perfct skin retouch

[nabegh73]

this is my retouch skin
do u like it
nabegh kanjo beirut lebanon

[elohssa]

It looks a little too perfect. Human skin is imperfect.
Use a little less blur or else she doesn't look human anymore.

[NancyJ]

While 'texture' may be the 'in thing' in some spheres, that is not the case universally. 'Perfectly smooth' is also a perfectly acceptable style, when done right.

I think this picture is a good example of that, the skin is perfectly smoothed with no blotches and good definition has been maintained around the hairline, nose and mouth. If this was an ad for foundation - I'd buy it The skin looks smooth but not blurred. Good job!
The only criticism I would make is that maybe the eyeshadow is a little too textured compare to the rest of the skin - it should have a little texture but it could blend a little better.
It would be great to see the original.

A lot of retouchers at the moment are trying to artificially add texture on pictures that just arent suitable - eg. low res head+shoulders - where that kind of texture just wouldnt be visible.

[madclark]

It does look absolutely perfect but I guess I'm part of that school of realism that prefers a little texture.

You've done an excellent job and such a good job it's hard to notice that it's so perfected. But I wonder if you just reduced the opacity a little on the correction layers if you could find a better balance between perfection and realism?

My personal philosophy in beauty retouching is to bring out what the subject would look like in an ideal photographic situation, flawless makeup and skin tone after a good night's sleep, flattering lighting with correct colors - anything that a well trained makeup artist and photographer could do on their own and the subject was in excellent health. But when I move beyond that though I try to be as gentle as possible, i.e. skin that is too smooth and poreless, undereyes that are absolutely flat, skin that's perfectly smooth on an older model, eyes that are too unnaturally large and vibrant.

To me, the interest of a picture lies in the reality, not the fantasy. And viewers, though they may not consciously know why, can recognize when something isn't quite real. They will appreciate what looks good but will also recognize what's fake.

In any case, keep up the good work. It looks great.

[KR1156]

i feel she doesn't look human anymore, more of an illustration.

if you look at her face from chin to top of forehead to earline, it looks like an illustration was cut & pasted onto a real photograph. take a step back and look at the rest of the photo....it doesnt match up.

-im not knocking your work at all....i just feel it's overdone. it doens't seem realistic at all.


---if i was a woman looking at that on a foundation ad, like nancy was saying, i would be more turned off by it because it looks like they overdid it to sell me on it...totally looking like advertising trickery. Now, if i looked at a woman with a more natural skin and texture, just nicely cleaned up...it would make me feel this product does work, i think the ultimate goal is to make healthy looking skin. not to disguise its flaws with obvious computer graphics.

[TheVeed]

I have to disagree with Nancy J, as well. If I were to see this in an advertisement, I would not think "I'd buy that" but "who retouched this??"

It looks like you applied paint directly on to her skin, taking out all of her pores and imperfections.

I understand that there are different retouching 'looks' to go for. I did a very crisp retouch here: http://theveed.com/pages/images/nnennacloseup.jpg
where I left pores and texture and added absolutely no extra texture (it did help that the model was already stunning in the original.)

But here, I have eliminated most texture: http://theveed.com/pages/images/glamour4_01.jpg

Now, obviously, there are MANY more varieties of retouching styles than just these two examples. But complete removal of skin texture and quality is pretty universally seen as a retouching folly. Not only does it remove naturalness, it removes highlights, light hitting the skin, and, most importantly, the shapes and contours of the face.

My suggestion is practicing your dodge and burn, which there are many tutorials of on this website. Don't try adding texture to images, or using "de-grudge" techniques, if you want a real polished feel. Plain old dodge and burn will still be your #1 asset.

Hope this helps.

[NancyJ]

Why is it that no-one here can give an honest, technical critique without imposing their preferences on the artist? You dont have to like someone's style to critique their technique. This is a perfect example of a particular style - regardless of whether you like it or agree with its use.

A good critique bears in mind what the artist was trying to achieve with his work and addresses how sucessfully he/she has done, then give pointers on how to improve, within the same look. Not to tell everyone they should be retouching in a certain style.

