Skin problems, undefined...

[pure]

hi,

its my first post! and i found this forum accidentally as i need some professional retouchers advice, is this the right place for me? i dont know if there are others...

the major problem with my current Job is:
...to say it brief "the transition of the skin tones from dark to medium is not natural and soft, it looks like broke or ripped."

i would like to know what these kind of skin problems are and where do they come from? i think, i never had these kind of problems and i have to retouch 30 RAW pictures, 60MB each, coming from that Digitalback. (women: phase) (and Maleskin picture: Canon Mark II...)

the photographer developed the RAWs himself, so i dont know what he did exactly. i think thats the problem, as i use to develop it myself otherwise (from Hasselblad H1 with Imacon Digiback 22Mio.)

i would be glad if an experienced person has any detailed information about that and how i could cure it or better prevent that next time when developing from RAW ( or scanning )? is it well-known or is it a mistake from developing or from certain digibacks? it gets even worse when i adjust the contrast and set the darkest and lightest point as first step and then do a nice curve to get the contrast a little crisper for the printing purpose on ISOcoated later, as it gets always darker at the offset-print.

i am about to make it softer and repair it (in Photoshop CS 2), but thats very time-consumptive and i didnt expect such big problems, as i always had very good high quality skin texture from other shootings with Hasselblad H1 and Imacon Digiback. repairing it makes it softer and the client will probably not like the too soft skin, so i am really confused a bit, sorry.

- on the maleskin-picture i didnt do any more contrast, as the photographer did it in the developing himself.
- the women-skin i did more contrast as it was to less pixels in the darkest and lightest areas.

(working in ECI-RGB in general)

here are the 2 examples, if i may link 2 pics here from my server?


http://homepage.mac.com/purepeter/Si...y/maleskin.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/purepeter/Si.../womanskin.jpg



oh, i see now, i cant post the "real" pics inside the topic as linked? so you have to click, yes? sorry

maybe i should post better examples, these 2 are, hm i dont know, but i also have more worse ones, especially the male skin

thanks

[bart_hickman]

Originally Posted by pure

hi,

its my first post! and i found this forum accidentally as i need some professional retouchers advice, is this the right place for me? i dont know if there are others...

the major problem with my current Job is:
...to say it brief "the transition of the skin tones from dark to medium is not natural and soft, it looks like broke or ripped."
.
*snip*.
.
- on the maleskin-picture i didnt do any more contrast, as the photographer did it in the developing himself.
- the women-skin i did more contrast as it was to less pixels in the darkest and lightest areas.

thanks

I'm not sure what you mean by broke or ripped. Are you referring to the fact that the transition from shadow to highlight looks sort of blotchy?

Bart

[mistermonday]

Pure, welcome to RP!
It looks like these images went through some pretty heavy contrast. The man in particular is pretty bad because the armpit was driven to pure black - zero detail or color). Here is what I tried using Photoshop (CS or CS2)

The Man:
Used the Shadow/Highlight Adjustment with the Shadow Amount at 100, Tonal Width 80, Thrshold 40. Highlight amount set to zero. This smoothed outthe transitions but left the armpit pure black and rather unsightly. So using the Patch tool (under the healing brush submenu) drew a loose area around the armpit and covered it with a patch of good skin (from the left of it). This of course completedly made the armcrease disappear so I went Edit>Fade Patch and reduced the patch opacity to bring the crease back.

For the woman, the quickest way to fix her was to use the Dodge Tool with a large soft brush at low opacity and just brush over the dark areas to lighten. I did a very fast brush over so you may notice some uneveness.

Regards, Murray

[Flora]

Hi pure!

Welcome to RP!

I'm no photographer so ... so sorry I can't help you with the why and how to prevent it ... but I'm sure you'll get help on this as well ...

As for the correction you'd like to make, if I understood you right, it is about softening the blending of dark to light areas in a smooth gradual way without softening/blurring the skin too much ... right?

Increasing the contrast like you said you did, will only make the problem worse as the procedure increases the harsh line between shadows and highlights ...

I had a go at your pictures ... not really sure if this is what you are after ... If I went in the right direction, I'll post a detailed description of what I did ....

Given the 100KB size limit for attachments here, it is a very good thing if you can post a link to a bigger size and higher resolution like you did ... but it would be very nice if you could post them here as well so everybody will be able to see what this Thread was all about even after you removed the pictures from your server...

You'll find a step-by-step 'how to..' following the first two links under my signature ....

[Janice Ong]

Flora,

Could you please explain the steps you done for the hand ? It's what I;m looking for.

That is blending the colour from dark to light.

Thanks.

