How to get highly polished skin?

[shellby]

Hello

I am trying to find out how to achieve that highly polished look in retouching skin like the Dior adverts.

Have a look at this link to a hair salon and view their portfolio section:

http://www.rush.co.uk/portfolio.htm

If you look at my portfolio you can see that I am on my way to getting smooth skin, however I am not sure how to get this exact look.

I have used the method of median blur, and then bringing back detail with noise on a softlight layer. I also spend a lot of time using the healing brush to remove blemishes beforehand.

The pro's do not use any blurring.

Another method I have been trying out is the dodge and burn technique (thanks Conrad - from a previous thread) This does a good job of getting rid of blochy skin BUT just how do they get that polished look without blurring??

You can view my website to see the kind of work I do.

[Panpan]

Are you sure they're not blurred? I see no pore detail in those images.

Pierre

[shellby]

The guy who did it works with me as a Production Manager...

He said that he didn't use any blur so I wanted to see if I could / or anybody here could figure this out...

He mentioned channels... Does anyone know about retouching channel per channel?

[Neve]

See this link for samples and a tutorial by Phyllis Stewart...

http://www.innographx.com/forum/view...1128e6acf40edb

[shellby]

thank-you I have had a look and I don't think that is the exact technique. I actually used smudging in the following image:

http://www.retouchme.co.uk/home_03.htm

But the thing is that the pro's do not use any blur or smudge... or so I hear

[suzzie12]

I have been getting a somewhat similar result lately bu using a new filter in Photoshop CS2. Its called surface blur and its the last item in the blur list.

I take the original, do levels correction and then blemish removal - then I make a new layer and do a surface blur which gives me a skin color gradient that is better than median. I then sogtly paint this soft idealized smooth skin over the original to get the right balance.

This techniue can also be used with blending modes for some further nice effects. Its somewhat close to what you showed. I always go back later and make sure that eyes, brows, lips and ears and hair near face is not covered up overly so.

[Neve]

Thank you for educating me - I'm intrigued!

[linen]

This may not be what you are looking for but
I like to smooth out skin by using a brush set to multiply 18% opacity color is a sample from the skin. I work on a new layer then adjust that layer when I'm done to taste.

[NancyJ]

Looks like median to me. But if you work with him - why not just ask him how he did it?

[Cassidy]

I cant help but wonder if a colour fill layer has been used

[byRo]

Originally Posted by shellby

The pro's do not use any blurring.

Quite a sweeping statement! For "normal" glamour retouching the "pro" wouldn't use any blurring so as to be sure that the skin texture is conserved. However, as you are asking about a polished look then I'd say that this isn't a case of normal glamour work.

suzzie12, welcome to RetouchPRO .
I too find the CS2 surface blur superior to the median. The method you outlined here works just fine.
Lately I've been using the surface blur in LAB mode with different parameters for each channel - still learning but the results are getting better.

linen, welcome to RetouchPRO .
Don't know if I understood correctly, but wouldn't the multiply be darkening the skin?

As to what was actually used - could be median, could be smudge, could be blur, could be air-brush.
Like eveything in PS, there are many ways to get to a result, sometimes it comes down to personal preference.

Rô

[Cassidy]

Unreal, have gone from PS7 to CS2 and never noticed a surface blur until it was mentioned tonight, obviously wearing blinkers

[shellby]

Well, with all of the high-end jobs you see advertised they always say no blurring. BUT if you look at the DIOR adverts and some Loreal adverts they seem sooooo polished. It is hard to imagine that they do not use blur. There must be a secret to it.

[NancyJ]

Theres also no skin texture.
You're comparing 2 different things here - job adverts that specify no blurring (btw where are you seeing these adverts?) are likely wanting to preserve skin texture - which blurring can remove or in cases where the skin is very textured - make it look blotchy.
These 'polished', as you call them, pictures are either blurred, airbrushed, recoloured, median/surface blurred or a combination of the above.
Theres no big secret - there are a number of methods to achieve that effect. But if you're not happy with our answers why not ask him how he did it?

