Problems with bad skin

[Cuervo79]

OK I'm having trouble with a photo session I'm retouching, the model has craters for pores and the MUA didn't do a good job in covering them up. To add to the conundrum I lighted with a soft box in order to reduce the skin texture (since it was bad to begin with) now I'm left with very little to work on, since only the craters are showing.

I've started with D&B but it makes her skin completely smooth leaving no real skin texture whatsoever. I've tried to vary the opacity of what I've already done but it just brings the big craters to life... Any ideas on how to approach this? Am I going overboard with the D&B?

I leave you a 100% crop before and after so you can give me feedback

[Markzebra]

Your before image seems to be composed of two seperate textures, with different light - with a joining fuzzy area suggesting that its been masked together. In addition, there is a color shift, - I'll be damned if that's a RAW image. The after image looks like you have simply blurred one of the textural areas, there's even a hard division between the two areas.

What are you asking exactly? Maybe you are more likely get some help if you tell the truth as to what you are trying to do

[d00dle]

look more like blur to me.

[snook305]

I agree with both.. there is no D&B going on there.. Looks like pure blur. If you are D&B you should NOT have that Blur look at all...
Something tells me your trying to pull the wool over our eyes...:+}
Snook

[d00dle]

ok, using smart blur and high pass work quite well if u would like to soften and smooth craters and pores, but still keep some of skin texture. then D&B afterward (if u wanted to). However, you'd still need to clean up skin first before do this step above.

ORG.jpg
ORGHighpassAndBlur.jpg

[Cuervo79]

Originally Posted by Markzebra

Your before image seems to be composed of two seperate textures, with different light - with a joining fuzzy area suggesting that its been masked together. In addition, there is a distinct color shift, - I'll be damned if that's a RAW image.

OK first things first, the ORG image IS the RAW I just adjusted levels on DPP and then transferred it to photoshop. And looks like in this case you are "damned".

Originally Posted by Markzebra

The after image looks like you have simply blurred one of the textural areas, there's even a hard division between the two areas.

The after image isn't finished, which I didn't remember to explain that is why you see the "hard division" and this is my problem exactly.
There is no blur used to smooth out the skin the smooth part is all done with D&B. This is the problem I'm facing with this photo if I D&B and take out the texture (which in my eyes most of it is bad) I end up with a part of the face that is completely smooth.

Originally Posted by Markzebra

What are you asking exactly? Maybe you are more likely get some help if you tell the truth as to what you are trying to do

I hate when I'm called a liar and it just shows that 1 I didn't explain myself clearly and 2 that you Markzebra draw to conclusions to quickly.

My problem is the one you see there as I mentioned the photo only has D&B applied to it and I end up with completely smooth skin with no texture to it, now I was looking for advice on what to do other than lower the opacity on the D&B layers, since as you can see the ORG file on the lower left part is mostly "bad" texture.

Originally Posted by snook305

I agree with both.. there is no D&B going on there.. Looks like pure blur. If you are D&B you should NOT have that Blur look at all...
Something tells me your trying to pull the wool over our eyes...:+}
Snook

LOL, Snook I know you're blunt by nature but telling me I'm lying doesn't help my predicament. Besides seems like none of you guys understood what I was asking. And yes even if it looks like blur its not its D&B

@D00dle Thank you for trying to help but I don't want to use any type of blur technique, my problem is that when using D&B on this particular photo of the session I end up with no real texture to show after.

[toan thai]

it takes a long time to D&B to get that smooth. i don't understand why you didn't stop before it gets too far.

if you don't like the result you can still pull back the opacity.

[Cuervo79]

Originally Posted by toan thai

it takes a long time to D&B to get that smooth. i don't understand why you didn't stop before it gets too far.

if you don't like the result you can still pull back the opacity.

That's what I'm doing but seems that most of the texture that I took away with D&B is in my eyes the "bad" texture, and when lowering the opacity it just brings it back.

O and I think I went overboard with this because the layers I use to desaturate and then contrast the skin texture for easier viewing where too contrasty and I ended up smoothing too much.

