Super-clean beauty retouch

[mikedimples]

Originally Posted by Markzebra

These things ARE NOT a replacement for learning from the ground up, believe me. And I'm somewhat disappointed that someone is posting this stuff on a forum at all. The main reason I say this is because, like I said in another thread, its like giving a four year old a razor blade - open to abuse.

---
So you don't want me to post any experimental photoshop techniques here because newbies might like it so much that they don't learn dodge and burn? Ehhh.... thanks for the suggestion, but I respectfully decline. Don't become a moderator please.

Originally Posted by Markzebra

Look at the image Histogram - any filtering process does some kind of damage. The secret to this is analysing differences and using them as repairs only.

---
This is good to know, although the histogram shift is so slight, it's next to invisible. Would you see this shift as being a problem when working in the high-end market?

Originally Posted by Markzebra

Using your image as an example the problem with painting on what you are calling low frequency is its - NOT AS GOOD as dodge and burn really for pure tonal work.

---
Why do I always have to pull logical arguments out of you? It would us both time if you'd just backup your points with actual facts/examples. Thanks.

I'm planning saving the next retouch I properly separate the layers from and corrupting all the retouching newbies with the blasphemy it contains (I'll be uploading the PDF!).

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by mikedimples

Wrong.

ok... funny thing... in the thread in MM the first image comes out BLACK too....

I think it has something to do with the process itself... I'm on mac, I assume Mark is too.... maybe it has something to do with that? I'm not PC literate... weird tho....

[mikedimples]

Did you look at the non-thumbnail size? There's BARELY any detail, but it's there. It's just the difference layer showing the detail that was caught by the frequency separation technique and not the high-pass filter. You'll have to look close, but it's there.

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by mikedimples

Did you look at the non-thumbnail size? There's BARELY any detail, but it's there. It's just the difference layer showing the detail that was caught by the frequency separation technique and not the high-pass filter. You'll have to look close, but it's there.

So your image was showing that as well?

ok....what's the point on showing this like that? u can see the difference in the image too... specially in the highlights.

xx

[mikedimples]

I posted that image as a response to Mark's comment, "The Apply Image is doing nothing original, in fact its doing a worse job than a straight High Pass."

The image shows that frequency separation was able to pull more detail out of the image than high-pass, without halos.

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by mikedimples

I posted that image as a response to Mark's comment, "The Apply Image is doing nothing original, in fact its doing a worse job than a straight High Pass."

The image shows that frequency separation was able to pull more detail out of the image than high-pass, without halos.

ok... I get it.

I do see Mark point with the razor blade issue....

and I still think D&B is better

[mikedimples]

I wholeheartedly agree with dodge and burn being better, but this method is vastly superior to the old high-pass-texture-preserving-then-smoothing technique. This technique is an easy way to achieve effects similar to but less precise and more damaging than dodge and burn. If vogue hires you, dodge and burn. If I've got a stack of model mayhem paying jobs, I'm using this technique. In my opinion, there's no better technique for the time it requires.

[mikedimples]

Okay, time to eat my words. Natalyia just sent me the proper way to do a high pass separation (duplicate bg, gaussian blur the bottom layer, apply the same radius high pass to the linear light layer on 50%) and it's almost exactly the same. Frequency separation does not bring anything new to retouching that the old method does not, EXCEPT for the added precision. The high pass separation has a slight loss in contrast/color detail.

[Markzebra]

Mike, all is forgiven, well NEARLY all. Although would have hoped that when I said in post 41, "- and compare it with an 8 bit high pass (same radius) at about 50%." that you would have taken the time to try this.

Anyway, and now here's time for me to eat one or two of my words too - The Apply DOES create a more accurate result in highlights (and probably both extremes come to think of it). Its one I was told about a very long time ago and forgotten/rejected at the time, so thanks for the reminder. It also has the added advantage of calculating the value of the high texture layer for you, so its easier to Action it.

I wholeheartedly agree with dodge and burn being better,

Now THAT'S what we have been saying all along. Glad we are all agreed. Signing out and saying goodbye

[Godmother]

Why can't we be friends (8)
Why can't we be friends (8)

Why can't we be friends (8)
Why can't we be friends (8)

yup, another song

[Markzebra]

Very cute coconut as that is Godmother, it makes sense for me to keep more of my limes to myself from now on.

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by Markzebra

Very cute coconut as that is Godmother, it makes sense for me to keep more of my limes to myself from now on.

no no... different song

x

[bakerser]

Originally Posted by mikedimples

Natalyia just sent me the proper way to do a high pass separation (duplicate bg, gaussian blur the bottom layer, apply the same radius high pass to the linear light layer on 50%)

She explained her file as using the Apply Image technique, no? Or different Natalia?

Originally Posted by Markzebra

Its one I was told about a very long time ago and forgotten/rejected at the time

Might I inquire as to whom you learned it from?