Star wrote:
that is called hiring a retoucher. i have yet to see any automated program that is able to do anything worth doing.

Agreed.

IDphotos wrote:
Before you folks write me off completely, just take a look at what I did with only the use of a combination of the eye dropper, surface blur, high pass, and several adjustment layers.
Click here to see.
It took me a half hour to do all that because I'm still formulating an algorithm. I'm hoping to cut it down to less than half that time by developing actions and some fine tuning.

I hope that I'm not too far off base here.

Some people prefer to see skin texture and clarity. Here is what i did only using the raw plug-in.

Star wrote:
that is called hiring a retoucher. i have yet to see any automated program that is able to do anything worth doing.

+2

Star wrote:
Some people prefer to see skin texture and clarity. Here is what i did only using the raw plug-in.

I'm looking at my retouch and I still see clarity. There are still pores and fine baby hairs on her face. That's the full resolution image. I need clarification on the lack of texture and clarity.

IDphotos wrote:
I'm looking at my retouch and I still see clarity. There are still pores and fine baby hairs on her face. That's the full resolution image. I need clarification on the lack of texture and clarity.

For many people they look along the face and want to make sure that the freckles survive retouching. They might also wish to really see a true skin texture. The hair upon the head is the easiest place to look for blurring.

Lumigraphics wrote:
This is not the Critique forum, so we can't comment on your skills. Sorry. Post in Critique and I'll answer your question.

I'm not asking for critique. I was posing the question if it was viable to automate most of the process on photoshop by simply using actions to automate the workflow. I could care less what you think about my skill or lack thereof. I don't consider myself as a Photoshop wizard to even any extent. Someone said that the photo lacked texture and could see blurring on the hair. I was asking for clarification.

Also, I did say at the start of the thread that I was looking to hear from other people's experiences on retouching and using brush tools as least as possible. If you've never done it nor would you ever consider it, then why are you even reading or replying to this thread? Maybe you should also post that comment on this thread Wizards ! Let's see those Before and Afters

What I am aiming for in the end is consistency of the results of what I retouch. The best way for me to be consistent is to automate a portions of my workflow.

IDphotos wrote:
I'm not asking for critique. I was posing the question if it was viable to automate most of the process on photoshop by simply using actions to automate the workflow. I could care less what you think about my skill or lack thereof. I don't consider myself as a Photoshop wizard to even any extent. Someone said that the photo lacked texture and could see blurring on the hair. I was asking for clarification.

Cliff notes

1. i have never seen an automation that works
2. blurring is usually visible in the hair line, and in the lack of natural texture to the face


not cliff notes

many people enjoy a clarity of skin texture where the image feels three dimensional. Our eyes see contrast as focus, the fewer places of contrast in a photo the less in focus a photo feels. When places within the hair line become less in contrast with one another, i.e. individual hairs lose contrast, to the human eye that loss of contrast reveals itself as a blur.

Many automated actions (rather then using cloning, patch tool ,skin grafts, dodging and burning to remove problems on an individual level) instead remove contrast and create a blurring effect. They do this to smooth away the blemishes. They also smooth away the skin texture, because the program, no matter how smart, cannot see the difference between wanted elements and unwanted elements. The only program publically available that can see these elements is the human eye.

The human eye communicates with the brain. Together they tell the hand, or whichever controlling implement, which portions of a photo are wanted and which are unwanted. The eye sees, the brain dissects and chooses how it wishes the image affected. The hand uses the program to remove or adjust the places the eye has seen and the brain has processed.

As a person sees more images, and chooses more elements they build up an educated eye that can see the places in which blurring has occurred. The uneducated eye only knows something is wrong, something is unnatural. The educated eye can "see" what has create the unnaturalness.

The computer actions, as they stand, that are commercially available do not have the ability to process in a way as to let them "see" with an educated eye what should and should not remain. They leave a tell tale fingerprint of wrongness that is easily communicated, even to the uneducated eye.

IDphotos wrote:
Here's a side by side comparison of the original vs the brushless retouch that I performed. I hope that I'm not out of line, but can someone explain to me where it's showing the blurring on the retouch that I performed? Maybe it's just me, but I cannot for the life of me see the blurring on the hairline.

