facial retouch question

[soey]

can i know what the difference when i clear blemishes with these 2 different technique ??

1) Duplicate layer, set to current layer

2) Create New layer, set to current and below

basically i use clone stamp and healing brush on my facial retouch

BUT however when i used (2) and when i need to do some retouch again on the very last part of my images, it cant seem to work.

TIA

[flexmanta]

I prefer using the first method so i can also use the patch tool. I do all my liquifying and general cloning and healing on one layer. So, after my initial retouch i have 2 layers, the original, and the cleaned one. There are many advantages in working this way but they have nothing to do with visual quality.

[soey]

tks for reply..
i do know that there is no visual quality on both method
just tat i don understand it why i encounter the problem i mention in my first post


Am not trying to compare both DI artist

firstly i followed Amy Dresser tutorial from her website when i first started DI
she use the first method.

then next i came about nienna1990 from retouchpro, she used the second method

there nothing wrong with both method, both are great method
am try trying to digest both and make my workflow more consistently cos i do encounter some inconsistency in my D&B

btw i am a photographer

[KR1156]

flexmanta.... separate your general cleanup work and your shaping...this way if you need to quickly go back on your shaping, you can do so without disrupting all that nice cleanup work you did.

[jam1212]

I tend to use the second method simply to reduce my overall file size. I tend to work on huge images, so every little size reduction helps.

But I'm sure everyone can list pros and cons for both. I think it really comes down to what you want to achieve in your workflow.

[flexmanta]

KR1156, that's incorrect. If liquify and cleanup are on one single layer, that's when you have the freedom to re-liquify whenever you want without risking misplacement of the cleanup strokes. If you had cleanup and original on different layers and you decide to reliquify, then you would have to save the liquify mesh and apply it to any other pixel based layer that sits on top of the liquified (masks, heals, clones...).

I do like to keep the whole thing "undoable", but only to some extent. It's very very rare that I get rid of a blemish and for any reason, need it back there again in the future. Once you gain confidence, you can tell what needs to stay undoable in many levels, and what needs just one level.

[seattle-light]

Dear soey (and flexmanta)...

I think you can actually have it both ways. Non-destructive healing work done in layers and a single cleaned up layer that gets liquified. It's just a matter of duplicating the original layer and all of the cleanup work and merging it into a single layer, then liquifying and saving the mesh for that merged layer. That way you've got everything you need to change things and repeat the process.

That allows you to work on multiple layers to address different issues and to go back and adjust the opacity of different layers or bring back that important beauty mark.

I suppose it means that files will get incrementally larger, but it preserves your working steps and keeps all of your options open. Hard drives and memory are comparatively cheap these days.

Doing all your cleanup work on one duplicate layer may demonstrate confidence, but it also limits your flexibility to tweak things later on down the road.

I remember when there weren't layers in Photoshop when you needed to have that kind of confidence at every step in the retouching process. And meant starting over if there was a mistep (or saving copies at every logical step in the process -- and a lot of times it meant settling for less because it would take too long to do it all over again to get back to fix a few suspicious choices made at the first stages.

Doing all of your healing and cleanup in one layer and then liquefying that layer sounds like a recipe for problems as all of your early work is trapped in that one layer that's been mushed around. No turning back.

If you're using the patch tool (never been a fan of it), maybe it makes some sense to be doing that work on a duplicate layer. I'd have to see the kind of work you're doing.

But it doesn't seem like you're preserving any kind of working history. Maybe that's confidence. But it doesn't seem like a best practices work flow for retouchers. It sounds more like walking a tightrope without a net. It can be great until there's a problem (then it's splat). If you haven't had many problems working that way, then you've been incredibly lucky.

But I wouldn't go around telling people that that's your approach or encouraging others to follow it. That approach would likely get people in trouble on projects. I can't think of an advertising agency or retouching house that would allow their people to do retouching work on files in this way.

Hope you are doing well. Take care. Alan.

[KR1156]

flex...if you retouched let's say a beauty shot for a few hours of work, and then decided to shape the lips eyes and nose etc., on that same layer.....and the client comes back and says you went too far with the nose, we like the original shape of the model, what do you do???

If your way of going back on the nose shape takes more than 30 seconds, well.

[KR1156]

Doing all of your healing and cleanup in one layer and then liquefying that layer sounds like a recipe for problems as all of your early work is trapped in that one layer that's been mushed around. No turning back.

Listen to your friend here, he gets it.