[OnAir]

As mentioned, RAW conversion was to harsh. Maybe, if RAW file was converted on different computer, color settings were different from yours. Linked pictures have an embedded profile of your computer, which is not standard Photoshop profile, which, i suppose, photographer had. Anyway, photographers usually don't think about that. I replaced the embedded profile, also did tonal and color correction (just to improve skin structure).

[pure]

thanks for all your instant help. i am glad to read your advices.
Flora, could i ask you, how you did it make so smooth but looking still sharp for the Pores. thats what the client wants to see, i imagine. and its also good that you didnt change the color i think.

onair, whats in the folder "correcion" and should i do with it? thanks

thanks for all your examples. i will work on this now.

i am glad for reading your techniques,
i tried it with using a big paintbrush (stamp tool (?)) with 20% and setting luminance, its a fast method atcually for doing big areas and lot of pictures with full skin, but it looks a bit too soft and the pores are gone, i must confess.

[Flora]

Hi,

You are welcome, pure!

Here is what I did with these pictures:

Not wanting to change the colours at all, for both these pictures I simply used Neat Image ... only on the darker parts of the image in the following way:

(Neat Image is a noise removing software that can be downloaded free here)

* I looked at the Channels, saw that the Blue Channel was to one with more contrast between background and subject, duplicated it.

* I used the Levels (Ctrl+L) on the Blue duplicate to further increase the contrast .. (Attachment 1) until it looked like Attachment 2.

* I inverted (Ctrl+I) the changed duplicate, (Attachment 3) and Ctrl+clicked on it to select its luminosity ...

* With the selection still active, I went back to the RGB view, to my Background Layer ... and copied my selection on its own Layer .. (Ctrl+J) .. If you Alt+Click on the eye on the left of the newly created Layer you should see something like Attachment 4.

* Now, I have the Plug-in Version of Neat Image .. (.. doesn't come free as the Standalone version) which I run on my newly created Layer with the settings of (Attachment 5).

* If necessary, decrease the Layer's Opacity a bit, and/or add a bit of noise ...

That's all I did to it ... and I used the same method for the other picture as well ... obviously changing the various settings as necessary.

If you use the Free Standalone version of Neat Image, you can get to exactly the same result by using the same settigs as I used here, but following the 'NEAT IMAGE STAND ALONE' steps described in the second half of this Tutorial ..

Hope this helps ... and you know where to find me should you have more questions ...

Janice,

have you seen my answer to you in your Thread?

[pure]

thanks for your instructions with neat image.
this is a noise removal filter yes?

i have something similar here in my filter menu, i guess:

"Kodak Filters": ROC, GEM, Airbrush and so on...

http://www.asf.com/products/plugins/gem/pluginGEM.asp

and

http://www.asf.com/products/plugins/...uginAIRPRO.asp

is it the same? i never used it really as i wasnt to keen on making skin so soft, maybe i have to reduce the opacity

i will try your instructions with NEAT as well and compare both results

thanks

[Flora]

Yes, Neat image is a noise removal software with similar function to the DIGITAL GEM Plug-In I saw on one of your links ....

Of course you should adjust settings and everything else to your needs ... Usually, the default settings of these softwares are much too strong (at least for lower resolution images) and tend to give a terribly unnatural 'plastic' look ...

Adjust Settings is what I did here ... and do for each single picture I use Neat Image on ... and for your pictures, I applied it only to the selected shadows ... not on the whole picture ... That's why I got a softer transition of shadows/lights without losing texture. ...

And I wouldn't want to start a revolution here .... but, as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't touch the DIGITAL GEM Airbrush Professional ...

[Kraellin]

i tried two methods, both similar to what flora did. in the first i ran psp's digital camera noise removal at settings of 70/70/70 66/50. that's normally pretty heavy but it was needed here. i ran this on the full rgb image first. i then make a duplicate layer and ran 7 band sharpen on it at roughly medium settings. this was to try to bring out the hairs more on the forearm.

for the second attempt i split the rgb channels and did what flora did on the blue channel, only instead of neat image, i ran digital camera noise removal. recombined the channels.

the screenshot shows both attempts. the one on the left is digi noise and 7 band sharpen. the one on the right, digi noise on the blue channel.

i also dont know what's going on with the photographer's camera(s), but it's certainly a bit unusual. the forearm hairs on the woman's picture does show a bit too much contrast. in fact, i'd recommend he re-shoot. it was pretty much impossible to truly get those hairs to show right.

craig

[Kraellin]

here's another way to do this:

make a duplicate layer of the background.

run psp's digi camera noise at settings to taste.
duplicate that layer and run a gausian blur of about 8 on it.
set the blend mode on the gaus layer to one of either, darken, lighten, hue, or color, again, to taste (i used darken).
adjust the opacity of the blend layer to taste (i used about a 60 opacity).

this allows you some control in how much detail you want in the skin as opposed to how much mottling.

craig

[pure]

Originally Posted by Flora

... but, as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't touch the DIGITAL GEM Airbrush Professional ...

ok, does that mean this is not a good plugin?

