Would anyone like to practice...

[bobmata]

Hi everyone, I am new hear. This is a great forum site. I just like to express my thoughts here and would gladly accept some constructive comments. Thanks for viewing.

[mushmush]

Hello everybody- here's my crack at it:::

[flexmanta]

Looks blurry

[mushmush]

Yeah- it seems to be an affect of how I saved it.
I actually followed your {FlexManta's) instructions in an earlier post of this thread- but I may have (read probably)- made a mistake somewhere

[flexmanta]

Yeah, the photo is too big, and in order to make it 100Kb you had to compress it too much. You can start by making it around 1000px wide.


How did you retouch the skin, cause it has no texture.

[mushmush]

Hello again- layers of blur with layers of high pass sharpen
various layers with different settings of each adjustment
adjusted the opacity of the layers
I probably did that quite a few times- then flattened
brought back my cloned/healed only -duped that as a layer- used for another hi-pass sharpen
I can't even say how many times I did that
Got it looking pretty good (at least to myself)- then did the sculpting/liquify on a dup layer

[bobmata]

Originally Posted by mushmush

Hello everybody- here's my crack at it:::

For me it's it is neat. I like the natural looks, texture and color of the skin. Necessary skin details are intact.

[flexmanta]

Originally Posted by mushmush

Hello again- layers of blur with layers of.....

...now there's ur problem! There is no reason to use blur on skin. Ever! Apart from if you like to get your frequency split through "apply image" instead of using the regular crappy high pass filter (which will screw up your pure blacks and whites).



Blur is for cheap retouchers.

[Quantum3]

Originally Posted by flexmanta

Blur is for cheap retouchers.

How do you started doing your retouchs?

[marek]

Blur is for cheap retouchers.

Originally Posted by Quantum3

How do you started doing your retouchs?

hahahahha don't forget we're all started at this stage, browsing the web with "retouch, soft skin" keyword in google...

[Quantum3]

Originally Posted by marek

hahahahha don't forget we're all started at this stage, browsing the web with "retouch, soft skin" keyword in google...

Hell yeah, I started by blurring the images in a dup layer set to softlight, then I found the surface blur technique, then I went to portraiture, then I went into degrunge, then frequencies and D&B ^^ the best technique I found

[flexmanta]

To be honest, I never blurred skin. Blurring is NOT a beginner's thing. It's something of bad taste. Have you ever been next to a flawless beautiful model in person and said: "oh my god, your skin is soo gaussian!". Don't use that as a pickup line.... It's just that, blurred skin doesn't look anything like perfect skin.

Look Quantum3, enough with the Buddhist wisdom. It's OK to be harsh on the comments. Saying that something you do is cheap, is not an insult, it's a wake up call, and it works, because the individual will remember that what he did, is associated in the industry with a cheap result, and then he won't do it again... cause it's like covering bad smell with air freshener.

[trb75]

I kind of can see both angles here. I for one would love to be able to use the D&B way of retouching skin but

a) I can have 20+ images from a shoot that I need to provide to the model in a short time space and so I tend to use Portraiture for speed and ease. The models are generally very happy with the results.

b) Now and again I will shoot an image that I would love to retouch using D&B but I have never found a satisfactory tutorial on how to do it - i.e. Showing the basics and an easy way to learn how to do it in small steps. (if anyone can point me in the direction of one that would be great!)

I therefore think that if you are serious about becoming a professional retoucher (or at least a very good one) then I would suggest trying to get into the correct habits from the outset. If you are like me and just like to attempt quick and easy retouching then thats fine but don't expect the likes of flexmanta to go wild over what you do or praise your retouching. The likes of Natalia and Amy Dresser are not stupid, if they thought retouching skin using portraiture or blur methods was better than D&B then I am sure they would save themselves hours of work and do it that way instead.

[flexmanta]

Fortunaltely, most of the times when we retouch photos for test or work, the models were picked meticulously, have good make up, and model skin. There is one photo that i have retouched that the D&B alone took me more than 2 days non stop, because i had to do it pore by pore and it was a ridiculously high-res digital back raw.

Most of the times, you don't need to d&b pore by pore, because a model is a model... so, healing and cloning, a couple inverted high passes and d&b on large areas, are often more than enough for having a clean image to start all the creative work.

[shift studio]

@Flexmanta and Quantum and all
retouchers are going crazy with texture. Too much texture looks as fake as too little.
Think of it this way:
How far away is the model IF they were standing in front of you.
Look at the image in PS at a zoom approximating a real person in your field of view AND at 100%. How much texture would you see on the model's face at these distances? Thats how much texture the retouched picture should have. (give or take a little for style)

consider a full body shot ... you are X meters away. Can you see every pore and line?
The camera though may be able to pick it up when viewed at 100%. How much texture is there at 100%. Now with a little sharpen. Thats how much texture should be there...

Thats my opinion anyways.
--Shift Studio.

[shift studio]

reason I say above is because mushmush's retouch seems about right at the scale in the attachment veiwed at 100% (maybe a little soft, but not blurry).

[Flashtones]

Originally Posted by shift studio

reason I say above is because mushmush's retouch seems about right at the scale in the attachment veiwed at 100% (maybe a little soft, but not blurry).

He/she also did a pretty good job with head positioning and the neck and shoulder lines.

[flexmanta]

Too much texture? How is actually captured texture ever too much? The texture should stay exactly as the camera captured it (taking into account the native antialiasing built in in cameras).