[flexmanta]

Originally Posted by KR1156

flex...if you retouched let's say a beauty shot for a few hours of work, and then decided to shape the lips eyes and nose etc., on that same layer.....and the client comes back and says you went too far with the nose, we like the original shape of the model, what do you do???

If your way of going back on the nose shape takes more than 30 seconds, well.

If you have a high enough resolution image, you can reliquify the liquified image to make the client happy. However, the amount of liquifying i allow myself to do when retouching for other people is one that will never change the original shape of a model to an extent that anyone would notice... shouldnt be playing Dr. Frankenstein here u know...

Photoshop is not poser pro. It moves pixels, in 2d. Anything that you liquify too much, will be noticeable, especially on the face. Human brains are hard to trick when it comes to faces. If you are given a face that needs a complete shape shift and your client is serious enough, you can say "RESHOOT, or I'm not taking the risk". What i'm trying to say here is that, the level of changes you are supposed to do with the liquify tool (only talking about the actual face here, not the rest of the body), is so subtle, that saving a layer with each stroke that you made is completely useless. Most of the undestructive workflow practices are overrated.

Your way doesn't save you from not having to re-do the clean up layer either because if you go grab the original a liquify it without affecting your cleanup on a separate layer, then the cleanup strokes will not match the features of the new liquify.

Best solution? Do it all on a duplicate layer. Clean first, cmd-j, liquify. If you are happy with it, cmd-shift-opt-e the whole thing and move on to the creative stage. If for any reason they didn't like your liquify, no problem, you already have a clean-unliquified version to start again. And if you were ocd enough to save the liquify mesh, you might not have to do the whole thing again.

See, people are really starting to think that everybody works as tidy as in all those retouch tutorial DVDs out there. You would be surprised to see how much merging is done in the real world.








...get rid of some of the "undestructive workflow" stigmas. Keep only the ones you need. All the others have been designed by hard drive manufacturers, so that we all end up with 2Gb files that take ages to save, making us buy larger and larger scratch disks.

[KR1156]

forget it, you are not following me and nor do i really care. continue doing what you do, it must be working for you.

[Flashtones]

Don't both these approaches really argue for liquifying at the end?

Otherwise, any redo of the liquify layer, whether merged or not with the healing layer, will be out of alignment with all the D&B and layer masks above.

But if done last, on a topmost merged layer, everything that would otherwise be "above" is contained within. You could do an infinite variety of liquifications and none would require redoing any below layers (previously "above" layers) to fit.

[flexmanta]

Flashtones, yeah, you are right, if any adjustment that you made depends on anything selective through pixel masks, any re-liquifying of one layer will dis-align the masks.

What you say is not a bad idea at all, do all the retouching first, and only at the end do the liquifying.

[Quantum3]

point 2 is the best option in case you need to remove some of the healling. Sometimes you may remove something that the client don't want to be removed, so doing the cleaning in a separate layer allows you to "redo" your adjustments. Option 2 is nice when you start working with a new client.

The quality is the same in both points.

[edgework]

I think Flex nailed it when he spoke of gaining the confidence to know what you can get away with. There are a lot of "rules" out there, but ultimately it's an intuitive process. You always bring a variety of techniques to the table, but you don't always know in advance which ones you'll end up using, or in what order. Seattle-light's suggestion to liquify, save the mesh, then undo and continue with the rest of the process seems as reasonable as any, allowing you to insert the liquifying at any point along the way, even the very end.

My own workflow sometimes requires using the healing brush at multiple points in the process. If I have a pile of layers underneath, it's often simpler to merge to a new layer and set the tool to Current Layer Only just to keep things snappy.

As Dan Margulis would often say, "It all depends."

[Cuervo79]

LOL, this ends up more in what you like than "what's right" I had this conversation with Flex a while ago and we ended the same way, he likes method one I like method two. The funny thing is, it works for both of us, each take the limitations of the two workflows and have adapted to them. For example I don't use method 1 because I don't use the patch tool, but when I do I make a duplicate of the layer use the patch where I want it and then to save space, cut out everything that didn't have the patch tool applied to it.

In the end its what works for you, there are no "this is the right way" specially in photoshop, where you can literally reach one result with 5 different methods...

[flexmanta]

Haha, Cuervo, there is one difference though. See, i used to like your way, and now i like this other way. Call it evolution! ))))

[Cuervo79]

lol, I will call it evolution when you can have proof that it actually works better. if not its just because you like it better.