[Flora]

Hi,

Craig,

The attachment of your first post looks very nice !!! .... The second one looks a bit too 'oversmoothed' in my opinion ...

pure

ok, does that mean this is not a good plugin?

... No, I'm not saying that .... It's just that I don't like the rather 'unnatural' finish of Airbrushing .... but it's just a matter of personal taste ...

[Kraellin]

flora,

thanks

i tend to agree, which is why i added the note of setting that gausian layer's opacity as desired. with different blend modes and different opacities, it's not nearly as bad. but then, you already know that i just wanted to show one, where if you wanted, you could sacrifice a bit of clarity for smoothness.

craig

[OnAir]

Folder 'correcion' (correction, as I should write normally ) contains curves and hue/saturation settings for the skin tone correction. When applied, it reduces banding in skin tone. Color has changed, as I've changed Photoshop color settings for the picture to remove the embedded profile. Picture become darker, so if photographer started in correction from RAW looking like this, he should apply strong contrast curve and saturate the picture a lot. So, to avoid this problem in future, you have to provide your RGB profile to photographer. If we speak about quick smoothing, I would propose a methode, which doesn't require any additional software, just Photoshop.

1. Select skin, save selection, make layer via copy, name it, say, 'Sharp'. Do unsharp mask to make pores look little bit oversharped, change the layer mode to luminosity.

2. Go back to the Background layer, load skin selection and make another layer via copy, name it 'Blur'. Apply gaussian blur to smooth completely the skin, add noise a little, load skin selection again and make a mask. Brush the mask where you need your details back.

3. Copy Background layer and put it over the 'Blur' layer, make opacity about 60%, so the skin become looking smooth.

4. Reduce opacity of the 'Blur' down, to get some skin structure back.

4. Mix opacity for 3 layers to get desired result.

[Kraellin]

onair,

i like your results. that's pretty similar to byRo's high pass/gausian process. instead of the usm, he's using high pass.

craig

[OnAir]

Yeah, that's even quicker, than mine

[shellby]

If you wish to keep the texture of the skin, pores and hairs, you will need to use the dodge and burn method.

This means lighten the dark areas and darken the light areas until the skin tone is even. Avoid blur if you want to keep the texture.

Do a search for the user: Heyrad as he outlines the non-destructive dodge and burn method.

The actual dodge and burn tools are destructive to the image (ie The pixels are changed). The other method involves creating a new layer, check Full With 50% Gray, Make the blend mode SOFTLIGHT. Then on that layer paint with a soft brush set at 3 to 5% opacity. White for lightening and Black for darkening (dodging and burning)

[pure]

Originally Posted by OnAir

So, to avoid this problem in future, you have to provide your RGB profile to photographer.

thanks for your help!

i am working in ECI-RGB always.
i dont know, i guess the digibacks shoot in Adobe-RGB? no, or in company-own-colorspace maybe, so converting from Adobe-RGB into ECI for example is not bad as ECI is wider and better for skin-tones i was informed by some colorexperts from my Fuji-printer.

do you mean he should shoot with ECI-RGB? i havent the faintest idea of that in the moment.

your "quick smoother" is very very good, a good relationship between time and effect, in my opinion the best.

i will do that in a hurry. ugly deadlines... sorry

when having more time, dodge and burn use to be the method of my choice, too.

thanks

[OnAir]

Originally Posted by shellby

If you wish to keep the texture of the skin, pores and hairs, you will need to use the dodge and burn method.

I use it always, when quality is more important, then timing.

Originally Posted by pure

dont know, i guess the digibacks shoot in Adobe-RGB? no, or in company-own-colorspace maybe, so converting from Adobe-RGB into ECI for example is not bad as ECI is wider and better for skin-tones i was informed by some colorexperts from my Fuji-printer.

do you mean he should shoot with ECI-RGB? i havent the faintest idea of that in the moment.

No, I think, just color settings on your computers should be synchronized. ECI-RGB is good, but if you replace it with different profile, you will see, how the picture, you provided, become dark grayish. So, if photographer does correction, he see on his monitor this dark picture, and apply strong correction. I guess, he did it on other computer?

