High End Retouching = not....

[Vernon]

Originally Posted by Live the Lie

I think someone should have told this guy. I found it earlier this week and had a pretty good laugh.

http://pixeltopixel.com/PhotoMakeove...rous_look.html

I almost sprayed my drink - was was mid-swallow when I clicked that link!

And what is probably scary is, they are probably getting gigs to have photos retouched, to boot!

[xxxmen]

I could not read most of the post in this thread, but there seems to be a consensus that blurring is not a good/correct way of colour correcting high end images. Can someone briefly point out other methods other retouchers are using via photoshop?

I'm curious to hear other methods since I usually use blur/dust and scratches.

[SilvaFox]

Originally Posted by HughSteenk

Retouching is supposed to be invisible.

Thank you.

[cscalfani]

Blurring is technically a low pass filter. What does that mean? That means higher frequency information is removed.

Makeup is a form of blurring, foundation in particular. It "fills" in areas effectively removing texture.

Texture is a form of high frequency information in the image. Texture, or high frequency information, can be removed or reduced by using a soft box since shadows are greatly reduced.

Looking at "professional" quality retouching, you will find that high frequency information has been removed from the skin. "Bad" texture has been replaced with "good" texture.

I don't think that blurring is a problem in particular. I would say how it is globally applied in a heavy handed manner, however, is a problem and not aesthetically pleasing.

Using a blur with a small opacity and mixing back in the original texture of the skin using a High Pass filter approach and then applying it only in areas where the technique works for a particular image by using a Layer Mask seems a reasonable approach to me.

To make a blanket statement that blurring isn't professional is either a gross generalization used to make a point (probably motivated by seeing too many badly retouched photos) or a statement made by someone who doesn't fully understand the mathematics of image processing.

[SteveB2005]

And it depends on how much an image is "blurred." Most everyday type retouching, some high school portraits, "mall fast food" photography and lower end images don't need to have the quality of an image that is going to be a high end makeup ad in Vogue, where maintaining perfect "pore" skin is imperative.

If six figure high end NYC retouchers could just push an action in PS and in less than 5 minutes have a hi-rez image files ready to go to Vogue, then there wouldn't be any need to hire them. Any level of retoucher could come in and blur, program simple actions and do whatever to process images, however that isn't the reality of the trade.

I feel using median, gaussian, and surface blur filters has a definite place in a retouchers tool box as any of the other tools in the PS menu. Whatever works to please the client is really the important goal. One client I had literally told me to, "Blur the HELL outta those damn wrinkles and knock 20 years off me sonny boy, hehe." And I certainly did what she wanted.

steve

[Insensitive.]

The thing i dont get is, quite a few of her images look fake and overly blurred.

[Verywierd]

Originally Posted by Insensitive.

The thing i dont get is, quite a few of her images look fake and overly blurred.

I suppose it all depends on need. The emphasis in Fashion shots is on the clothes and accessories. The model is just that - basically an attractive framework to display the product. Therefore, blemishes and flaws of any kind are not acceptable. This is in contrast to portrait work where at least some degree of individuality and realism is required. Horses for courses.

[mrMan]

I've been in the industry for a few years but wouldn't consider myself an expert by far. It's interesting that very few people in this post mentioned the politics and business of retouching.

To say 'don't blur' is shocking to me. With PS theres so many ways to arrive at a given point. In a normal workflow my ultimate measure of success is when the art director/client says so. I can have all these ideas about D/B pixel by pixel, skin texture, proper adjustment layers etc but ultimately its a business and I have to provide a service; usually very quickly and at a profit. Couple this with the fact that most information/texture is going to be lost at press.

If you are in any form of commercial retouching the buck stops at the client or art director, most who have no background in retouching. They pay the bills so they are always right.

[MrAlexajlex]

Originally Posted by mrMan

I've been in the industry for a few years but wouldn't consider myself an expert by far. It's interesting that very few people in this post mentioned the politics and business of retouching.

To say 'don't blur' is shocking to me. With PS theres so many ways to arrive at a given point. In a normal workflow my ultimate measure of success is when the art director/client says so. I can have all these ideas about D/B pixel by pixel, skin texture, proper adjustment layers etc but ultimately its a business and I have to provide a service; usually very quickly and at a profit. Couple this with the fact that most information/texture is going to be lost at press.

If you are in any form of commercial retouching the buck stops at the client or art director, most who have no background in retouching. They pay the bills so they are always right.

I could not have said it better myself.

Many times there are costs associated with anything.

If they want 20 images done in 10 hours then you get 30 minutes per pic (and they are paying accordingly).

Also think about the medium delivery.

I walked passed dozen of magazine covers and when you look up close at least 1/3 of the are print limited. The digital image may have a heck of a lot more detail but unfortunately the printed product does not reflect it.

[Cryspatus]

I agree with you, but the skin on your pictures doesn't look much different than blurred skin. The skin tone is really even, you can't see any pores or texture, and there is a plastic look to them. Do you not like blurring because of the way it looks or because it is a short cut? Personally I hate the way it looks and I don't like the look of extreme photoshopping... Unless it is a fantasy picture

[Insensitive.]

Originally Posted by Cryspatus

I agree with you, but the skin on your pictures doesn't look much different than blurred skin. The skin tone is really even, you can't see any pores or texture, and there is a plastic look to them. Do you not like blurring because of the way it looks or because it is a short cut? Personally I hate the way it looks and I don't like the look of extreme photoshopping... Unless it is a fantasy picture

This was the point i was trying to make. Some of her work looks like some kind of overly perfect robot alien mix. The one with the two black actresses sitting on the floor in the living room setting looks like she blurred the skin. And those desaturated photos look blurred also. While she has some really nice skills shown in some of her work. She doesnt have much room to talk.

[jvr]

I arrived to this post trying to learn the D&B technique, its variations used by Pros here. It would have been great to have a quick tutorial from Bianca. I'm not requesting screen captures, voiceover movies... Just a quick explanation of the method used so we can start exploring...

[bri775]

The skin does look blurred in a lot of her shots. So what point is it to not use blur but have your images look like they've gone through some blurring? -for bragging rights?