[toan thai]

study other retouchers' work. observe the why they tackle bad skin textures--what needs to be toned down; what needs to leave alone. sometimes, one can go over board if you don't know the limit. think of it as this way: zero texture is bad.

[Cuervo79]

Yes I know what you mean, but in this particular photo I f@kin hate the abysmal pores which I don't like.. I'm going to start playing whit the mask in order to keep the abysmal pores hidden but show more of the other "bad" texture.... and this is just the 5th photo of 10!

[Markzebra]

I still don't accept that - there's a clear straight edge top right where the blurring stops. maybe I'm losing my mind, but if you really did produce that with dodge and burn - WHY?

in this particular photo I f@kin hate the abysmal pores

There's nothing unusual about that at all, the model has normal fine textured older skin. As for the 'original' maybe there's some strange depth of field going on, with variable focus - its the fuzzy, dropped back in opacity, bit that makes me suspicious. As for shooting the skin- tried ring flash at all?

[Cuervo79]

the after photo is not finished... The "blurred" part is the part I retouched, the hard edge is there because I haven't finished. So I decided to stop before I did the entire photo like the part you see.

I'm asking for help as to what to do, instead of resuming the work and completely hide the texture of the skin.

[snook305]

Well in that case just blurred the rest and it will look the same..
I have a feeling yor doing something strange because D&B should not give you that Blurred look at all and I think that is the main point here.
The whole idea of doing the tidiuos D&B ing is to NOT get exactly the look you ARE getting. Your wasting you time. Through a blur layer or use some Portraiture type skin plug in and mask out the eyes.
I would go in an D&B each individual black line/crease to make it look "natural". Sometimes you have to darken not just lighten the darks but Darken the lights to make it look right.

Just trying to help.

Snook

[Cuervo79]

lol well the first line in your post does not look like help, specially since I'm asking for "non blur techniques"

Take a look at the original photo and with only D&B to work with what would you do in order to make the black abysmal pores disappear and leave texture in the skin?
And I'm asking about the lower right corner which is where I'm at.

Originally Posted by Markzebra

There's nothing unusual about that at all, the model has normal fine textured older skin. As for the 'original' maybe there's some strange depth of field going on, with variable focus - its the fuzzy, dropped back in opacity, bit that makes me suspicious. As for shooting the skin- tried ring flash at all?

yeah well the problem is the model is about 24 or younger so yeah the abysmal pores like the ones in the lower right corner are a problem to me.

Regarding shooting... what has a ring flash have to do with what I'm asking? And no I have no access to a ring flash because I don't own one nor is there a place that will let me rent one and take to my studio. I am interested in the future in buying one but not for macro work.

[mistermonday]

C79, Sometimes lightening and darkening (dodge and burn) is not the best solution to the problem that plagues images such as these.
I have found that for these types of pores and crevices, the following technique is very effective.
Add a new blank layer on top of the background and set the blend mode to Screen.
Zoom in to very high magnification (600x or 800x). Take a soft paint brush and size it to approx the same size as a pore or width of a wrinkle line and set the opacity to 30% and about 50% flow or more. Alt+Click to sample color from the good skin just beside the pore or line. Now mouse over a pore and click the mouse. You can play with the opacity or flow. I tend to go a little on the high side and when I am finished I just lower the opacity of the whole layer. It does a nice job of smoothing out the tone while maintaining detail and avoiding that blurred look. That's the good news.
The bad news is that this image has a lot of rough skin and you may likely have many many hours of work ahead of you.
Regards, Murray

[Cuervo79]

Thank you for the tip Mistermonday. I'll take it into account.

Cheers

[Steve Payne]

People are perplexed with your results because you're using D&B to eliminate texture completely. You're going way too far with it and must be wasting hours. My advice is that there are other tools at your disposal. The healing brush, patch and stamp tool all have their place when used properly, combined with other techniques.

