perfct skin retouch

[nabegh73]

this is my retouch skin
do u like it
nabegh kanji 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