[pure]

he did it on other computer, but he has same calibrated display than me.
i will develop the RAWs myself (but again in his studio) next time.

yes. true, i tend to switch to CYMK-Proof-View in Photoshop sometimes, to see what will remain. thats not much. it gets darker, and a little more yellow. the dark tones and the semi-dark tones are getting completely lost in CYMK ISO-Proof. but when i raise the semi-dark tone, i get banding, how you call it. i think you mean the harsh kind of blending between dark and medium-dark.

thx

[shellby]

(NOT POSTED BY ME)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellby
dont know, i guess the digibacks shoot in Adobe-RGB? no, or in company-own-colorspace maybe, so converting from Adobe-RGB into ECI for example is not bad as ECI is wider and better for skin-tones i was informed by some colorexperts from my Fuji-printer.

do you mean he should shoot with ECI-RGB? i havent the faintest idea of that in the moment.


No, I think, just color settings on your computers should be synchronized. ECI-RGB is good, but if you replace it with different profile, you will see, how the picture, you provided, become dark grayish. So, if photographer does correction, he see on his monitor this dark picture, and apply strong correction. I guess, he did it on other computer?
Reply With Quote

[OnAir]

Sorry for that Fixed.

[pure]

from your point of view/aesthetical point of view regarding bad skin,
is soft better than blotchy?

i am finished now, and it looks very soft for the whole body (naked skin). so i blended some parts of the original 30% over it and etched some areas in the masks, which i didnt like

more worse is, its male skin and it looks even more blotchy than women skin, i guess.

i dont know. i am not satisfied for real. its a compromise for me.


i even dont know how it could look real, lets say skin without blotches.
maybe pasting some nice/natural skin into it partially, but where to get the skin and maybe it doenst fit to the skin of the person in the picture, as every pore is unique for each person.

nevertheless i have to send it out on monday. i dont know if its worth experimenting for the weekend.

very difficult subject for me...as i only get soft or blotchy or blotchy softed skin, no homogenic area results to say it in one sentence.

thanks for your attention...and great help !"!

[Kraellin]

here's another method, borrowed from byRo's excellent tutorial on gausian blur and high pass, but adopted to paint shop pro.

this is byRo's quick tut on this:

The Quick Degrunge Technique
(at long last)

1) Make a duplicate layer;

2) Open the Gaussian blur filter and change the radius until the grunge just becomes invisible. Be careful here, getting the radius right is very important. Note the radius and cancel the filter;

3) Apply the High-pass filter at the radius you just noted down;

4) Apply the Gaussian blur on this layer at 1/3 of the radius;

5) Invert the layer (<Ctrl><I>), set the blending to Linear Light and the opacity to 50%;

6) Apply a Hide-all mask and paint white where you want to degrunge.

the ONLY thing different in psp is that we have no 'linear light' blend mode; at least not that has that particular name. however, we do have soft light, hard light and overlay. for this image i used overlay instead of 'linear light' and it worked fine. my settings were 10 and 3.3 on the filters.

excellent find and tut, byRo!

craig

[pure]

very very very good i must say, thanks

i am getting a little confused now.
i have worked on a real good Eizo and viewsonic, also a Quato intelliproof TFT screens in the summertime 2005, where i didnt saw any of those blotches or hard gradients i mentioned at beginning of my topic here.

i realised this so late now, as i looked at my retouched pictures from summertime which look nice but oversharp and harsh here as they didnt on RGB-Print on Fuji-PHotoprinter in the lab.

no i have an little "cheaper" Apple Cinema Display which displays everything different, very sharp, too sharp maybe, the gradients also.

so i am concerning about problems which arent apparently there, or only light maybe. this is frustrating.

what do you think? is it real or not?

[kev]

All digital backs on the market today have some banding issues, and these can show up in skin. I see them far too often. Best way to deal with it is get the original. Do your own processing. If need be, process the file twice or more and composite them together for the area containing the transition. After that, create a dodge and burn layer (new layer-->overlay w/ fill 50% neutral grey) and just finely dodge and burn the transition. It doesn't take as long as you might think. Then go back, and tell them to hire a proper tech if they don't know how to process files! I knew one photographer who was processing leaf files with an uncalibrated apple cinema display at full brightness. Every file I got from him was underexposed more 2/3 of a stop. It irritated the hell out of me. Anyway that's all for today.

[bart_hickman]

Craig,

Thanks for posting that. I was using something more complex to achieve linear light--your trick isn't quite subtraction, but between soft and hard light, one can always find a good approximation to linear light.

I've also found that applying a curve to the filtered layer to amplify it gives a little extra leeway so you can adjust the opacity slider for some flexibility. The curve to apply is any linear curve that intersects the midpoint (128,128).

Bart

[Kraellin]

bart,

you're welcome. us poor psp'ers gotta stick together or be overrun by these high-falutin ps folks

yes, hadnt thought about a curve, but makes sense. even a contrast/brighten might work there.

craig