[Cuervo79]

lol they're not really perplexed they just thought I was lying LOL... I'm thinking the problem I went over board is as I said the layers I use to "visualize" the texture are to contrasty... I'm going to change the order so I can get less extreme results...

[Markzebra]

they just thought I was lying LOL

…not sure they have changed their opinion either Cuervo -

Looking again today, the After image has clear signs of airbrushing under the eye. In detail what I mean by this is that in the after - the BASE texture under her eye (one texture I can say looks real in the original) has a soft edged, dropped back, single colour brushed in some way over the top of the original texture. How can you explain this?

[Cuervo79]

Originally Posted by Markzebra

…not sure they have changed their opinion either Cuervo -

Looking again today, the After image has clear signs of airbrushing under the eye. In detail what I mean by this is that in the after - the BASE texture under her eye (one texture I can say looks real in the original) has a soft edged, dropped back, single colour brushed in some way over the top of the original texture. How can you explain this?

Markzebra,

I have nothing to add if you want me to validate my original statement that my "ORG.JPG" file is actually the original file with no retouch whatsoever.

I was asking for help since most of the stuff I learned from this forum (most of the techniques I use now originally I read here) So I thought people with more experience than me would gladly help.

Granted I didn't explain myself correctly in my first post, I forgot to mention that the after.jpg image wasn't finished nor did I steer attention to the lower right part of the photo where I was working on.

Instead of just asking, "hey I'm not to clear on what you want help with" you went with the added text of labeling me as a deceitful because the "org.jpg" doesn't look unretouched.

If you're not interested in helping just say so, I don't have to explain myself as to the validity of my statements, specially since I'm not boasting anything in fact I made the thread because I'm having trouble.

I would ask you that next time you post something "trying to help" actually make an effort to help instead of pointing out "incongruities" with the photos, and labeling someone as deceitful.

[Markzebra]

Ok, help then: you need to do your dodge and burn (cough) without destroying the texture completely. The point of the exercise is not to flatten texture off to the point that its no longer visible. Its unifying it, in some cases painting it out, and in some painting it in maybe. Sure some kind of slight contrast curve and a desat can help in visualizing tone, but switching it off and knowing how to work without these aids is also worthwhile.

There you go - NOW because I find this intriguing… after analysing your After and Before images its clear that the texture in the area you have 'retouched' (because there is some at low opacity over what still looks like a blur) bears no relation to the texture in the before image. Its finer, more dense, with completely different highs and lows. Stranger and stranger.

[0lBaldy]

Cuervo, Can you post a large screen shot of the100% crop of your Dodge and Burn working layer along with the brush size and opacity you are using...

[Markzebra]

… curves masks, gray layer or whatever, and layers panel … and a picture of your kitchen with the coffee machine? Thanks

[Cuervo79]

Originally Posted by Markzebra

Ok, help then: you need to do your dodge and burn (cough) without destroying the texture completely. The point of the exercise is not to flatten texture off to the point that its no longer visible. Its unifying it, in some cases painting it out, and in some painting it in maybe. Sure some kind of slight contrast curve and a desat can help in visualizing tone, but switching it off and knowing how to work without these aids is also worthwhile.

There you go - NOW because I find this intriguing… after analysing your After and Before images its clear that the texture in the area you have 'retouched' (because there is some at low opacity over what still looks like a blur) bears no relation to the texture in the before image. Its finer, more dense, with completely different highs and lows. Stranger and stranger.

Right, you're still interested in me validating my statement which is something I'm not interested in doing since it won't help my problem.

Originally Posted by Markzebra

… and a screen shot of the dodge and burn layers (curves masks, gray layer or whatever), and layers panel … oh yeah and a picture of your kitchen with the coffee machine?

As I said, you're not posting anything helpful with your comments. I would ask you to refrain from posting in my thread if you're not honestly interested in helping....

Originally Posted by 0lBaldy

Cuervo, Can you post a large screen shot of the100% crop of your Dodge and Burn working layer along with the brush size and opacity you are using...

