002 12:14 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:56 AM.


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