# Overdone Retouch?



## eja (Oct 30, 2019)

I've been practicing retouching while using Affinity Photo.  I'm including a link to an image and request some input.  One thing I'm concerned about is making a person look like plastic.

In this image, I used adjustment layers for dodging and burning, blemish removal and then merged those layers into a single layer.  I then applied a Highpass filter and masked it to taste.

P.S.  I put a link to the image instead of the image itself because I recently read the rules to the forum.  It seems this is the preferred method.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  

Thanks in advance

https://www.flickr.com/gp/29781015@N00/764s65


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 30, 2019)

You can definitely post the image itself. people won’t follow a link to look at it.  The image doesn’t look over cooked to me as far as the skin retouching goes.


----------



## eja (Oct 30, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> You can definitely post the image itself. people won’t follow a link to look at it.  The image doesn’t look over cooked to me as far as the skin retouching goes.


Ok, thanks for the clarification.  Here is the image


----------



## eja (Oct 30, 2019)

Here is another try of posting the image


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 30, 2019)

are you using the bb code?


----------



## eja (Oct 30, 2019)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the bb code is?


----------



## Overread (Oct 31, 2019)

This thread should help How to Post Photos to the Forums


----------



## Designer (Oct 31, 2019)

eja said:


> I've been practicing retouching while using Affinity Photo.  I'm including a link to an image and request some input.  One thing I'm concerned about is making a person look like plastic.
> 
> In this image, I used adjustment layers for dodging and burning, blemish removal and then merged those layers into a single layer.  I then applied a Highpass filter and masked it to taste.
> 
> ...


First: the portrait looks good, and I do not see anything that points to being "overdone".  I think the lady's skin looks perfectly natural, although I don't know her in person.

The link you posted goes to a full-size photograph, which is ideal for looking at minor flaws, but it is simply too large for the forum.  When posting a photo, I limit the size to no larger than 1250 pixels on the long dimension.

Then, just drag it into your post.  Click "full size" and you're good.


----------



## eja (Oct 31, 2019)

Thanks for the reply and the suggestion on how to post photos to the forum.  I'll try what you suggested in this post.  That is, limit the long side to 1250 and see how it does.  Also, point well taken.  Since I did not include the original image, it may be hard to tell if it looks overdone.  At least, if I understand the feedback correctly, it does not make her skin look like plastic.


----------



## webestang64 (Oct 31, 2019)

I do this kind of retouch for a living and it looks good to me. Only thing more to do would be to lighten the whites of the eyes just a touch and make the teeth less yellow. Also I think the lines under the eyes need a bit of attention.


----------



## Designer (Oct 31, 2019)

Pay close attention to what @webestang64 wrote above.  

As for me, if I may, I would like to offer some additional tips for future portraiture; 

Frame with more space above your subject's head.
Orient the frame to vertical.
Bring your key light lower to light under her chin better.
By lowering your light, you will see that the hot spot on her forehead will be lessened.
Add a hair light to provide separation from the background. (don't try to do it with the key light)
For women, allow your subject to naturally tip her head just a bit, either toward her front, or toward her back.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 31, 2019)

I do not think it has been retouched too much, and in fact it looks extremely natural to me. I do think however that the hot highlighted area on her forehead is a slight bit of a distraction.

My biggest concern however is the horizontal orientation. By orienting your camera in this way at the time of shooting you have cut her off too high on the chest area and have not allowed sufficient top space above her head, and have filled a good portion of the frame with empty and uninteresting black background. There is a reason that horizontal is sometimes also called "landscape" orientation and orienting the camera in the vertical direction is often referred to as "portrait" orientation.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 31, 2019)

I heard if you click a link, your phone will ring. don't answer;  the voice on the other line will say what day youll die...


sometimes you people crack me up.


Did you apply softening everywhere?   cause she has no detail in her eyebrows, yet her earrings are very sharp and detailed.

also, if you shot with a 18-70mm lens, how was the focal length 105mm?


----------



## Designer (Oct 31, 2019)

Braineack said:


> Did you apply softening everywhere?   cause she has no detail in her eyebrows, yet her earrings are very sharp and detailed.
> 
> also, if you shot with a 18-70mm lens, how was the focal length 105mm?


The tip of her nose looks softened, but I doubt that she'll care or even notice.  

The focal length of the lens might not matter to your subject, either, but it is something of a puzzle.

(screen shot of your flicker page data)


----------



## Braineack (Oct 31, 2019)

oh 70mm x 1.5.

the focal length was 70mm.


----------



## eja (Nov 1, 2019)

First, thank you all for the input.  I have been going back and forth between horizontal and vertical orientation while doing headshots.  Not sure which I like more.  And yes, I did apply the softening to the whole image and then inverted the application with a mask.  I then brushed the texture back into the image.  I probably did not do it even enough while brushing it back in.  Also, I will experiment with lowering the main light and try to bring the highlights on the forehead under control a bit more.

For me, the least favorite thing to do is edit a picture, because I'm sooooooo slow at it.  A skill set I'm trying to work on, but it is not fun for me at this point.

Also, Braneack, I'm not sure why the earings are sharp given that I applied the effect globally and then brushed back in the detail.  I did not notice that.  I'll go back and check the mask on that image.

Again, Thanks all for the input.


----------



## Designer (Nov 1, 2019)

eja said:


> For me, the least favorite thing to do is edit a picture, because I'm sooooooo slow at it.  A skill set I'm trying to work on, but it is not fun for me at this point.


You have my sympathy for your displeasure and the amount of time you spend on editing, but now I wonder why do you think you need to do so much?  

In other words; why not take minimalist approach to editing?  Your life could be relatively stress-free if all you did was the bare minimum of editing.   Make it easy on yourself.


----------



## Designer (Nov 1, 2019)

eja said:


> Also, I will experiment with lowering the main light and try to bring the highlights on the forehead under control a bit more.


I really hope you take our suggestions to heart.  @Derrel worked for many years doing portraiture professionally, and if there is one thing that is nearly universal in doing portraiture, it is having the frame compliment the subject.  Since most people are standing or sitting upright, a single portrait will naturally be more vertical than horizontal.  This should not be something you need to "go back and forth between".  With experience, turning your camera to vertical format (portrait format, as Derrel has said) will become second nature, and you won't even have to think about it.  

As to my suggestion about lighting, you shouldn't need to "experiment" with it, either.  In nearly all books and resources about portraiture, having a flat lighting scheme is very flattering to women who have learned how to adopt a few small wrinkles in their skin.  For men, you would do practically the opposite.  

Good luck, and keep up the good work!


----------



## Derrel (Nov 1, 2019)

If your subject is taller than it is wide, then you should probably orient the camera in its vertical orientation. In a single person portrait, almost invariably if the person is seated or standing, then their body will be  shown in a "tall" way. At times a person will be shown in a wide way, such as when they are laying down on the floor or beach or ground, or are seated with their legs extended, and in such cases a horizontal frame will be used because the subject is literally wider than it is tall.


----------



## eja (Nov 1, 2019)

Thank you both for the critique.  I understand about the framing vertically. When It comes to headshots I had been going back and forth between shooting vertically or horizontally and then cropping the horizontal shot as a square format.  When I posted the sample I didn't think about posting the square version.  I am including that now.

As far as taking a minimalist approach, I guess I have not thought through what that actually should cover.  Off the top of my had I think that would be basics: sharpening, contrast etc...Level 2:  Eye enhancement, teeth whitening and large blemishes.  Not sure if this is on the right track or not.  I'll have to think through this a little more.

Flat lighting, well, that is what I was attempting to do, but it appears I had the light a little too high.  I guess the catchlights will be straight on at the pupil height instead of at the top part of the iris.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 1, 2019)

This is a better look, but the problem really was the original camera orientation ...she needs more space above her head, whichyou could do by making an enlarged canvas and filling in the newly-created area with black, but this is not always an option .

Also she is wearing both a necklace and a scoop front top and the necklace and the top echo one another, but the horizontal camera orientation at the time of shooting caused you to cut into the rounded part of her scooped neckline, which is a slight distraction. Had both the neckline and the necklace been shown in their entirety ,the echo visually of the necklace and the neckline would make this a somewhat stronger picture. Also this is a formal portrait, and there are a couple of other rules you have not followed.

 As far as the catchlights go, I thought your original idea was fine, and lighting the mask of the face but allowing the under -chin areas and the neck to go dark makes the face stand-out somewhat more ,and I think your original main light height was fine.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 1, 2019)

The edges of the frame tend to pull the eye.  When one does a formal portrait, it is necessary to build a quote base. Typically this is the shoulders or torso of the person, and everything above is built upon the base. The problem here is that you have a lot of skin at the base and  have cut into the scoop of her neckline, and this cut-in occurs right at the bottom edge of the portrait, which creates a slight visual tension. Also at the top of the frame there is not enough topspace, and she appears to be squished into a frame that is too small. The genre of formal portraiture has many rules, and these rules have been codified over centuries now.


----------



## Designer (Nov 1, 2019)

Another reason to leave adequate space above and below, (as well as both sides) is for framing.  Most people will want to frame their portraits, and this usually requires at least 1/4 inch all around while still leaving adequate "breathing room" around your subject.  So when you crop (either in camera or in editing) right to the edge of the subject, you have absolutely no extra room.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 4, 2019)

Braineack said:


> Did you apply softening everywhere? cause she has no detail in her eyebrows, yet her earrings are very sharp and detailed.


This is what I'm seeing as well. Lots of areas that appear to be over softened and a lack of detail in most of the face, even though the hair looks tac sharp. To me, it looks overdone.


----------