Retouching is just as prone to fads an fashions as any other industry and different markets around the world have different fashions. Look at Dior - incredibly sucessful advertising campaigns and most of the images (particularly when viewed at this size) have little to no texture in the skin - because thats their style. Doesnt mean there is anything wrong with it or the retoucher should be taken out and shot - it means the retoucher has perfectly exectuted the style he was going for.

[Peer K]

Your nnennacloseup.jpg is very good!

Which dodge and burn tutorial would you recommend?

Originally Posted by TheVeed

My suggestion is practicing your dodge and burn, which there are many tutorials of on this website. Don't try adding texture to images, or using "de-grudge" techniques, if you want a real polished feel. Plain old dodge and burn will still be your #1 asset.

Hope this helps.

[TheVeed]

Originally Posted by NancyJ

Why is it that no-one here can give an honest, technical critique without imposing their preferences on the artist? You dont have to like someone's style to critique their technique. This is a perfect example of a particular style - regardless of whether you like it or agree with its use.

While I always respect and usually agree with your posts, NancyJ, I beg to differ here. Oddly enough, I did provide good criticism AND tips for improvement, and yes, honest and technical critique.

This particular style isn't really a 'style' but a lack of knowledge in what to keep and what to leave out in skin retouching.

There is a HUGE difference in Christian Dior's retouchers and a style of 'flat texture.' Their advertisements are intended for magazine use, and faces generally show up at a thumbnail's size. You would NEVER see their photos containing lack of texture through retouching in a close-up; that would only occur through original photography. That 'style' has more to do with original photography's strong lighting and a little 'blowing-out', NOT with retouching.

By no means is this a personal attack on anyone. This is, after all, a community to share our knowledge of retouching methods, techniques, and industry secrets. But I do disagree that this is a difference of retouching preferences.

[Ant]

"this is my retouch skin
do u like it"

No.

[phillip6653]

I think that it looks great and would agree with Nancy and say that there are many people that are want this look in there retouch. I do not think it is flat, I think it is well executed. That is my opinion

[Cassidy]

To my eye, this looks painted/illustrated, especially given the differences between the face and the neck and then the eyes to me don't look as genuine as an original should. I'd personally look to even the look between the face and the neck/chest to make it look more contiguous. Love the eyes, they really stand out, but think of more as in a painting, looks a tad anime to my eye

[G Deezy]

I agree with TheVeed and KR1156

Looks too phoney, almost 3d rendered (the eyes especially). The poster just said "This is my re-touch, do you like it?". There was no before shot, there was no explanation of the requirements or what look they were going for. How are you supposed to give a critique if someone is asking you if you like it? Any answer is acceptable and is just a matter of personal taste. Had they said the client wanted perfect smooth skin with glassy eyeballs, then sure it's good.

JMHO

[RokcetScientist]

The question that matters is: was the client happy?
Everything else is irrelevant.

[Craig_H]

Originally Posted by phillip6653

I do not think it is flat, I think it is well executed.

You obviously don't see much in the way of high-end retouching then. This retouch is WAYYY overdone, it's awful to be honest.

The trick is to have people know that an image has been retouched (because we all know skin isn't 'perfect'), but not know exactly what has been done. When ordinary people who are aloof to digital photography and retouching can tell what has been done to an image, then you have failed imo.

Here's an example of a "perfect skin" retouch which:
a) retains skin texture
b) keeps lighting nuances and face shape

http://members.iinet.net.au/~craighi...ior_advert.jpg

(And no, I do not work for Dior nor create advertisements for them. Unfortunately)

Below is another retouch example using the same girl, and guess what?! No use of the blur tool! (strictly nothing but the clone tool used)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~craighi...013_Maaike.jpg

Craig

[madclark]

Craig, I think you're being a little harsh.

As posted above, it would be nice to see what the original photograph looked like for comparison. You can tell the retouching is heavy handed, but the techniques used seem well-executed. You should at least be able to acknowledge the completeness of the picture even if you disagree with the retouch. And if you can't, then your comments are best kept to yourself. You've taken the opportunity to show off your own work while slamming the original post at the same time in a "look at me, pay attention to me" way. Very uncool.