Examine the hair itself.

Star wrote:
1. i have never seen an automation that works
2. blurring is usually visible in the hair line, and in the lack of natural texture to the face

You make it sound like it's not worth pursuing. So if I can come up with a method for myself that can get the job done 90% of the way there and all I have to do is worry about the last 10% it's not worth pursuing? The faster I can get images out, the more pictures that I can take, the more jobs I can take on in the future. I don't see myself going to a retoucher simply because I want creative control over my images, so finding a way to get things done quicker (in an educated way) will help maximize my time for other things.

Star wrote:
many people enjoy a clarity of skin texture where the image feels three dimensional. Our eyes see contrast as focus, the fewer places of contrast in a photo the less in focus a photo feels. When places within the hair line become less in contrast with one another, i.e. individual hairs lose contrast, to the human eye that loss of contrast reveals itself as a blur.

In all honesty, in my humble opinion, the original image looks more blurry than the retouched one.

Star wrote:
Many automated actions (rather then using cloning, patch tool ,skin grafts, dodging and burning to remove problems on an individual level) instead remove contrast and create a blurring effect. They do this to smooth away the blemishes. They also smooth away the skin texture, because the program, no matter how smart, cannot see the difference between wanted elements and unwanted elements. The only program publically available that can see these elements is the human eye.

I hope that you're not insinuating that the method that I chose to perform this method uses blur to smooth away skin texture. Here are the basic principles of the method that I use:
1. The blurring is used to even out the skin TONE, NOT TEXTURE.
2. Various regions of contrast can be separated using the high pass filter. Depending on the radius of the high pass filter, certain details of an image can be retained. Using multiple layers of high pass filters at various radii, opacities, and blending modes, will retain different levels of details of the skin texture.
3. You are right about the fact that only the human eye can see the difference between the wanted and unwanted elements. That's why each level of detail is retained on their own layer and their opacities can be fine tuned by the person who is using the action.
4. Skin tone contrast is restored by the user selecting a range of luminosities and the automated sequence applying separate dodge and burn layers. Each of which can also be fine tuned and masked appropriately by a human being. It takes it 90% of the way there.

Star wrote:
The human eye communicates with the brain. Together they tell the hand, or whichever controlling implement, which portions of a photo are wanted and which are unwanted. The eye sees, the brain dissects and chooses how it wishes the image affected. The hand uses the program to remove or adjust the places the eye has seen and the brain has processed.

Again on the action that I'm developing, each level of detail, from the size of the pore, to the size of a folicle, to the size of acne can be fine tuned individually by the user in order to retain the level of detail that looks most natural to the user. The point of this is not to make these details disappear, but to reduce the harsh contrasts that can be associated with these details.

Star wrote:
The computer actions, as they stand, that are commercially available do not have the ability to process in a way as to let them "see" with an educated eye what should and should not remain. They leave a tell tale fingerprint of wrongness that is easily communicated, even to the uneducated eye.

Like I said before, the automation that I want brings the image as close to being finished as possible. It will take for me being the user to fine tune the different elements of the different layers so that they don't show the tell tale fingerprint of wrongness to my uneducated eye.

What I'm trying to put together still puts a lot of creative control on the person that's applying the automation and all the user has to do is to fine tune the detail level, dodge/burn characteristics to their liking before they flatten the image and apply the last 10% which is usually cloning, healing, or patching gross artifacts that the action cannot otherwise remove.

I do my retouching with emphasis that it must look good on at least a 13x19 print, so those details must remain in there.

IDphotos wrote:
You make it sound like it's not worth pursuing. So if I can come up with a method for myself that can get the job done 90% of the way there and all I have to do is worry about the last 10% it's not worth pursuing?

That depends. If the last 10% takes longer than the original 100% because of the automated process, it's not worth using. It's why so many retouchers have abandoned certain approaches; they get 20%, 50%, 70% or whatever closer to acceptable, but require more time to deal with the side-effects than it did to start from scratch without using that 'quick' approach.

But pursuing the concept of automated editing is worthwhile--consider what was done with context-aware scaling, and the next generation of context-aware image processing. Without experimentation, there won't be advancement. Without understanding, however, not all movement is actually advancement.