[shellby]

He wasn't forthcoming when I asked, so I thought I should try here before asking him again... I will though.

There is acutally an advert on here for a retoucher that says no blurring or airbrushing:
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/classifieds/11853-full-time-high-end-fashion-beauty-retoucher-position.html

Have a look at their amazing gallery:

http://www.markusklinko-indrani.com/...llery/main.htm

Looking through it, it doesn't look as if they do any blurring and there work looks really realistic (not like the example I posted above)

I just thought perhaps there was something I didn't know about...

I have also read a method by the glitter guru. It uses the clone stamp at a large size but on a low opacity:

http://graphic-design.com/Photoshop/glamour.html

[NancyJ]

tbh, I cant tell whether their portfolio is any good or not - all the images are very small and mostly distance shots. They also dont show what the images look like before. If I was looking for a retoucher - I most definately would not choose them.
TBH, their advert seems very silly to me - sounds like they want to control their employees too much.
It is possible to use blurring and airbrushing whilst still maintaining the original skin texture - or the desired texture. If you cant blur or airbrush all you're really left with is cloning, layer blending and chanels - so either they have a very ineffecient work flow and they really are clone stamping out every single imperfection or they're models and photographers are all perfect
At the end of the day, all the client cares about is the end result. As long as the result doesnt look airbrushed or blurred then thats what matters.

[goose443]

As we can see from these forums there are a great deal of techniques for retouching and an even greater variation in desired results. What may work for one client may not work for another. Terminology is also quite variable in this field as there is a lot of subjectivity and certain "looks" don't really have specific terms attached to them. I would guess that this company is looking for someone with the ability to retouch without a "blurred" or "airbrushed" look. This may mean the would like a more realistic retouch regardless of the steps taken to achieve it. I wouldn't take the request too literally.

In terms of the channels, the production manager in question may have done a lot of channel blending to reduce "noisy" channels and may have retouched channel by channel cloning out unwanted information or using the myriad of tools other than blur available in photoshop. He may have used LAB colorspace as it separates luminosity from color and allows for manipulation of the lumiosity information without risking a color shift.

Regardless, the best solution is usually that which gives the desired result. After looking at Shelby's site I actually prefer her retouching to her production manager's results; but then again it really depends on the final purpose of the images.

[NancyJ]

I would say that comparing shelbys work to her production managers is not really a fair comparison. From what I've seen most of Shelbys work is 'natural' and realistic whereas her production managers work has a more stylised look which is common for high fashion cosmetics and hair products/styles, where realism isnt the point - hair styles like that rarely exist beyond the catwork and the fashion photo shoot.

[goose443]

Originally Posted by NancyJ

I would say that comparing shelbys work to her production managers is not really a fair comparison.

In terms of personal preference it absolutely is a fair comparison. In terms of the effectiveness of the image in it's final application, well, that would depend on what the final application is. I still prefer the aesthetic quailties of Shelby's work... which is as valid as not choosing the retouchers from the advert based on their website, regardless of the quality of work the produce.

A technique to attempt with channels is as follows:

1. Duplicate the original to a new layer.
2. Select each channel individually and retouch as if it were a BW image, preserving the basic tonality of the channel.
3. Go back to your layers and reduce the saturation of the layer.
4. Set blending mode to lumiosity.

It's not an inherently better way to retouch and really doesn't side-step the need to blur or airbrush or clone but it is a quick jump into to retouching with channels. For those less comfortable working directly with the channels themselves, Photoshop allows you to copy the channel to a layer and work with it there. Once you're done working simply flatten the appropriate layers, copy and paste the layer back into the appropriate channel of the original image (duplicated of course). This way you can add all the adjustment layers, masks, or any other tools you would normally use.