I agree the original poster needs to recognize that the retouch has pushed the boundaries of realistic portrayal, but I feel it's our role to guide and advise, to help them realize the positives and negatives of that, and not use this forum as an opportunity for drive-by self-promotion and criticism.

And RocketScientist, with retouching we have to go beyond just ensuring the clients is happy but also informed. If they like this retouch, good for them. But if they don't realize that the retouch is heavy-handed, because the the retoucher is either uninformed or inexperienced, you do a disservice to the client. With clients not in the photography business, they really won't know what they want and are looking to the retoucher for guidance. That's the way in any creative consulting business.

[Craig_H]

Originally Posted by madclark

Craig, I think you're being a little harsh.

Do you think anyone is going to get anywhere or improve if their peers tiptoe around criticism?

Originally Posted by madclark

You can tell the retouching is heavy handed, but the techniques used seem well-executed.

That really makes no sense to me. If techniques are well executed, then surely the end result would not look so overdone?!

Originally Posted by madclark

You should at least be able to acknowledge the completeness of the picture even if you disagree with the retouch.

Not sure what you mean by completeness...

[aaRonology101]

yea, the original is always good for comparison, but from what i see, it looks way over done. i cant even say that it looks to perfect. its way to pastey.

got to keep in mind of skin texture. once you lose that, you will lose the realism of the picture.

my advice .. less cloning and painting, and more dodgeing and burning ..

[ElectronicLady]

Originally Posted by TheVeed

I did a very crisp retouch here: http://theveed.com/pages/images/nnennacloseup.jpg
where I left pores and texture and added absolutely no extra texture (it did help that the model was already stunning in the original.)

I loved your retouch of
http://theveed.com/pages/images/nnennacloseup.jpg

I frequently need to retouch African American skin and would like some pointers. My questions are

How do you even out the skin color?
how do I determine if the coloring is right?
How do you leave the shine in without it looking oily?
How do you remove the blotches and imperfections within the shine?

Are there any tutorials you can refer me to?

Thanks for your patience with ALL my elementary questions

[TheVeed]

Originally Posted by ElectronicLady

I loved your retouch of
http://theveed.com/pages/images/nnennacloseup.jpg

I frequently need to retouch African American skin and would like some pointers. My questions are

How do you even out the skin color?
how do I determine if the coloring is right?
How do you leave the shine in without it looking oily?
How do you remove the blotches and imperfections within the shine?

Are there any tutorials you can refer me to?

Thanks for your patience with ALL my elementary questions

It didn't hurt that the model is stunningly beautiful to begin with. But a lot of your questions can be answered by a number of people in this forum. I guess the only answer I can give you is to really learn your Dodge & Burn, and read the tutorials on that. Most everything else you've asked can easily be found by reading other tutorials.

[Lasa]

If people can make a ultra smooth skin without it looking blurred..great! If that's the look you are going for more power to you. The ultra super model flawlessness look has its place ( I like it), looks great when you are selling an image everybody knows is touched up unreal etc.. but its a little out of place if used for your senior high school picture... It seems like its vogue to like textured skin, it looks ok on some images and not so good (as in bad) on others...it has its place.

Lasa

[Arandel]

The concept of good retouching varies between cultures, as it is clearly shown here. If you look at any kind of published material (whether it be magazines, CD covers, etc) from Eastern Europe, the Middle East - or Asia in general, the type of work presented by nabegh73 is what dominates their media markets. That perception of glamour is contrasted by the Western retouching ideal, where texture is everything. However, I agree with Nancy, a lot of fashion magazines out there present us with heavily blurred images - surprisingly also high-end ones (and yes, I can back this statement up with brand names).

[blansky]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Are we so isolated in our own little world that we can't see that this example is over retouched to the point of absurdity.

It's a great exercise in using photoshop tools. It reminds me of the hilarious trend in the 80s of women using red to highlight their cheeks, (which they copied from fashion magazines,) so they looked liked they'd just been in a bar fight.