Nevertheless, many currently available automated solutions are acceptable in less critical venues--I know many successful portrait photographers who use blur-based plug-ins quite profitably. And most production retouchers do use various forms of automation, if only to setup their favored structures.

IDphotos wrote:
The faster I can get images out, the more pictures that I can take, the more jobs I can take on in the future. I don't see myself going to a retoucher simply because I want creative control over my images, so finding a way to get things done quicker (in an educated way) will help maximize my time for other things.

Ultimately, you are responsible for your images. If the results are acceptable to you, they're acceptable to you. Hopefully, the level of quality you accept is at least as high as what your clients, customers, or other recipients expect.

Where it becomes particularly tricky is when a client/customer has expectations which are not only in excess of the photographer/retoucher's ability to deliver, but the photographer/retoucher's ability to recognize.

Kevin_Connery wrote:
That depends. If the last 10% takes longer than the original 100% because of the automated process, it's not worth using. It's why so many retouchers have abandoned certain approaches; they get 20%, 50%, 70% or whatever closer to acceptable, but require more time to deal with the side-effects than it did to start from scratch without using that 'quick' approach.

Yes I am well aware of that. Considering that I did as much as what I did in less than 30 minutes with most of the time done fumbling and experimenting on what would work. I think that I can cut the automation down to where once I am acquainted with the process, it will take me around half that time to be 90% of the way done. I can spend however long I want in the last 10%.

I'm not trying to develop something that would work for everybody. It's more for someone with a reasonably acute knowledge of photoshop to use what I'm doing to begin with, not for a beginner.

My background in Photoshop is different from most people here on MM. I used it mainly for image analysis and microscopic research. The name of the game in that arena is not to alter the image on the pixel level, so I'm trying to apply that methodology in my photography.

IDphotos wrote:
Before you folks write me off completely, just take a look at what I did with only the use of a combination of the eye dropper, surface blur, high pass, and several adjustment layers.
Click here to see.
It took me a half hour to do all that because I'm still formulating an algorithm. I'm hoping to cut it down to less than half that time by developing actions and some fine tuning.

I hope that I'm not too far off base here.

That's awesome, really it is, now you need to spend another 5 min with a clone brush to clean the rest of it up and you're set.

Now I'm not sure why you can't do it very fast, or why you wouldn't do that little work.

It's like mowing the lawn, sure you can do things to speed up the process, you can find patterns that work and make an efficent use of your time, but in the end you still have to do it. These are some of those things, you still need to go though and clean that stuff up.

[edit] since the C word is being tossed around, I don't think the pic is bad and wasn't saying it's bad, just that you're (the OP) a little lazy for not wanting to finish it off and could be looking for shortcuts where there really aren't any.

IDphotos wrote:

I'm not asking for critique. I was posing the question if it was viable to automate most of the process on photoshop by simply using actions to automate the workflow. I could care less what you think about my skill or lack thereof. I don't consider myself as a Photoshop wizard to even any extent. Someone said that the photo lacked texture and could see blurring on the hair. I was asking for clarification.

Also, I did say at the start of the thread that I was looking to hear from other people's experiences on retouching and using brush tools as least as possible. If you've never done it nor would you ever consider it, then why are you even reading or replying to this thread? Maybe you should also post that comment on this thread Wizards ! Let's see those Before and Afters

What I am aiming for in the end is consistency of the results of what I retouch. The best way for me to be consistent is to automate a portions of my workflow.

It IS asking for a Critique and it’s a good way to get people brigged. if you don't want the help then never mind, I'm wasting my time on you.

IDphotos wrote:

Star wrote:
1. i have never seen an automation that works
2. blurring is usually visible in the hair line, and in the lack of natural texture to the face

You make it sound like it's not worth pursuing. So if I can come up with a method for myself that can get the job done 90% of the way there and all I have to do is worry about the last 10% it's not worth pursuing? The faster I can get images out, the more pictures that I can take, the more jobs I can take on in the future. I don't see myself going to a retoucher simply because I want creative control over my images, so finding a way to get things done quicker (in an educated way) will help maximize my time for other things.