As retouchers we should not change that texture in intensity, but in quality, to make the model look like she was having a good skin day. Again, there is never a need for blurring anything. People who are not used to retouching will notice and for people who are used to it, like us, it just hurts. And if it doesn't hurt you, it's only a matter of time till it does. Blurring is to high-end retouching what ketchup is to high-end cuisine... not the best example, i like my ketchup, but you get the point, and the key word here is high-end.

Yeah, not everyone here is after a career in pro retouching, but that doesn't mean they should not work to achieve the same level of quality.

[flexmanta]

You can compare textures here.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6053/tonyball1.jpg
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/att...6&d=1265915244

Dont mind the liquifying. I have an advantage in that area because i have seen the model in other, non posed images. It's hard to liquify somebody without knowing how they really look. There are times that liquify is used to correct for the glass choice of some photographers, and also for when they don't have enough room in the studio to step back and use a tele lens. When they use wide glass, you have to compensate for the distortion that this creates, and that's very hard to do when you haven't seen the face of the model in other photos.

[shift studio]

Originally Posted by flexmanta

The texture should stay exactly as the camera captured it (taking into account the native antialiasing built in in cameras).

The camera though may be able to pick it up when viewed at 100%. How much texture is there at 100%. Now with a little sharpen. Thats how much texture should be there...

We have the the same opinion. I'm talking about way over-sharpening, over contrast on high frequency, strong added textures etc. I'm not saying you, Flexmanta, have done that, but believe me I've seen it, and it screams 'retouch' just like 'surface blur' or whatever.

--shift studio.

[Quantum3]

Originally Posted by flexmanta

Look Quantum3, enough with the Buddhist wisdom. It's OK to be harsh on the comments. Saying that something you do is cheap, is not an insult, it's a wake up call, and it works, because the individual will remember that what he did, is associated in the industry with a cheap result, and then he won't do it again... cause it's like covering bad smell with air freshener.

There is a difference between saying that's cheap and saying that's not the best way to achieve a certain look. The first one disqualifies while the second one is an advice.

As for the blurring, each of us had different experiences. I cannot imagine a person deducting the splitting frequencies or the degrunge technique by itself. It's not rocket science, but quite abstract and even reading a tutorial keeps the absract look.

[bobmata]

I use subtle blurring to finalize my artificial skin texture technique and do some subtle sharpening to regain some form. Blurring for me is necessary but not a key component in handling facial skin retouches.

[shelly_and_roy]

bobmata:
Comments, for what they're worth: I like the reshaping of the neck and shoulders. Turning up the mouth corner was nice, but you need to do the other corner, too. I think the eyelid color should be balanced by adding color to the cheeks and lips.

[flexmanta]

Cheap is not a disqualification, it's just a qualification. Cheap... as in, expensive retouch services will never involve blur (unless used for special effects), and cheap ones do.

And btw, splitting frequencies by itself is not a skin fixing technique. It's a preparation to achieve the best results of using the healing and cloning tools like you would normally do. You can do advanced things with it like extracting texture independently from color from certain parts to use on other parts and what not. But, splitting as such is not a skin fixing technique... so don't go inverting your high just like that, because straight high plus inverted high equals gaussian blur.

[mushmush]

Thank You all for your comments- I shall keep them in mind in future attempts


p.s I should have clarified- the blur tech. used was an inverted high pass
and the 100kb file seems to be killing my texture

Back to the drawing board!

[flexmanta]

Just think about how beautiful perfect texture is... clone and heal as much as needed only on the flaws, and then d&b the areas. If you can't see the lightness flaws with your naked eye, try creating a temporary curve just for you to see. Then do a before and after and you will see that, blurring was never necessary.

[melon]

hey guys i tried too but the picture i couldnt download that RAW one .. so i guess it's look bit dodgy .. anyway just let me know what i could do better ,i know skin is not perfect .. but wanted to keep it as real as possible .. and res of the pic was quite bad .... guys .. thanx .
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/mem...hats-wrong.jpg

[bobmata]

Originally Posted by shelly_and_roy

bobmata:
Comments, for what they're worth: I like the reshaping of the neck and shoulders. Turning up the mouth corner was nice, but you need to do the other corner, too. I think the eyelid color should be balanced by adding color to the cheeks and lips.

Thanx Shelly, I really need that kind of comment. Sometimes I go blind on other details especially when I'm engrossed to a certain part of editing. I am learning from you. Thanx.

[shelly_and_roy]

mushmuch: kudos on reconstructing the top of the head. I'd go ahead and clone out that little jag of hair in the back, too. The shoulders look good. I remark on the shoulders because I only really noticed today that they needed fixed.

Things I have noticed about the original: Skin blemishes and stray hair, obviously. Shadows around the nose. Cheeks could stand a little lifting. Eyes need blood vessels toned down. Head should be straightened. The far side of her face (her left, our right) is under-lit. There's a blotch of makeup on her cheek that desperately needs blended in.
For bonus points, at high resolution, there are a lot of hairs on the chin. The eyes want a bit of sharpening.

More bonus points: just below the part of her hair is a section that's thin. It bugs me.

Study Flexmanta's work. He's addressed all of these and more, and it's a really good reference for what you might want yours to look like. You might find that you want to do something differently, and that's ok. Just know why you want to.

[Chris807]

First post first attempt, retouching without any skin blur technique.
This D%B the skin is huge amount of work, but the result may be good.
I think i need more practice.

Here is what i have so far: