# This is one of my favorite shots I've ever taken. What do you think?



## Turn (Aug 9, 2008)




----------



## Alpha (Aug 9, 2008)

Lighting is great, but she needs more neck, a more natural retouch (particularly better cheek-bone definition and skin texture), and removal of stray hairs from the chest. I also find the upper-chest highlight to be a bit distracting.

Other than that, very nice.


----------



## NateWagner (Aug 9, 2008)

I agree... it is a nice photo... the main problem is the upper chest area. it doesn't seem to have gotten the same retouching as the arms and face, and the hairs all over it are quite distracting. Other than that though it is nice.


----------



## Turn (Aug 9, 2008)

Yeah... actually, the right side of her face and her arm are the only thing that was really touched. So apparently the parts that are bad are what i did in post-dang.  She had some big pores and a little acne. I wanted to do as little as possible to it. I'll try backing off the softness a bit and repost.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 9, 2008)

i like the image if looked at from a distance. but when getting closer, her face looks computer generated.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Aug 9, 2008)

I agree with Alex, she looks too fake here. Now, I know people don't find acne or bad pores to be beautiful, but artificial beauty isn't beautiful either. But, I mean, she doesn't look extremely fake or anything like that, haha, so I'm not saying you've butchered this work, at all, because you haven't. It really is a nice photo, and I feel you lit this shot quite well. I just wish her face had the same texture as her arm, her arm looks very smooth, yet natural, which I feel is an absolute necessity for portraiture. Still a nice shot though, I love the composition and it's a shot you should be proud of.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 9, 2008)

how did you do the skin smoothing? What I like to do is do skin smoothing in it's own layer and do it to the max, then cut back the opacity to an acceptable level where it helps with any blotches or rough skin, but not to where it looks fake.


----------



## Turn (Aug 10, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> how did you do the skin smoothing? What I like to do is do skin smoothing in it's own layer and do it to the max, then cut back the opacity to an acceptable level where it helps with any blotches or rough skin, but not to where it looks fake.



There's a few different ways i do it, but my quick and dirty way (and the way i did this particular time) i created a seperate layer, laid a really absurd surface blur, masked the layer, inverted the mask, and painted in with white at a low brush opacity. Then, like you mentioned, i play with the layer opacity to adjust the overall strength of the treatment. I removed blemishes on the previous layer.


----------



## Turn (Aug 10, 2008)

Ok so I backed i went back into my "soft" layer and backed to opacity off. Looks a little more natural, eh?  Also, there are some tonality differences in this one from the first one i posted, i had to go back to a point before i merged a few layers and i don't have time to go back in and redo that work with the new opacity on the softness (if that makes any sense). I'm supposed to be working on a web project  Oh, and i tried to pull that highlight back a bit on the chest, burned her tank top to bring out the ribbing <shrug> i never said i was any good at this. 






Also, here is a closer shot of her skin:


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 11, 2008)

Much more realistic.


----------



## visualpoetry (Aug 11, 2008)

Beautiful photograph!
The only negative thing I can say is get rid of those stray hairs on her chest. 
Also, I would have made her eye color pop a bit more.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 11, 2008)

You didn't fix much in the retouch. The skin looks a little less plastic but she still has no cheek bone and her chest is still hairy.

Third time's the charm.


----------



## Turn (Aug 11, 2008)

Alpha said:


> You didn't fix much in the retouch. The skin looks a little less plastic but she still has no cheek bone and her chest is still hairy.
> 
> Third time's the charm.




I wasn't doing a full retouch, just trying to get the skin more realistic looking (one thing at a time).  And as far as the cheekbones go, if she isn't smiling there really isn't a lot there. I mean, how do you say it politely... She isn't a terribly thin girl. I don't know her too well and we didn't have a conversation about altering her appearance to my (or your) taste. She did ask about her skin which was a little broken out. I just want to get her as close as possible to what she really looks like. I mean, removing flyaways and small blemishes is one thing. But, i don't know, going out of my way to make someone look skinnier than they are is a little touchier for me- Am i the only one? If someone asks me specifically (which I've had happen a lot) I'll bring in their waist or their double chin, etc...but if they don't, i know (assume) they think "he sat down at his computer and looking at the files decided i was too fat". I don't want people to think that. I could stand to lose a few myself 

Here's one that, other than bumping the exposure +1, is right out of the camera. I'm really trying to get it right in the camera. Eh. 