A very basic technique but possibly a good start.

[shellby]

Oh ok. I think I am going to give that method a go. I do work with channels mainly for creating DCS2 files and saving selections. This is something I want to learn more about, so thank-you.

I think that with the big retouching companies their big clients would not be happy for them to show before examples. Some companies have a section called "case study" where they get special permission to show the retouch step by step. Here is another amazing company based here in the UK:

http://www.taylorjames.com

The client list speaks for itself.

[stevek]

Nancy... I just wanted to point out (incase you didn't know) that Markus Klinko & Indrani are without doubt high among the top 5 most sought after commercial and celebrity photographers on the planet; not only for their inimitable skill with the camera, but just as much for their unrivalled quality and ingenuity of post-production.

I'm not sure how deeply you investigated their website, but their portfolio contains some of the entertainement world's most iconic images of the last few years, including images of Iman, David Bowie, Beyonce Knowles, Mariah Carey, JayZ, Kelis, Britney Spears and so many others... totally exceptional images that have had more worldwide exposure than the work of just about any other current photographic team you could mention. In addition to that, they currently shoot the majority of imagery for L'Oreal - both hair & cosmetics - as well as work for Hugo Boss and Dior.

Their retouching skills are really quite incredible, and are clearly more inclined to the "fantasy" style of retouching (rather than the "reality" style). It is unfortunate that the website presents such tiny examples of their work, I have seen a lot of it at full size & full resolution and believe me... it's utterly stunning. They have a whole team of retouchers working under the guidance of Indrani herself.

Shellby - about a year ago I applied for that position myself (they're constantly advertising for high-end retouchers). I missed out on the job only because I was based in London and they were looking for someone based in NYC... I shudder to think about how much I might have learned at that studio.

Incidentally... I never, ever use any kind of blur. Neither do I use the healing brush or the history brush. Everything is done with the clone stamp - initially at pixel level, then gradually increasing in size whilst decreasing in opacity. This is complimented by ultra-detailed dodging and burning. Nothing else.

SK

[NancyJ]

Originally Posted by stevek

Nancy... I just wanted to point out (incase you didn't know) that Markus Klinko & Indrani are without doubt high among the top 5 most sought after commercial and celebrity photographers on the planet; not only for their inimitable skill with the camera, but just as much for their unrivalled quality and ingenuity of post-production.

Skill with the camera means less post production is necessary - I was not commenting on their photography skills, merely on the fact that their portfolio does not adequately showcase their post production skills.

Originally Posted by stevek

I'm not sure how deeply you investigated their website, but their portfolio contains some of the entertainement world's most iconic images of the last few years, including images of Iman, David Bowie, Beyonce Knowles, Mariah Carey, JayZ, Kelis, Britney Spears and so many others... totally exceptional images that have had more worldwide exposure than the work of just about any other current photographic team you could mention. In addition to that, they currently shoot the majority of imagery for L'Oreal - both hair & cosmetics - as well as work for Hugo Boss and Dior.

Maybe its just me but I dont get starstruck with pictures of celebrities or big brands. Yes their client list is impressive but it doesnt show me what they can do.

Originally Posted by stevek

Their retouching skills are really quite incredible, and are clearly more inclined to the "fantasy" style of retouching (rather than the "reality" style). It is unfortunate that the website presents such tiny examples of their work, I have seen a lot of it at full size & full resolution and believe me... it's utterly stunning. They have a whole team of retouchers working under the guidance of Indrani herself.

This is what I'm talking about - the pictures are tiny and with no 'before' shots for comparison it is impossible to tell how much of the end result is due to stunning models, fantastic lighting and photography and how much is actually retouched.
You are lucky to have seen their work properly, but the rest of us are stuck with the images on the website.

I'm not dissing their skills, I'm just saying that its impossible to tell from the pictures on their website.