Michael

[Arandel]

I do believe the isolation in this case lays in the fact of some people being unable to appreciate the esthetic values of other cultures, in this instance that of Lebanon. But as I also mentioned earlier, this type of retouching is prevalent in most Eastern civilizations. The burning question here is rather about cultural imperialism, where people at this forum - mainly from the Western civilization, feel that their techniques and ideals are superior. Veed even went so far as to describe Nabegh's effort as a universal folly. You all have to excuse me, but I fail to see how anybody can make such a generic judgement based on their apparently limited personal experiences. Why not, as Nancy also suggested, try to see the pieces up for critique from the retouchers perspective and background. There is so much to be learnt, and isolating ourselves from different ideas and influences is plain ignorant.

[TheVeed]

Arandel, you bring up some good points, but ultimately, I must say, I completely disagree with you.

Most magazines in the middle east, as you speak of, may employ that type of 'smooth' retouching, but that is more due to a lack of high-end retouchers available to their clients, and budget contraints. It is NOT a 'trend' or whatever else excuse it has been labeled as. It is poor retouching. If they had the available resources, they would outsource their retouching to the higher-end hotspots, such as London, Paris, NY, the list goes on. There are very few cities that can lay claim to having a retouching industry, but rest assured, their clients are from all over the world.

There is a difference in applying texture to skin, and maintaining/perfecting the texture that is already there. Applying texture to skin is poor retouching as well, but it recognizes that skin has a texture. NO texture on the skin is the easiest, and most beginner-level technique in doing a 'glamour' retouch. I'm not knocking on the original poster by that comment, because we've ALL been there. What I'm saying is, it's not right to try to encourage it and mislabel it as a 'trend.'

Any magazine, regardless of nation, can have good or bad retouching. In NO good retouching will you see skin as unnaturally smooth as the original post. Show me ONE photo, from a high-end magazine, that is a face close-up, that has skin as texture-free. Printed high-end retouched photos that look smooth actually DO have texture, but smaller, not as sharp, and less defined texture. But like I said before, it's not perfectly smooth.

Perfectly smooth retouching does have its place, in art and graphic pieces. But it goes against the very principles of retouching, which are to perfect what is already given, not to remove all reality from it. Claiming anything otherwise is, quite honestly, just absurd.

[Ant]

Going to back up Veed here.

The image stinks in any culture. Any other words just give too much credit to this thread which already has too much discussion and views and is ridiculous.

[vkg1]

My opinion is that she looks too fake. Reducing the opacity of the eye white correction layer would be the first thing I would do to address this.

[Nezbitten]

In my opinion I would stop and take breath. Just a few minutes on the internet searching for high pass skin retouching and couple of hours reworking your image you could have something miles better! LIke the previous posters have said, we all have to start somewhere, keep practicing and the details will come.

[julianmarsalis]

Originally Posted by TheVeed

I have to disagree with Nancy J, as well. If I were to see this in an advertisement, I would not think "I'd buy that" but "who retouched this??"

It looks like you applied paint directly on to her skin, taking out all of her pores and imperfections.

I understand that there are different retouching 'looks' to go for. I did a very crisp retouch here: http://theveed.com/pages/images/nnennacloseup.jpg
where I left pores and texture and added absolutely no extra texture (it did help that the model was already stunning in the original.)

But here, I have eliminated most texture: http://theveed.com/pages/images/glamour4_01.jpg

Now, obviously, there are MANY more varieties of retouching styles than just these two examples. But complete removal of skin texture and quality is pretty universally seen as a retouching folly. Not only does it remove naturalness, it removes highlights, light hitting the skin, and, most importantly, the shapes and contours of the face.

My suggestion is practicing your dodge and burn, which there are many tutorials of on this website. Don't try adding texture to images, or using "de-grudge" techniques, if you want a real polished feel. Plain old dodge and burn will still be your #1 asset.

Hope this helps.

Pretty much this period /thread lol when it comes to retouching and retaining texture this is the goal not a blurry or plastic barbie doll unless maybe doing a 50 pinup.....