**Yes, that is my sync cable by her leg running to the light behind her. The softbox to my right wasn't triggering the optical slave on the one behind her and i had to switch it up.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 12, 2008)

I'm not suggesting that you make her thinner. Just give her a cheek bone. For whatever reason, this photo makes her cheek look concave. If her cheek is concave in real life then that's one thing. Otherwise, fix it. You can rebuild the cheek structure without using the liquify tool, if that's the line you're drawing in the sand.


----------



## Turn (Aug 12, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I'm not suggesting that you make her thinner. Just give her a cheek bone. For whatever reason, this photo makes her cheek look concave. If her cheek is concave in real life then that's one thing. Otherwise, fix it. You can rebuild the cheek structure without using the liquify tool, if that's the line you're drawing in the sand.




Hmmm. I can see what you mean now that you put it that way- how would you do it? Feel free to edit the photo, i wouldn't really know how to tackle that.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 13, 2008)

The easiest way to explain is that there should be a backwards J-shaped shadow that runs approximately from the ear to the upper lip, and the cheek-bone itself should be a highlight.

I'll go through and do a step-by-step cheek-bone retouch and post it in a new thread (which I'll link to here) if that would help. I'll need an original of this shot though.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 15, 2008)

Lauren Fitzgerald said:


> I actually like the first version best.  I prefer pictures with a little skin smoothing. I always run all my portraits through Imagenomic Portraiture.
> 
> Lauren



Well then I'd say you have a pretty high threshold for "a little."


----------



## Artograph (Aug 16, 2008)

The one thing no one has mentioned...but is distracting to me is the "chunk" of hair in the center of her face.  It looks very much like you 'put it there'....which I'm sure you did!!  LOL!!  But I would like to see it _look_ more natural, as if she had just turned and that's the way it landed.  I think if the chunk of hair wasn't seperate from the hair on the right...and just a little more to the right, so you see a titch more of her nose....???

;O)


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 16, 2008)

I agree with everything Alpha said, I'd just do some patching to take out any zits or anything and not do any skin smoothing, she's probably got awesome skin anyway. 

Even after the edit, still too much stray hair, the hair competes with her face for attention. Her chest and shoulder blade are too hot and brighter then her face, i'd being them down to match her other skin tones by painting over it.  

Other then that, i'm diggin the lighting, color, and composition.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 16, 2008)

Lauren Fitzgerald said:


> Wow, that's pretty nasty. :x



Well, if categorically smoothing all of your subjects' skin is your thing, then more power to ya. I'm simply of the opinion that it has a time and a place, and it's also possible to do too little or too much of it.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 16, 2008)

Lauren Fitzgerald said:


> I may have a high threshold for "skin smoothing" but a very low threshold when it comes to sarcasm aimed at people's honest opinions.
> 
> I have an 11-year old son who is deaf-blind and in a wheelchair, and I can tell you from my experiences as his advocate, there are way too many judgemental people out there who think they are smarter then than everyone else and love to criticize someone's point-of view. I won't tolerate it. Sorry. I think you need to knock that chip off your shoulder and let people give a compliment without insulting them in turn.  I don't see how anything you've written toward me was meant as anything other than a backhanded insult.
> 
> I am stunned these folks let you get away with your rude comments.



I'm stunned that you feel compelled to bring up your deaf-blind son in a discussion of skin retouching. I think it's positively appalling that you would senselessly use his condition as a means to make a point about something entirely unrelated, and that you would go so far as to imply that because I think you may have a heavy hand in post-processing, that I'd be judmental about your son. You need ask yourself whether the defense of your son over the years has consumed you, to the point where you associate every feeling of defensiveness with an attack on him. In the meantime, feel free to add me to your ignore list. I'm not afraid to have a discussion about your son. But he has nothing to do with retouching.


