Super-clean beauty retouch

[mikedimples]

I did this for a critique thread from MM, but I wanted to get the RetouchPRO communities advice. I know the overall mood is slightly softer than the original -- I'll be making more creative enhancements later to toughen her up again. Until then, here's the super-clean version.

Besides the basic stuff (d&b, cloning, color correction) I did:

MANY dodge and burn curves layers
high spacial-frequency sharpening
extensive symmetry correction (mostly copying other parts of the image and repasting, not liquify -- it warps pixels too much)


I'm sure I'll think of more later... I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Larger size here:
http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs48/f/20...ikedimples.jpg

[GlamGuru]

It's a bit soft for my taste but otherwise nice job. I'll like the use of D&B, all in the right places.

[TommyO]

Mike,
Overall, I like the image and your take on the mood. I do have just a few concerns.

1) There seems to be a loss of the depth/perspective on her right cheek bone.

2) There are some tel-tale signs of cloning on the hair.

3) Some of the skin texture did not carry into the final image.

4) The eyes. It does not appear much work was done on the eyes. Is that because you were focusing elsewhere, or pleased with them as they were ? Some additional work on them may help. Accentuating the iris's and improving the lashes could help some. There is that one lash on her left eye that looks like it is coming out of the catchlight - kind of distracting.

5) There is something with the hair line that just does not look natural. I think because it looks too straight. Most people have at least some curvature to their hairline, at least at the roots which are visible on your image.

That's about it for me. Again, very good overall; maybe just putting it aside for a day and then going back over it would normally catch all this stuff.

[SEP Studios]

I'm curious why you lowered her hairline. She's definitely got some thick hair and a chaotic hairline, which looks nice and tidy in the after. But I might have leaned towards more forehead.

Her skin is looking a little porcelain-like, not just in texture but color. It's starting to look Photoshopped, which is exactly what you don't want.

Retouching skin, it ain't easy.

Scott

[mikedimples]

Thanks very much, the comments are much appreciated!

Glamguru - thanks, I spent too much time with the dodge and burn.

TommyO - thanks for writing all that out to me, it really helps. I see what you mean about the cheekbone loss, I'll alter that.

I was hoping nobody would notice that hair cloning, but I forget who my audience is. You caught me, I rushed that part!

Looking at the large size image, you're right. I took away more texture than was needed -- giving her an almost powder like texture. I believe my error in the skin coloring was lowering the vibrance. I wont do that next time, it lost her human like skin color variation.

I didn't do much with the eyes because this is the cleanup stage in the retouch. I'm planning on going back in and doing something amazing and creative with the makeup, but I don't know what yet. This version was intended to be a canvas for the fun part, but I also wanted it to be good enough to stand alone as a clean beauty retouch -- which it doesn't. That's why I stayed away from the eyes. Next version will have extreme eyes (but not too extreme).

Yup, the hairline is too straight. I'll revert that to an earlier version.

SEP Studios:
I thought her low hairline was part of what made her look interesting as a model, framing her eyes. Not to mention her powerful jaw and prominant chin. I try to enhance the features that makes her face interesting to me, while minimizing the ones that I don't care for.

In this case, I think her low hairline is an asset to her look, but that's of course a matter-of-opinion.

[mikedimples]

Oh, and I see what you mean about looking too photoshopped SEP. She's starting to look a little CGI.

[snook305]

If you want natural or super clean you have to stay away from Bluring or noise techniques.
Snook

[Quantum3Studio]

I would personally choose the right side because looks more wild and rude. I think the skin is too soft too..

[d00dle]

i think u remove facial hair really well. how do u do it?

[mikedimples]

Originally Posted by Quantum3Studio

I would personally choose the right side because looks more wild and rude. I think the skin is too soft too..

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?

[mikedimples]

Originally Posted by d00dle

i think u remove facial hair really well. how do u do it?

Lots of patch tool and clone stamp. Sometimes I used a reduce scratches filter set to a very low number and then a very tiny brush to paint the hairs out, but mostly patch tool.

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by mikedimples

Lots of patch tool and clone stamp. Sometimes I used a reduce scratches filter set to a very low number and then a very tiny brush to paint the hairs out, but mostly patch tool.

It looks to selectively shinny... that's what u get when u use filters on skin.

U concentrate on the small details like hair and pores but u don't even notice she has a blotchy face now... skin doesn't have ONE imperfection but it looks shaggy... not firm.

While obvious flaws are still showing:

Neck lines - Still there...

Uneven light (in beauty symmetry is a MUST -go to an model agency with this and u get kicked out) And the difference between shadows and highlights is too rough, u need a better transition.

Eyelashes - look messy on the right side and nonexistent in the left.

Brows - Not even

Mouth - u added a bum that doesn't follow the line of it.

STRAYS- the "white" hairs that cross the original flow of tha hair need to be taken out.

Nose: Still crooked

Hair on face: This is only a personal (REALLY personal opinion) but if u remove every little hair she looks like a doll... sometimes that peach fur makes an image more interesting.

anyway - good luck on the review!

xx

[Markzebra]

Yes I agree with all that. "selectively shiny" - I think it looks straightforward blurred. Patch tool on skin is a no-no.