Star wrote:
many people enjoy a clarity of skin texture where the image feels three dimensional. Our eyes see contrast as focus, the fewer places of contrast in a photo the less in focus a photo feels. When places within the hair line become less in contrast with one another, i.e. individual hairs lose contrast, to the human eye that loss of contrast reveals itself as a blur.

In all honesty, in my humble opinion, the original image looks more blurry than the retouched one.

Star wrote:
Many automated actions (rather then using cloning, patch tool ,skin grafts, dodging and burning to remove problems on an individual level) instead remove contrast and create a blurring effect. They do this to smooth away the blemishes. They also smooth away the skin texture, because the program, no matter how smart, cannot see the difference between wanted elements and unwanted elements. The only program publically available that can see these elements is the human eye.

I hope that you're not insinuating that the method that I chose to perform this method uses blur to smooth away skin texture. Here are the basic principles of the method that I use:
1. The blurring is used to even out the skin TONE, NOT TEXTURE.
2. Various regions of contrast can be separated using the high pass filter. Depending on the radius of the high pass filter, certain details of an image can be retained. Using multiple layers of high pass filters at various radii, opacities, and blending modes, will retain different levels of details of the skin texture.
3. You are right about the fact that only the human eye can see the difference between the wanted and unwanted elements. That's why each level of detail is retained on their own layer and their opacities can be fine tuned by the person who is using the action.
4. Skin tone contrast is restored by the user selecting a range of luminosities and the automated sequence applying separate dodge and burn layers. Each of which can also be fine tuned and masked appropriately by a human being. It takes it 90% of the way there.


Again on the action that I'm developing, each level of detail, from the size of the pore, to the size of a folicle, to the size of acne can be fine tuned individually by the user in order to retain the level of detail that looks most natural to the user. The point of this is not to make these details disappear, but to reduce the harsh contrasts that can be associated with these details.


Like I said before, the automation that I want brings the image as close to being finished as possible. It will take for me being the user to fine tune the different elements of the different layers so that they don't show the tell tale fingerprint of wrongness to my uneducated eye.

What I'm trying to put together still puts a lot of creative control on the person that's applying the automation and all the user has to do is to fine tune the detail level, dodge/burn characteristics to their liking before they flatten the image and apply the last 10% which is usually cloning, healing, or patching gross artifacts that the action cannot otherwise remove.

I do my retouching with emphasis that it must look good on at least a 13x19 print, so those details must remain in there.

Ultimately I am going to have to stop this conversation with you. Too many of the statements you have made are, in my opinion, false. I do not agree with the technical statements you are making.  And without a common language of basic principles I am at a loss as to how to proceed.

Since I was never here to critique you or your work, and it seems perilously close to people thinking that that is what my statements are about, I am stepping away from this thread.

Every time you bring a specific piece of your image up, and make a valuative statement, if I disagreed, or agreed, with that statement then I would be considered critiquing the image. If you do wish to discuss this further, please open a critique thread so I might talk of specifics, rather then general statements about retouching.

Which is what I have been doing. I have been speaking in general terms, and never to your image specifically, since that is not allowed.

Cliff notes: nobody in here can reference the image you put up in any specific way, even if you ask a specific question or make a specific valuative statement. We can only do that in critique.

To give one quick hint, tone and texture are not separate, tone helps create texture. And that is all she wrote folks.

Kevin Connery wrote:
For the record:

It is possible--practical, even, and certainly permitted--to discuss aspects of technique without making a critique. Including, to a certain extent, the results of that technique. What is not permitted are blanket critiques.

I was brigged for saying "I disagree." I was told that was a tacit critique. So until the MODs come up with some standards for a critique any discussion at all of any image in any way is a critique.

Star wrote:
that is called hiring a retoucher. i have yet to see any automated program that is able to do anything worth doing.

Word

KillerShotz Photography wrote:
I think the image was only intended to be use in the contest only.

Jhaesayte wrote:
Yes. That's what I got the permission of the photographer for.

Jhaesayte wrote:
••••• If you use this image in your portfolio, you must credit the photographer and add his copyright to the image (a small copyright symbol and the photographer's name will suffice). In most cases, permission for the use of this image has only been given by the photographer FOR THIS CONTEST ONLY. No one will check up on you and enforce this, but it would be polite and respectful (and save you some headache! wink to include this information. Thank you. •••••