I have 4 layers 2 for "rougher" D&B and 2 for "fine detail" I use opacities from 5 to 20% and the same with flow, the size of the brush varies all over the place I can go as big as 20 or as little as 2.

OK the masks are as follows
RoughL Dodges big things
RoughD Burns big things
FineD Burns details
FineL Dodges details

I can't give the exact crop since I didn't save it these are 100% size

[Markzebra]

Good lord - I take it all back! Can see you've worked quite hard. First part of my comment in #21 was intended to be helpful, sorry.

[Cuervo79]

Yeah the "cough" bit did not help... Seems like you didn't read my other posts, so you just explained the basics of D&B. Which again does not help my current situation.

[Markzebra]

Ok - the problem with the before image that you posted (which I now accept must be genuine! sorry) is that part of the texture looks out of focus. Did you compress it horizontally for posting? On the curve layers your work is quite precise. It almost looks as if that out of focus, large pored area needs to be given more texture not less. Texture can be moved as well as dodged and burned you know. I can also now see that your intricate dodge and burn on a soft original has CREATED the textural differences I saw. The tip i gave about your preview sets also stands. I can see that you are trying very hard and feel guilt or having doubted and do apologize.

[Cuervo79]

Nothing was done to the image except cropping. What you see as blur in the original image is the use of a macro lens and a very shallow depth of field (even though it was at F9).

With the last part of the comment, you're starting to understand my predicament, and I'm starting to get convinced that its better to remove the pores in the out of focus area of the photo and keep going as I'm going or start again from scratch (which would be my last resort)

[0lBaldy]

Cuervo, have you tried opening a new window using Window>Documents>New Window and keep this window @ 100 or 200% go back to your working window and magnify to whatever magnification you are doing the D&B... keep both windows open and in view... side by side or if you have dual monitors keep one on the other monitor.... as you proceed with the D&B the results will show real-time in the new window.. this way you can see the effect of what you are doing and make corrections on the fly..(keeps you from switching back and forth and turning layers off and on as much)

I am aware that you don't like using a Grey softlight layer BUT in Chris Tarantino's Blog, post "Dodge and Burn Confusion" he has some good reasons why the Grey layer should be considered and incorporated into what you are doing.

[Cuervo79]

Originally Posted by 0lBaldy

Cuervo, have you tried opening a new window using Window>Documents>New Window and keep this window @ 100 or 200% go back to your working window and magnify to whatever magnification you are doing the D&B... keep both windows open and in view... side by side or if you have dual monitors keep one on the other monitor.... as you proceed with the D&B the results will show real-time in the new window.. this way you can see the effect of what you are doing and make corrections on the fly..(keeps you from switching back and forth and turning layers off and on as much)

I am aware that you don't like using a Grey softlight layer BUT in Chris Tarantino's Blog, post "Dodge and Burn Confusion" he has some good reasons why the Grey layer should be considered and incorporated into what you are doing.

Thank you for the idea 0lBaldy, that seems interesting, although I'll have to try it since I do have 2 monitors one is LCD the other CRT and there's always a bit of a difference between the two. I'll keep it in mind and see if I can add it to my arsenal.

Regarding the article from Mr. Tarantino, there wasn't anything that he mentioned in the that makes me think a gray layer with both dodge and burn information in it would be a better route than having 2 separate solid color layers one in black the other in white and both set to soft light (I do not use curves layers, but have thought about using them). He did mention that he prefers to use soft light to any other layer option and I agree with what he had to say about it. On the rest I agree completely with what he wrote.

As I said the problem I'm seeing has to do with my "visualization" layers I had 3 layers 1 to desaturate 1 to darken and add contrast and 1 a curves layer to control the overall contrast one way or another. Seems like the second layer that darkens and adds contrast is irrelevant and actually makes me go overboard. So I'm going to stop using it, I'm thinking that this will help me retouch less "brutally" than what I have been doing, specially in areas where the depth of field doesn't let me completely remove the "bad" texture.

Again thank you for the 2 suggestions.

Cheers