Tommy's right about the hairline - no ones forehead is that narrow unless they have had a 19th century style lobotomy operation at some point . If anything the hairline needs to be brought slightly higher not lower. I don't like the dodging on the bottom lip- it gives it an unnatural edge. The before image - the basic structure of the models face is fine, after the nose has been straightened, and doesn't need to be slimmed. The greasiness of the hair desperately needs to be retouched to make it look like a better product has been used, and the eyeshadow COLOR same applies.

The positive thing I can think of to say - your general approach to recoloring would work if you get the rest of the image sorted.

[mikedimples]

Wow, I really appreciate how much time you guys put into your critique posts.

Godmother
Wow, I learned so much from your post. I really read it carefully and I'll try to avoid making those mistakes again. I am having a little trouble understanding what you mean about the symmetry of the lighting. Would you mind pointing out which area in particular needs work in the image?

Markzebra
Thanks for taking the time to comment, and I see what you and Tommy mean about the hairline now, and I didn't even consider altering the "greasiness" of the hair. I'll start standing back first, figuring out what I need to alter and what looks fine as is.

Although it makes me feel like shit as a retoucher, this thread has taught me more about retouching than I've learned in the last few months. I've been really busy lately, but I'm going to redo the picture and apply everyone's advice when I get a chance. Thanks again!

[mikedimples]

I've done the skin over again, mind telling me what's wrong with it?

I'm still have to tackle the hair.

LARGE SIZE: http://a3.vox.com/6a0110184cd071860f011018509c8b860f-pi

[d00dle]

skin tone doesn't look even. I see white spots (probably from dodge) all over her face. ok, her eye browns shouldn't they be like thicker @the beginning?

[mikedimples]

Hmm.. I'll take a closer look at the white spots, although I didn't do much detail dodging.

You're right about eyebrows usually being thicker at the base, and I definitely think it needs work here.

Thanks!

[Markzebra]

I've done the skin over again, mind telling me what's wrong with it?

Yes - you blurred it. There's smokiness all over it. An obvious semi-opaque airbrushing or blurring. There are some areas with a complete loss of texture. And that's not anything to do with dodge and burn. Sorry

[TommyO]

Mike,
Obviously, you have spent a lot of time on the image with good results on symmetry, hair, skin, etc. However, I was both concerned and intrigued by the various comments on the skin. I have also wondered what your workflow and technique have been in dealing with the skin. So, I finally took the time to look a little closer, real close, at the skin.

While the overall appearance is fine to many of us who are less involved day to day with high end retouch, I can see where it may not be so acceptable to those who are high end retouchers. This would explain the variety of feedback. But, here is why I say that.

Whatever techniques you are using, it becomes apparent when looking very close, that the techniques are blended and are allowing imperfections to slip through, that would not slip through a solely d&b technique. I don't say this as criticism, but rather as an observation. Hence, the higher end retouchers who will (and do) look really close at the skin find this unacceptable.

For example, see the images I've attached.
Image 1: The skin imperfection in the before (top in blue), would not have gotten through a d&b session to the after, as it did (below).
Image 2: The cloning of some rather large areas is evident in the after image.
Image 3: Some artifacts/blemishes that did not exist in the original (top) suddenly show up in the after (below).

So, as part of your workflow, you may have to decide at what level you are going to operate on a particular image. If doing one for high end work, you may not be able to use this blended technique/approach. It will not pass the stringent critique of other high end retouchers. However, if the image is not to be used that way, fine. Submit is as such and let us know. It will pass the critique of a beauty retouch and may even be too much.

Anyway, I hope you find this useful. Don't feel like you have to reveal more about your workflow, just adjust it a bit for the image and your audience. Thanks for posting this image; it has been a good experience for us.

[mikedimples]

The technique I'm trying to get perfect involves separating the low and high frequency of the image, then cloning in the high frequency and blurring the low frequency. I'm sure I haven't gotten it perfect yet, but that's because I haven't gotten the ratio perfect yet during the frequency separation stage.

There was no dodge and burning involved in the second retouch, in fact it took me about 15 minutes for the skin clearing segment (obviously should have spent longer), then I had some fun with coloring. I'm trying to perfect a quick alternative to dodge and burn. I've gotten it to a level I'm happy with in lower resolution images but that's not good enough. I'm going to continue to refine the technique and try again, if you don't mind. If you want to read more about frequency separation, check out the thread that started it all! http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=439098


I really appreciate the in-depth critique you've given me Tommy, it helps me TREMENDOUSLY. I absolutely want my work to be Amy Dresser level, and I appreciate you pointing out the problems that keep it from being the best, however small. Please be as nitpicky as possible and continue to tell me when it wouldn't pass at the top level. Thanks!

[mikedimples]

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

[mikedimples]

Wahoo! Senior member!

[markc78]

is the frequency separation technique the same as degrunge method which aslo uses HP & GBlur?

[Godmother]

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.

[Markzebra]

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.

[markc78]

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

[TommyO]

Originally Posted by mikedimples

... 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.

[mikedimples]

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!

[mikedimples]

Originally Posted by Markzebra

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?

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.

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.

[TommyO]

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 !