People retouching - Before & After

You'll like them. The two I use the most are the original composite powder and the silk powder. Silk is a little more sheer, but both even skin tones and take away lines. Leaves enough to be natural. Just pull back the opacity to taste

OK, Here's a comparison of (Left to right, top to bottom)

1. The original 2. My first edit using my own facial retouching plus MCP Eye Doctor & Dentist

3. A new edit, using only Mama Shan's silk powder 4. Another new edit using silk powder, followed by the healing brush, eye doctor and dentist.



For an even larger version go to: http://www.pbase.com/jimpoor/image/126979198/original


I think I got the eyes better in my first edit. I'm not sure if it's the over sharpness or the over whitening I don't like in the final edit. Overall, I think I like the final edit the best, but probably should hit her left cheek a little with the healing brush.

Thoughts?

I like #3 skin the best as it looks the most natural and "real" The eyes are best in #2. She will probably like her skin the best in 4. I don't know. I'd go with 3/2

#2 is the most natural overall. That's my pick.

Jim

Thanks guys. I think I may try layering 3 over two and blending, then get rid of the dark circles in 3 completely.

For now though, I'm off to PA for a TDAA trial.

Jim, develop a faster workflow for this because if you actually start doing people, you are going to need one a heck of a lot faster, or you'll never get through it. Mine goes silk powder/fogbuster action(really just unsharp mask) that adds back in detail and contrast, a sparkle for the eyes and done.

Oh, I'm sure I will. It really isn't that long as it is, but if I do more of them, I'll get quicker at it too.

Hey Jim,

I agree with Julie. I think that #3 or #2 are the best ones. I prefer #3 over-all. I think the skin looks the best.

James

Funny, I just got the prints back from this session tonight. They look pretty doggone good, if I must say so myself.

My only question is:

This is a photo forum or, digital pianters forum about how to owerpaint a person on a picture, make it looks like never appear in real life.

I'm sorry guys, but as a photographer it is irritate me when people talking about how to fix all mistakes in PS or other computer softwers. I know this is the easy way because need no knowledge about photography, but this is not photography anymore! This is "computergraphy".

And please don't even mention Ansel Adams as an exuse for all this!

Hi Attila,

Retouching facial lines, etc has nothing to do with "mistakes" or getting it right in camera.

Hi Jim,

Photographers did use good lighting technics, and makeup, and portrait lenses to eliminate facial lines and skin inperfections.

Today's photographers use the sharpest lenses for portrait which shows the smallest skin problems, than use PS bluring tool, to eliminate them. Make no sense! Use portrait lens, and don't set the highest sharpnes on a camera during the photoshoot.

There was photography before PS! But today, looks like no one can do picture without it.

I believe the retouch is OK until it is not create a different person, from the subject. This women is a 40+ but after the retouch she became a teenager.
I believe, any kind of retouch should be only cover temporari skin inperfections, like cuts or pimples, or bug bites, etc. Everything else which is permanent on the subject face should be remain on a photo.

Some photographers employed makeup artists, you are correct. Many still do, but they still do retouching after the fact.

If you think all those wonderful portraits from the film days are simply a result of a softer lens, good makeup and lighting skills, you are mistaken.

Retouchers have been around just about as long as photography has.

I have no porblem with retouch! Retouch is need because there are scratches and chemical stains and dust can be appear on a pictures.
But I think that, to repaint a subject and make it 15-20 years yunger on a picture, or painting for him/her a smaller nose, whiter theet, smaller ears, or change anything which is otherwise permanent on an appearence, is to much.

This is my opinion.

I had pretty much the same opinion when I was doing strictly nature photography. Portraiture is another world though.

Attila, you would sell very few portraits. I can tell you for a fact that no photo of me would be purchased, none the less seen unedited. It is always up to the person how they want to present what they do.

Women do not like to see wrinkles, eye bags, red eyes, or imperfections. If you don't make them look as they feel, you will feel it most in your pocketbook

I like the #2 photo the best. Her hair is that nice vibrant color, and she looks natural. If it were me, I would go with #2, #3 is ok, but I don't like the circles under the eyes that did not show up in #2. #3 and 4, the skin tones are too light, I like the gold glow in the original and #2.

just my .02 cents!

I said, if the retouch is just cover the temporary imperfectoins, that is fine! But makeing a teenager from a 40+ women is too much. I know that, women dont like wrinkles, eye bags, etc. but just because you make them dissapear on a picture, the woman still have them on her face! So the picture gonna lie!
These pictures not gonna be on a magazine cover! These picture gonna hang at home in a family room, where family members, and frends gonna see it. But frends and family members know, the women on a picture actually have wrinkles and eye bags! So the picture is lie, and became unnatural too!
I believe, you can sell more picture if, instead of retouch the wrinkles or eye bags, you find the way to show on your pictures the subject's real ego, and the real connections between the subject and his/her pet.
To this, you have to study more about portrait photography than Photoshop picture manipulations.
You have to observe your subject as soon as their step into your studio. You have to observe and study the subject personality, the mental connections between the pet and owner, etc. The portrait photography much more than technical picture making.
Myself, I would no pai for a picture which just shows me and my pet even it is technically the most perfect picture which shows me 20 years yunger! I want to see on a picture how I feel to my pet, how I love it, how close we are each other.
The technical perfections only a part of portrait photography.

The thing is Attila, you aren't the one paying and the ones paying desire to look like how they FEEL. You can do a lot with lighting, and my portraits are all about relationships. Doesn't mean that it is necessary to leave in wrinkles and imperfections. I have done this enough to know that women will choose the one that has been more heavily "made up" than the ones that are more true.

Even my friend who went off about how wrong it was, then she saw an edited photo of her and that was the one she wanted.

It isn't photojournalism. It isn't nature photography. Its the same thing(but better) that portrait photographers used to do with vaseline on a filter.

You are man. You obviously do not think like a woman. I am a 40 year old woman and I can tell you, I do not feel like what my photos show. I would not put an unedited photo of me up, and I wouldn't do it to a client

I think the retouching works. You dont want to over do it. Its like make up. The goal is to apply it and not make it too noticeable. Only thing that pops out at me right way is all the empty space above her head.... but I am sure you will take care of that on the 8x10 crop, etc! =) Good work!

One thing I learned from a renowned portrait photographer is to be sure you have brought out the catch light in the eyes using your dodge tool and to use the burn tool to make a dark line around the outside of the iris... of course you need to use discretion. I know some folks use Mama's Powder action for complexions and I have seen it used an dlike it, but I really like Nik Color EFEX .. the complexion smoother.