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!
Meh...............it's always hard to match fabric texture when cloning is a limited option. Just not looking right for me.
If there is no texture on the area of the shirt you're working with - due to lighting, focus, etc - why is it a necessity to add texture? Other than the editor's own sense of aesthetics, it doesn't do wrong to the image to leave the area texture as is...?There's pretty good texture on the lower half of the shirt. In a situation like this, I would use frequency separation, but then delete the low-frequency layer and keep only the high-frequency, set to Linear Light. Use the Move tool to position the texture where it's needed and mask away the rest.
It was a question of curiosity...not a judgement...trying to understand...If there is no texture on the area of the shirt you're working with - due to lighting, focus, etc - why is it a necessity to add texture? Other than the editor's own sense of aesthetics, it doesn't do wrong to the image to leave the area texture as is...?
It was a question of curiosity...not a judgement...trying to understand...
If I zoom in, now I see what you're talking about. Coincidentally, had watched a video this morning regarding loose hairs that came across a model's face. The moderator described what you mentioned - making the edits without disturbing the underlying texture. something that I'll pay closer attention to now.When I look across the man's chest in the original image, I see the texture of the shirt. This is especially true on the left side, although the right side does have some small highlighted areas where the texture is less apparent. So, if the texture is there at the start, in my opinion it should still be there in the edited version to prevent the edit from looking blotchy and blurry.
Removing the man-boobs—depending on how you do it—requires some degree of gaussian blur, color changes to remove the shadows, possibly the liquify filter, and probably some cloning. All of these can distort the fabric texture. In real life, if the man were actually thinner and the shirt hung straighter off his shoulders, the lighting would be fairly uniform across his body and the shirt texture of the chest area vs. the stomach area would be about the same. So, in my opinion, this edit requires replicating the texture across the edited chest area so that the edited portion does not call attention to itself. These are all aesthetic judgements, of course, and everybody will have their own ideas about what looks right.
The question then is what level of editing do we go to on this forum. That, I think depends as much on the aesthetics of what the editor is trying to accomplish and the need for detail by the OP. I was never a fan of "good enough" myself...