What is the current skin trend?

[Insensitive.]

I know it was once orange peel, what is it now?

[jimlafferty]

Mango, and in some cases, Buddha's Hand

[Insensitive.]

lol, and examples?

[Cuervo79]

HUH? you mean get the texture from the said fruit? lol please explain

[MrRyan]

Lately, i've seen a lot of using the skin in the photo as a source, running a dust&scratches, then running that as a lighten layer. It almost turns the pores/hairs white. Either that, or some simple noise, (same "lighten" layer). I've noticed it in some sectors of fashion where realistic skin is not of upmost priority.

[igot2pman]

MrRyan,

WOW, very nice. That technique makes very quick work of blemishes and more importantly the small hairs that take so long to heal/clone out otherwise.

I instantly put this into an action...

Many thanks,
-Keven

[MrRyan]

Igot2Pman,

It takes a little work to figure out levels/opacities/pixel sizes etc per image, but on a nice sharp image, it does work quite nicely. I'm glad i you like the technique friendo!

RyRy

[Cuervo79]

going to try this myself too, sounds promising as an add to my tools

[MrRyan]

I've got a number of odd processes I've developed for certain aesthetic looks on images. Sometimes when I'm slow at work, I'll pop open an image, and experiment for awhile, trying CRAZY stuff just to see what will happen.
One day, while working on a photo of one of our models, i developed the PERFECT technique to simulate FISH SCALES. I don't know when I'll EVER need that, (and I'm not sure if I could remember it again), but it's nice to have it on back-burner i guess. Haha!

RyRy

[igot2pman]

Originally Posted by MrRyan

Lately, i've seen a lot of using the skin in the photo as a source, running a dust&scratches, then running that as a lighten layer. It almost turns the pores/hairs white.

Here is what made me go WOW... Just an example of what this can do...It did all that in seconds... that used to take me hours to clone/heal that.

I hear ya Ryan, I too just fiddle around with doing diffrent things to make something totaly diffrent. What I found was that makeing an action of it will keep it forever (if you dont loose it). Then you can save it to a disk. I already made this into an action. And yes, it works better with sharp pictures.

-Keven

[MrRyan]

WOAH. WOOAAH!

I retouch females 100% of the time, and rarely do I get images with THAT much sharp dark hair on the face. I hadn't seen what this technique could do on dark DARK hair. That's crazy!
Granted, only SOME higher end retouching is doing skin that way, but for the time it takes, that is a really great result. I find, you can go from a style, to higher end retouching, by simply lowering the opacity of that layer, allowing SOME hair to come through.
That's got me thinking, that if the hair is lighter to begin with, perhaps creating a duplicate layer, and using selective color to make the hair DARKER first, and then following the technique, might yeild results just as good as what you've shown. I'll have to try that this week.

Good point concerning the actions, i need to do that more. I have done it in the past, but I need to remember to revisit that whenever I develope ANYTHING new. With photoshop, you NEVER KNOW what you're going to need to do, haha!

RyRy

[MrRyan]

Igot2pman,

And you know what ends up being the GREATEST part about this technique? For some time now, your clients know it takes a couple of hours to clone out hair like that. But NOW, run my technique, and go grab a few beers with the guys WHILE YOU GET PAID!!!! HAHA!

I think i might make a brief tutorial of this, adding an extra step or two to tone down the whites SLIGHTLY. A nice D&B after wouldn't hurt either, as you do lose some of the shading along with the harsh hairs/blemishes.

RyRy

[ch33sewiz]

hi guys,

bit late, but can you teach that technique?

thanks

[Smokie]

I love the technique, and it works best on sharp images from the few test i have done..

[MrRyan]

ch33sewiz,

I hope to get around to writing a more comprehensive tutorial, with pictures, for my technique at some point, but work doesn't currently allow it. But here's a quick run down:

Select the skin area you'd like to clean up. i typically use quick mask for skin as it allows greater control over the feather in various areas of the image.
Once you have your selection, duplicate it in a new layer.
Run Filter>Noise>Dust and scratches on your new, duplicated skin. (you'll have to play with settings for best results)
Now change the duplicated skin layer's blending mode to: Lighten

It helps to then revisit the layer with a mask, and mask out any shadow areas you may have lightened in excess.

Hope this helped,
RyRy

[igot2pman]

I know this is not skin, but it has to do with the face.

I was recently in Wal-Mart and this magazine caught my eye, "People style watch." The current December issue cover girl has no pupils. What is up with that! It’s kind of freaky but just wanted others opinion.

Is this where we are going???? I doubt it, but in looking through the mag's pictures I found a few more without the pupils.

What do you all think?

-Keven

[MrRyan]

I think you've got a freaking EAGLE eye to just notice that at a glance... haha.

I don't think this is where we are going, as in a style choice. However, i do see this as where we currently ARE now and in the near future, as companies use some HORRIBLE retouchers/retouching. I hope that it follows the progression that design has (product, interior, packaging, etc...)
Lesser known specialized field > It becomes a $5 word and the market is flooded with horrible trash as everyone tries to jump on the bandwagon > certain brands/retouchers survive, and it can equalize where it needs to be.

Or maybe I'm reading WAY too into it and some moron just forgot a pupil, hahA!.

But honestly, i encourage everyone to look closely at DVD/movie covers/art. HORRIBLE. It's so bad that I'm starting to form a stereotype for the people who retouch movie art...
"Oh you retouch movie posters? Hey, that's cool! So you're TERRIBLE at photoshop right!"

[RokcetScientist]

And the funny thing is: you basically end up with fifties style movie 'art'. They never outgrew the billboard phase.

[ch33sewiz]

wow sir, great tuts, i already tried it! it amazing!

thanks

[Cuervo79]

@igot2pman
Does it look like that on print? To me it looks like a photo taken on the street with bare flash at day, since to me it looks like her pupils are real small. The compression artifacts and the small resolution of the image then take away the remaining contrast and detail off the pupil.

[igot2pman]

Yea, it looks like that in real life, all brown. I don’t know if they did it to try and catch people’s eye. I asked my GF what she thought about it and she didn’t see it till I told her that there were none.

For me, when I just looking around waiting to check out, I saw it and thought it looked odd. So I picked it up and took a better look and found the problem. Maybe they are really small. As a consumer, all I know is that it made me pick it up. Something that is hard to do for any product. Does anyone think that they did this on purpose to intrigue people, but the average person would never realize there is something missing?

Here are the pictures from my camera phone so I could "write down" the name of the mag. Not much better than the online JPG but it is the printed version.

-Keven

[Insensitive.]

igot2pman

Does anyone think that they did this on purpose to intrigue people, but the average person would never realize there is something missing?

That is brilliant

[Vernon]

Good technique, MrRyan!

I, too, will be applying that strategically on some of my images.

[Cuervo79]

@got2pman
Doubt it, I think you got curious because of your retouching background, and as you saw with your GF she didn't even notice until you told her.

Too bad your close up is out of focus. I still stand by what I said.