----------



## Lacey Anne (Aug 16, 2008)

Wow, what a thread this turned into. These threads always make me chuckle.

I like the second edit of the photo, but the hot spots on the skin really bother me. The second photo (third one posted) is definately my fave!


----------



## Rachelsne (Aug 16, 2008)

Alpha is blunt, but always helpful and truthful, I find the more edits I make the more i dont like the 'smoothed faces' I try and have a good make up base now and go from there...


----------



## Artograph (Aug 16, 2008)

Yeah, OK, OK....but what about _the HAIR_!!?????    LOL!!   ;O)


----------



## Lacey Anne (Aug 17, 2008)

Lauren Fitzgerald said:


> I never said you were judgemental about my son. Please go back and read what I wrote. I said that because of dealing with people who always have an "opinion" (he being the reason), I have a low threshold for it. I run into bullies and know-it-alls every day because of my situation, and I don't tolerate it. So in that regard, yes, my son has changed my attitude about being bullied and belittled by people who don't know me. THAT is what I was trying to get across. I did not come on this thread for you to insult me, only to offer a friendly word of support to the poster. Yet that is exactly what you did: insult me. Trust me, I do not wish to discuss my son with you. He is an amazing person and I don't need to discuss him with anyone here. Be appalled if you will, but until you are in my shoes, don't judge me. I hoped that maybe you would see how your comments might hurt someone's feelings. If I wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it. THAT was my point.


 I'm sorry about your son. I know what it's like to have a child that's different from society's "norm." One of my twins is on the spectrum. But with all due respect (because I know you've been through hell and back fighting for your child) this forum is all about opinions. We come here to learn. We can't do that if people who know what they're talking about aren't allowed to share what they think. Yes, sometimes Alpha is blunt, but you can generally take his info to the bank and blunt or not, I'll take it. You have to put on your big girl panties to post here. If you're easily offended, it's just not the place for you. But if you're serious about bettering your photography, I can tell you from experience, this is the place to be. My work has improved so much since posting here and even though the C&C sometimes stung (a lot) I'm thankful for it.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 17, 2008)

BACK TO THE PICTURE



I did a quick and dirty edit of what I think it should look more like, you can take it or leave it. 


I screened her skin, dodged the eye, got rid of a bunch of stray hairs, burned the background and her shirt so they're more subtle and patched out some blotches on her skin and props. I also made some minor color adjustments.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 17, 2008)

Not bad but you clipped the highlights in the hair, and the cheekbone still needs a little work.


----------



## Turn (Aug 19, 2008)

Whoa! I've been a litte busy planning a project, i guess a lot has gone on while i've been away.



Artograph said:


> The one thing no one has mentioned...but is distracting to me is the "chunk" of hair in the center of her face.  It looks very much like you 'put it there'....which I'm sure you did!!  LOL!!  But I would like to see it _look_ more natural, as if she had just turned and that's the way it landed.  I think if the chunk of hair wasn't seperate from the hair on the right...and just a little more to the right, so you see a titch more of her nose....???
> 
> ;O)


^^Actually, that's how it happened, she turned and that's how it landed. 


> Originally Posted by *Alpha*
> 
> 
> _Well then I'd say you have a pretty high threshold for "a little."_


^^made me laugh


> Alpha is blunt, but always helpful and truthful


^^                  Alpha is blunt (agree 100%), but always helpful(agree 90%) and truthful(Agree 100%)



> You have to put on your big girl panties to post here. If you're easily offended, it's just not the place for you


^^SO true...well played.



> Even after the edit, still too much stray hair


^^ I never even got to the hair! C'mon!


----------



## Turn (Aug 19, 2008)

And to all the nice things everyone has said so far, thank you very much.


----------



## Turn (Aug 19, 2008)

Since we're already on the subject, here's a few more from the shoot. More, untouched. I hate the way my images look in a browser. Colors look all wonky to me. Yeah, thats what the pro's say, "wonky".

1.





2.





3.





4.


----------



## KrisHunt (Aug 20, 2008)

> ...there is no room in my life for more negativity so I just don't tolerate it.

Unless, of course, you're dishing it out.


----------