Originally Posted by stevek

Incidentally... I never, ever use any kind of blur. Neither do I use the healing brush or the history brush. Everything is done with the clone stamp - initially at pixel level, then gradually increasing in size whilst decreasing in opacity. This is complimented by ultra-detailed dodging and burning. Nothing else.

SK

I use whatever is appropriate to the task. In some cases blurring is the best and most efficient way to produce the desired effect.
If you look at some of the L'oreal adverts - the girls skin has a very 'waxy' look to it - which median does brilliantly as long as the model isnt blotchy. Some look recoloured (skin is the exact same colour all over) and some look like they have some parts airbrushed but 'airbrushing' can be a large umbrella of actions or can refer just to directly 'painting' onto the photograph with colour.

...and I now know who to blame when my hair colour looks nothing like the box

[stevek]

Hey Nancy,

I understand exactly what you're saying - photos of famous people don't do it for me either - but it's a shame you can't see these images in all their full size glory, because then the aspect of those images that DOES impress me would be more evident: the "creative" aspect of what they do, and the skill with which they execute it. I expect they could take a photo of a sack of potatoes and make it look fabulous enough to go on the cover of Vogue.

However - you are right - it is almost impossible to evaluate the images when they are so small.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any of their "before" pictures, but I do know that they use the most advanced and highly regarded lighting systems in the world, and Hasselblad cameras with Leaf digital backs. I also know from extensive personal experience that NO MODEL LOOKS THAT GOOD.... EVER!!!

SK

[NancyJ]

Originally Posted by stevek

NO MODEL LOOKS THAT GOOD.... EVER!!!

SK

Obviously no-one is perfect but there are some very beautiful women in the world and having a good base to start from makes a huge difference.

These are two of the hardest I've ever worked on ...
http://www.hazelryan.co.uk/Site2/before/P6233275.jpg
http://www.hazelryan.co.uk/Site2/before/P3241010.jpg
The first one is probably not the best angle to photograph her from, the makeup is awful and her hair looks like straw.
The second one would be quite pretty if it werent for the sun/sun bed abuse to her skin... On the close up its so damaged and cracked around her lips and the bags under her eyes are awful. I cant begin to imaging how many hours it would have taken to correct that skin damage without any airbrushing or blurring.

[realaqu]

I ll give an example for this topic. pardon me if there is copyright issue because I get it from a friend of mine. any idea on how they make it?

Realaqu

[realaqu]

No one give me some hints about how they made this one?

realaqu

[Arandel]

Well, realaqu, I assume a photo like this requires a great spectra of techniques as well as a lot of time. Cloning/healing; color management; painting with light and dark; texturized airbrushing; are a few of the methods that immediatly cross my mind. Just as when dealing with any kind of project, a retoucher has to apply all of his or hers knowledge to that particular enterprise in order to come up with a solution. And as has been written many times on this forum, there are myriads of methods to accomplish that.

[Panpan]

It seems to me the one on the left is the (already heavily retouched) original. The wrinkles on the other one look a little fake.

Look for aging tutorials to achieve that effect.

Pierre

[Arandel]

realaqu,

The picture you posted got stuck in my head, so I just had to give it a go. I took the photo of the old lady and turned it into the attached file. The entire procedure took me about 20 minutes to half an hour. If I had been more careful - giving it more time and effort, I could have accomplished the finished result displayed in your post. Like I wrote, everything is possible with the correct technique. Inspiration plays an important factor as well.

[WilliamD]

Originally Posted by Panpan

It seems to me the one on the left is the (already heavily retouched) original. The wrinkles on the other one look a little fake.

Look for aging tutorials to achieve that effect.

Pierre

I don't think either image is 'original'; the 'old' image definitely has a fake look to me, & I'm pretty sure the 'young' image has seen some retouching too.

I've no idea about the origin of these images, so I'm not saying it is the case here, but I have seen before & after images where the 'before' has had as much retouching done as the after - in an attempt to make the retouch look more impressive.