RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Photo Retouching "Improving" photos, post-production, correction, etc.

Super-clean beauty retouch

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 07-18-2009, 12:57 AM
mikedimples's Avatar
mikedimples mikedimples is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hollywood, California
Posts: 238
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Here's a very QUICK (under 15 min) retouch I did on a lower resolution image in another thread. I was very happy with how it came out, and am trying to achieve the same results in higher quality images. This would have taken MUCH longer with dodge and burn.

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/att...8&d=1247815982

Last edited by mikedimples; 07-18-2009 at 12:59 AM. Reason: wrong link
Reply With Quote top
  #22  
Old 07-18-2009, 01:00 AM
mikedimples's Avatar
mikedimples mikedimples is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hollywood, California
Posts: 238
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Wahoo! Senior member!
Reply With Quote top
  #23  
Old 07-18-2009, 06:23 AM
markc78's Avatar
markc78 markc78 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 54
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

is the frequency separation technique the same as degrunge method which aslo uses HP & GBlur?
Reply With Quote top
  #24  
Old 07-18-2009, 06:54 AM
Godmother's Avatar
Godmother Godmother is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 814
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

ohhh great... now I know what u're doing wrong

This is just a personal opinion but ...

Don't look for shortcuts - If u want skin to be perfect, D&B

Think about it.. an image has so many levels of depth... this technique, like MOST can be useful in small portions of the skin... it REALLY doesn't work when using it in the whole image.

Last edited by Godmother; 07-18-2009 at 07:14 AM. Reason: more
Reply With Quote top
  #25  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:45 AM
Markzebra's Avatar
Markzebra Markzebra is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 718
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Quote:
separating the low and high frequency of the image
That's never going to work, for 'smoothing' for a whole bunch of technical reasons. You shouldn't be wanting to take away texture. It also shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of pore by pore retouching, that the purpose isn't to smooth things off at all, but to unify and purify texture. If you were genuinely happy with the image you linked in 21, then there's nothing else to say really.

Last edited by Markzebra; 08-08-2009 at 01:26 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #26  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:49 AM
markc78's Avatar
markc78 markc78 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 54
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

have just read through the linked article on spatial frequency separation for an image , very interesting , especially for generating a high frequency layer that is more accurate & preferrable to high pass , to then give better sharpening without artifacts etc

Mike, But how are you then using it for skin smoothing ? for instance if you have an image separated into hi & lo frequencies are you then blurring the low fre. even more , or simply reducing the opacity of the hi freq. , or otherwise?

Godmother , to achieve perfect high end skin etc D&B is definately the way to go , but it's still interesting to know about effective shortcuts for less demanding projects etc
Reply With Quote top
  #27  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:58 AM
TommyO's Avatar
TommyO TommyO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 1,211
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedimples View Post
... then cloning in the high frequency...
Sounds similar to other techniques, such as painting on a soft light layer. So, maybe what is happening is that you are cloning too large of an area; or, that you cannot see the immediate results of the clone in such a way as to see if it's noticeable. A couple of ideas: (a) lower the opacity of the layer you're working on as you work, so you can see the results; (b) work on only a very small section at a time, making a multiple layer file; (c) play with lowering the resulting layers opacity to merge it better with the original.

The last idea would be to give up the cloning, substituting something less "duplicating". I'm not sure what that may be, since it sounds like your target idea is to use very little human input. It may be a custom algorithm - similar to what some other companies are trying to produce for skin retouch.
Reply With Quote top
  #28  
Old 07-18-2009, 12:52 PM
mikedimples's Avatar
mikedimples mikedimples is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hollywood, California
Posts: 238
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Thanks for tall the input everyone, I appreciate it. As of now I would definitely stick to dodge and burn if I need something to look perfect, but I want to put more time into this because I think it shows potential.

The technique is very similar to degrunge, but more precise. I think my problem so far is that I separated the frequency leaning towards the low frequency side, which made it look blurred and fake.

Thank for the great advice as always Tommy. I'll give those techniques are try, I think they may really help!

Blurring the low frequency seems to work great for evening out skin tone, and then theres the freedom to clone on high frequency without altering tone -- it feels like a souped-up healing brush tool.

Everyone who can see that it's not good enough for pro yet, please keep checking-in occasionally and let me know how you think it's looking; I'm planning on trying again!
Reply With Quote top
  #29  
Old 07-18-2009, 05:30 PM
mikedimples's Avatar
mikedimples mikedimples is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hollywood, California
Posts: 238
Thumbs down Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markzebra View Post
That's just never going to work, for a whole bunch of technical reasons.
So your saying that separating the low frequency and high frequency part of the image will not work for many technical reason. Mind sharing three?

Quote:
It also shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of pore by pore retouching, that the purpose isn't to smooth things off at all, but to unify and purify texture.
What shows a misunderstand of the purpose of pore by pore retouching. Frequency separation? The entire point of what I've been doing is to unify skin texture. I don't understand.

Quote:
If you were genuinely happy with the image you linked in 21, then there's nothing else to say really.
Today 04:54 AM
How about saying what you find objectionable about it. I'm starting to get tired of your inane posts. If you don't like it, tell me why. I'm starting to think you use frequency separation and are trying to prevent it from spreading. Stop acting so suspicious.
Reply With Quote top
  #30  
Old 07-18-2009, 09:59 PM
TommyO's Avatar
TommyO TommyO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 1,211
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Mike,
It can be hard to break traditional methods of basic frequency separation, like those methods mentioned already, i.e. high pass filters, blend modes (soft light), and so on. Most of the frequency separation mentioned in this and other threads rely on high bit images (16 bit or more) for good control and less data loss. Those working in 8-bit mode should probably stick with other methods in order to prevent data loss within their images. Those that work in 16-bit could benefit some by remaining open to what may come from experimenting with new frequency separation algorithms. (Maybe you will be one of those guys who figure this all out and apply it correctly to Photoshop.) However, most of us achieve excellent results from the tried-and-true (yet less exact) frequency separation tools available to us (again... high pass, soft light, etc.).

Do we need more a accurate means of splitting the image frequencies ? Maybe, if it can be boiled down to something simple and useful, like a plug-in. I would also speculate that many of the third party plug-in manufacturers are already doing this (but I cannot confirm it). It only makes sense that they are.

So, keep experimenting and keeping us posted with the results. Keep the language simple so we can follow it. And, show us some comparisons or something a bit more close-up so we can evaluate it. I would not post it as a critique or anything like that, just an FYI for us. Thanks for all of the information so far !
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New beauty Retouch fryday Critiques 10 08-02-2010 03:07 AM
40 beauty retouch tutorials!! r_dg Photo Retouching 6 10-06-2009 06:56 AM
Retouch Beauty Apinantn Photo Retouching 3 07-21-2009 01:50 AM
Beauty Retouch Nienna Critiques 13 05-07-2009 11:24 AM
Beauty retouch! ellefolk Photo Retouching 11 04-29-2009 12:11 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved