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
  #31  
Old 07-19-2009, 01:43 AM
mikedimples's Avatar
mikedimples mikedimples is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hollywood, California
Posts: 238
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

That's great advice Tommy0, I'm going to create a new thread dedicated to frequency experimentation. I'll gather the resources and prepare some comparisons (original, dodge and burn, and frequency healing). Thanks again for your wisdom and guidance.
Reply With Quote top
  #32  
Old 07-19-2009, 03:59 AM
Markzebra's Avatar
Markzebra Markzebra is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 718
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Ok despite your rudeness - …
Quote:
So your saying that separating the low frequency and high frequency part of the image will not work for many technical reasons. Mind sharing three?
1 texture is something that you should be looking to preserve, not destroy - the badly entitled 'frequency' method that you linked to is actually precisely the same as a high pass technique. Its a simple High Pass, lower contrast - not more precise, not that it matters.

2 Localized tonal variation (texture eliminated or editied by methods such as High Pass, and blur) can not replace proper retouching. Because, that's about judgement, deciding this area of texture needs lifting, this pore needs sinking, this needs cloning. SOME texture needs nothing at all. I suppose its very vaguely possible that in the future some kind of analysis technology (not pure filtering) in the future might take us some of the way there - this would require something pretty different from whats available at the moment - I'm only saying this because I've learned in the past that you never know what on earth they will come up with, and wouldn't put anything past them.

3 A FILTER is a unmodulated mathematical process applied across an area- direct filtering on skin will always look like filtering on skin. Sure there are better ways to reduce texture than this gobbledegook, (if you want to) but nothing replaces hard work. If your going to use filtration, then might as well go the whole way, and blur and re-texturize - it would do a better job

Quote:
The entire point of what I've been doing is to unify skin texture. I don't understand.
Well why are you blurring it then?- ironing out texture. By the word 'unifying' I meant making a rhythm.

Quote:
How about saying what you find objectionable about it.
Its blurred, quite obviously visibly filtered, and you suggested in your intitial post - "MANY dodge and burn curves layers", and obviously the image doesn't reflect that -

Ok this time only …

Last edited by Markzebra; 08-08-2009 at 01:28 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #33  
Old 07-19-2009, 04:29 AM
markc78's Avatar
markc78 markc78 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 54
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

yesterday I attended the webinar by Gry Garness which was overall very intersting not least because she used a refined degrunge technique as a final finishing effect to ehance the skin with a sheen , a tightness & reduction of skin tone blotchiness.
Personally I think blurring techniques when used sensibly can have an important place in high-end retouching & sometimes feel that there's an unfair snobbery against their use.
Let's face it does anyone really enjoy total D&B ?
Reply With Quote top
  #34  
Old 07-19-2009, 06:11 AM
markc78's Avatar
markc78 markc78 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 54
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Thankfully I don't live in a B&W world
Reply With Quote top
  #35  
Old 07-19-2009, 10:41 AM
Godmother's Avatar
Godmother Godmother is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 814
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedimples View Post
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:
Originally Posted by mikedimples View Post
I'm starting to think you use frequency separation and are trying to prevent it from spreading. Stop acting so suspicious.
It doesn't work like that, he is ACTUALLY trying to help you, open your eyes.

1- It doesn't work because u can't use JUST ONE RANGE - I use high pass for several not so high end projects BUT never one radius in the whole face, that WILL NEVER WORK.

2- What he says, about making a decision with every "pore" it works exactly like that... maybe not EVERY SINGLE PORE but with every AREA of an image u make a decision when retouching... "this shadow will be darker to enhance the depth" or "I'll lighten this shadow up to make the transition between shadow-highlight smoother" --- This stray of hair needs blending in, I'l clone it in darken mode - I'll paste some other bit of hair over it - I'll make it darker and alter the tone to make it fit the rest of the hair - etc -etc
With a filter u don't make ANY CHOICES.

3- It's really about how u want your image to look... Flawlessly natural or "default glamour look"

He is not attacking u personally... but sometimes... when u read the same things over and over and see different ppl making the same mistakes... asking about the mistake, getting the "don't use blur" answer and complaining about the critics or harsh answers (Not u, this happens EVERY TIME) it gets a bit annoying and Mark is not a very patient guy

Have a nice day and i'f u're going to keep using that technique, then try this

DON'T do just 2

Do several in layer groups, masked out over the original image.

