What's new
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Skin retouching with frequency separation


Chris is the master,

That said I think this image is too large.....too close...too much face and little background. You need some texture to keep it real, but with this image it just makes for a fine line...one I do not like to get to...pleasing but not shopped....
 
Are y'all talking about mine? Sorry, I don't profess to be a re-toucher.
Chris is the master,

That said I think this image is too large.....too close...too much face and little background. You need some texture to keep it real, but with this image it just makes for a fine line...one I do not like to get to...pleasing but not shopped....


Mike, you got this right. In certain areas of the face there is no texture. At the moment I'm busy retouching this image. I'll post my effort in about 30 min.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Couldn't help myself...
20min>clone+heal>surface blur> LAB>PSG

ZipedX.nDKj13R.jpg
@chrisdesign
I like the overall color tones in yours Chris how you manage those?

[EDIT]
Added a Hue saturation layer set to color...
Still this doesn't feel like how you did it chris.
ZipedX2nDKj13R.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yikes Chris! This is not your usual outcome! Did you try something new?


Nothing new Sam.
But because the image was of a poor quality and I didn't want to spend to much time on it, I first used TOPAZ clean to get a little bit of texture to the skin. That wasn't the best choice of course, and you detected it. :redface:
 
@axxo

I recognise myself in Larrys earlier post (regarding 3p's) and consider myself in "guru training" at the moment.
So what method do you use to battle this? To this point what I'm using is a copy of the original with turned down opacity placed as top layer.
Sent using tapatalk
hmm idk, but to get a good end result, if it was me id use the spot blemish tool and the clone tool afterwards, and download a skin brush and just clone stamp the areas and then dodge and burn as needed for 3d shape illusion
 
And now, for something completely different ...

IMHO, while there are some major blemishes on this subject's face, I would put actual skin smoothing (ie, after blemish removal) far, far down on my list of things that need to be corrected in this snapshot. IMHO, the first and most important things that need to be helped along are:

1. Perspective (geometric) and lens (barrel) distortion arising from shooting from much too close, and with too wide a lens.

2. From the catchlights in her eyes, the lighting appears to come from a single, small, on-camera flash. This leads to shiny, specular reflections from any area on her skin that is even slightly oily, as well as it highlights every single blemish and clogged pore.

3. The green color cast, probably leakage from ambient fluorescent lights in the room.


No one who wants to make a nice, flattering portrait of a woman would ever photograph and light her this way unless there was a gun to their heads, they had absolutely no other choice (either because of lack of equipment or lack of knowledge), and there was zero chance they would ever have to face her wrath, LOL.

Improving #2 and #3 is fairly straightforward. However, because, I've never met this woman in person, I have no idea of the true shape of her face, so the retoucher has no choice except to guess. So, that's exactly what I did -- I guessed -- BIG TIME. I probably made her face too slender, or made its shape different from what it really is, but I wanted to see how easy it would be to get rid of some of the perspective and lens distortion that is almost synonymous with cell phone portraits (including selfies).

Obviously, some guess work is also needed w.r.t. her exact skin color, but, IMHO, almost anything would be an improvement over her current color.

Soooo... I brought the image into ACR, and used its lens controls to try to counteract the distortions. I next used the color balance and other color controls in ACR to give her skin a better, non-green skin tone. To reduce the harsh lighting, I pulled the clarity control down to about -20 and compensated for the loss of sharpness by increasing the actual sharpening controls in ACR. I also used ACR's tonal adjustments to tame the reflective oily areas. The preceding steps constitute probably about 70% of the changes you see in the attached image. The remainder was done in PS, e.g., the liquify tool to further adjust the shape of her face, lots of burning and dodging to help out the lighting, and finally, all the usual spotting tools (eg, clone, spot healing, patch) to work on the major skin blemishes and to even out the slight mottled nature of her skin. I did use a touch of the glamor glow tool to give a more traditional portrait look, and then I applied the final sharpening.