Work in each group with the level of texture u want to achieve in that particular area (but EVERY TIME, walk away from the computer or ZOOM OUT to see howthis affects the whole image)

Mask every one in where u want it applied.

hope that helps.

xxx
Reply With Quote top
  #36  
Old 07-19-2009, 12:08 PM
snook305's Avatar
snook305 snook305 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South
Posts: 426
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

OR Like Mark mentioned you could use the Byro technique which works pretty well as Gry Garness showed in her last Retouch Live video tutorial..
Work very nice in keeping the details..
Worthe a try.
Snook
Reply With Quote top
  #37  
Old 07-19-2009, 03:05 PM
Flashtones Flashtones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 956
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markzebra View Post
Here's a quick attempt to show clearly the difference between manual technique and filtered, using the before and after image Mike posted earlier. On the right is the posted image, on the left the orginal

Mark. "Let's face it does anyone really enjoy total D&B ?' - if you don't enjoy it, don't do it. Up for a limited time…
That picture was worth more than 1000 words. Thank you.
Reply With Quote top
  #38  
Old 07-19-2009, 05:29 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

Mark,
That is an excellent image, a very good example of what the human touch adds to retouch, as well as demonstrating the advantage of pixel-by-pixel/pore-by-pore d&b.

Mike,
That is your target. If you can get close using a faster method, then you are on to something.
Reply With Quote top
  #39  
Old 07-19-2009, 09:02 PM
Quantum3Studio Quantum3Studio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Argentina
Posts: 397
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedimples View Post
What do you mean by the right side? Did you mean the picture on the left (the 'before'), or did you mean the right side of her face?
The right side of the image, left side of her face.
Reply With Quote top
  #40  
Old 07-19-2009, 09:48 PM
mikedimples's Avatar
mikedimples mikedimples is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hollywood, California
Posts: 238
Re: Super-clean beauty retouch

Apparently I've been unclear on several points. Please allow me the chance to clarify. I don't apply this affect over the entire image, I've always painted the (low frequency) blur on the areas that need it. While I was researching it, I found this great post that explains it clearly.
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?th...=5#post9709595

Godmother brings up some GREAT tips. I need to run several different frequency's depending on the needs of the area -- I'm excited to try this new method.

I never intended this technique to be a retouch-machine, but as an alternative step in the retouch process that creates attractive skin with realistic skin texture without the hours required by dodge and burn, nothing more.

I had every right to defend myself against the false information provided by Markzebra. I get irritated when people pretend to know about a subject they don't, and it makes me wonder about his intent (just because what he said was so BLATANTLY false). If I don't know about a particular technique or theory, I don't pretend that I do and spread misinformation to my peers. Sorry I didn't "open my eyes" to his "help."

Quote:
1 texture is something that you should be looking to preserve, not destroy - the badly entitled 'frequency' method that you linked to is actually precisely the same as a high pass technique. Its a simple High Pass, lower contrast - not more precise, not that it matters. Separating it into 'high' and 'low' has no additional value.
This is completely false. You must have not read very far in this link - it's full of proof: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=439098

Quote:
2 Localized tonal variation (texture eliminated up my methods such as High Pass, and blur) can not replace proper retouching. Because, that's about judgement, deciding this area of texture needs lifting, this pore needs sinking, this needs cloning. SOME texture needs nothing at all.
My fault for not explaining that I mask in the blur (just replaced this step with a selective bandstop filter) to the low frequency layer, and then clone what I need to on the high frequency layer. Sinking and raising comes with painting grey on the high frequency layer. It's not some kind of one-click effect.

Quote:
A FILTER is a unmodulated mathematical process applied across an area- filtering on skin will always look like filtering on skin. Sure there are better ways to reduce texture than this gobbledegook, (if you want to) but nothing replaces hard work. If your going to use filtration, then might as well go the whole way, and blur and re-texturize - it would do a better job
You may think this technique is gobbledegook, but other high-end retouchers and photographers disagree with you. For example: Robert Randell. http://www.robert-randall.com/

Nice job on the dodge and burn -- I'll aim to recreate that. How long did it take?

Last edited by mikedimples; 07-19-2009 at 10:33 PM.
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 06:12 AM.


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