FWIW, I did not do anything other than glamor glow and the spotting tools to specifically "smooth" her skin. No frequency separations, no Gaussian blur on a separate layer, nothing like that. All the pores and texture that you see are either hers, or an artifact from the original file.

So, after I finished, I sat back and looked at it. I think I succeeded in removing many of the distortions in the original, and my guess is that the subject would probably think its flattering, but she would also probably feel that it takes off too many years to be believable. What do you think?

T
 

Attachments

  • nDKj13R-tjm01-acr_ps03a_sRGB_liquify_etc_698px_hi-flatten_final_sharpen_8bpc-01.jpg
    nDKj13R-tjm01-acr_ps03a_sRGB_liquify_etc_698px_hi-flatten_final_sharpen_8bpc-01.jpg
    224.6 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
PS - @the OP - A question: Do you know the subject? Did you take this photo? Are her cheeks as prominent as most of the photos suggest?

Tom M
 
Tom, this is a perfectly executed job from a pro. Nobody can do it any better.

But the funny thing is, the image I'm looking at gives me the creeps. Her complexion has a matt and waxen sheen like at Madam Tussauds. Perfectly lifeless.
Believe me Tom, with my comment I do not want to offend you in any way. I just want to show what I am feeling.
 
Tom, I also do not wish to offend either. Chris, your not alone. I feel that your 'lifeless' statement best describes how I feel about it as well. She does not even appear real anymore. I believe there can be too much perfection.
 
You know guys and girls..I stay constantly confused on this subject of retouches. Some say "less is better", then Tom, obviously a pro comes with an edition of this..that..to me..doesn't look like the same person. Chris, another pro says "perfectly executed, which it is beautiful work. This stuff is all over the board as to what is technically correct. I think it would be a good idea for another thread for you professionals to post some examples of work that you consider to be technically correct and state the reasons why and maybe give away a few of your secrets. How about it Chris, Tom and Sam?
 
Tom, this is a perfectly executed job from a pro. Nobody can do it any better.

[highlight]But the funny thing is, the image I'm looking at gives me the creeps. Her complexion has a matt and waxen sheen like at Madam Tussauds. Perfectly lifeless.
Believe me Tom, with my comment I do not want to offend you in any way. I just want to show what I am feeling.[/highlight]

Larry, you missed the rest of Chris' statement.
 
Another thing Larry is that you yourself have to determine what looks good to you. Just because you think someone is a professional, does not mean that their work is the absolute end all standard.
 
No, I didn't miss that Sam. My point is the same. It's still quite confusing.
Larry, you missed the rest of Chris' statement.
 
Sorry Larry, I'm not explaining myself well. Chris, myself, and you are all in agreement concerning Toms edit so maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Larry said:
I think it would be a good idea for another thread for you professionals to post some examples of work that you consider to be technically correct and state the reasons why and maybe give away a few of your secrets.
We are kind of doing this here: https://www.photoshopgurus.com/foru...hoto-retouching-restoration-practice-3-a.html
 
Maybe I'm not being clear. True, there are examples of retouch work all over this forum. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think I have ever seen a thread as I describe. I personally would like to see side by side examples of some retouches that are considered to be technically correct, maybe some that have been published possibly, These would show proper skin texture, what is considered to be "industry standard" smoothing, lighting etc etc. These would be posted by folks that do these professionally or have in the past. Then as part of the post, what makes this into a truly technically correct image. Is this possible?

Sorry Larry, I'm not explaining myself well. Chris, myself, and you are all in agreement concerning Toms edit so maybe I'm not understanding your point.


We are kind of doing this here: https://www.photoshopgurus.com/foru...hoto-retouching-restoration-practice-3-a.html
 
You are being clear. I think this is a Unicorn chase. Your not going to get 5 people to agree on what the 'industry standard' for a technically correct retouching is..............it's subjective and a matter of opinion.
 

Back
Top