Peano wrote:
Why are the pupils not centered? Lens distortion?

the model is focusing on close-up lens

Peano wrote:
Why are the pupils not centered? Lens distortion?

Weird. It's in the original shot though.

toan thai photography wrote:
the model is focusing on close-up lens

No offense, but I'll need a footnote for that answer.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I don't know about the rest of you...but I kind of hate when ppl ask: How do you get good looking skin with photoshop and they get the "Start with great skin" answer... basically because it's not helpful at all and secondly because that's not always the case.

I'm going to operate as though this isn't really a rant...

It's not the only way, but it does reduce the amount of work required. Since most people ask 'how do you get great looking skin in a photo', pointing that out is legitimate. After that, of course, a useful answer would also include how to clean up skin that isn't 100% flawless, but good skin and good makeup will generally save a lot of time.

Peano wrote:

No offense, but I'll need a footnote for that answer.

what i meant is when you do a closeup beauty shot like this, the camera lens is pretty close to the model's face making her eyes to converge. pull the camera farther away, her focusing point will shift which bring the pupils closer to the center. try this with your point n shoot. am i wrong?

doctorontop wrote:
Maybe a good answer would be.... with a lot of work

I second that and to add with a lot of patience. Enough said.

toan thai photography wrote:
what i meant is when you do a closeup beauty shot like this, the camera lens is pretty close to the model's face making her eyes to converge. pull the camera farther away, her focusing point will shift which bring the pupils closer to the center. try this with your point n shoot. am i wrong?

When eyes converge, the whole eye moves. But that doesn't account for the pupils being off center.

Peano wrote:

When eyes converge, the whole eye moves. But that doesn't account for the pupils being off center.

You scare me sometimes... but i need to fix that! thank u

btdsgn wrote:
Don't forget to add "Use agency models" I've retouched images with models from the top agencies... They'll all have bad skin after being under lights (or outdoors) in makeup.

You said it brother!

x

ezpkns retouching wrote:
I may be ranting myself, but though it's not bad advice (although a little bit, er, obvious to count as "advice" - "Wait; you mean I don't want to start with bad skin? I'm going to have to let this sink in a second..."), it's wholly inappropriate in this forum. In general, most of the people asking and answering are not taking the pictures, much less selecting the models.

The whole point of Photoshop, for those of us who live in it, is the buck stops here. It doesn't matter who's to blame for any given flaw, be it bad skin, messy hair, wronkled bedsheet backdrops, flat lighting or off-center pupils, in here, we fix it.

Everyone who struts in here with a non-Photoshop answer to a Photoshop question just seems to be patting themselves on the back as that rarest of beasts, the photographer who lays golden eggs.

To the torches and pitchforks!

You said what I wanted to say only SO much better.

Natalia, are you accepting critique of this image? If not let me know and I'll remove my message.

A couple of things I notice right off the bat, is that the eyebrow on the left needs to taper in more at the end. It is much thicker than the other brow. One more thing is the little blotchy orange shadows from the lashes of the eye on the left are a bit distracting and not symmetrical like everything else is. That's all I can see though. The pupil thing didn't even bother me until it was brought up!
Great work

Peano wrote:
When eyes converge, the whole eye moves. But that doesn't account for the pupils being off center.

But the off-center iris happens quite a lot in closeups, especially macro shots of the eyes.  I posted a somewhat grotesque image here https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st11140329 as a joke, and it shows the same effect.

It's in all 20+ shots from that session, so it isn't just an oddity.  It has something to do with the perspective or possibly some actual distortion created by the eye's own lens.  After all,  the eyeball has a lot of curvature and we do see the iris through that lens, so one or the other could throw off what we expect to see.


Edit:  "...the off-center iris..."  Make that "pupil," not "iris."

Cristina M Beller wrote:
Natalia, are you accepting critique of this image?
A couple of things I notice right off the bat, is that the eyebrow on the left needs to taper in more at the end. It is much thicker than the other brow. One more thing is the little blotchy orange shadows from the lashes of the eye on the left are a bit distracting and not symmetrical like everything else is. That's all I can see though. The pupil thing didn't even bother me until it was brought up!
Great work

As far as I'm concern criticism is ALWAYS welcome (unsolicited critique is MM policy, not mine)

The eyebrow is a good call, missed that

The little dot shadows, I chose to leave them... I like the fact that they brake the symmetry.

And I don't see them over-orange - sure your monitor is calibrated right?

And the pupil... the annoying thing is that NOW it bothers me a lot :p

thank you

x

Drayke wrote:
But the off-center iris happens quite a lot in closeups, especially macro shots of the eyes.  I posted a somewhat grotesque image here https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st11140329 as a joke, and it shows the same effect.

It's in all 20+ shots from that session, so it isn't just an oddity.  It has something to do with the perspective or possibly some actual distortion created by the eye's own lens.  After all,  the eyeball has a lot of curvature and we do see the iris through that lens, so one or the other could throw off what we expect to see.

Thank you. It may well be a natural phenomenon that occurs when the eye focuses in a certain way. Whether it's natural or a camera distortion or something else, the question for retouchers is whether to leave it alone or center it.

Peano wrote:
Whether it's natural or a camera distortion or something else, the question for retouchers is whether to leave it alone or center it.

Since I actually have a slight turned in right eye (grrrrr!!) I can safley say re-touch the fecker! I HATE IT! I HATE it in images too - its a flaw like a zit! And it looks seriously bad sometimes depending on camera angle and such, other times you wouldnt notice so yesh - get rid of the turn!

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I don't know about the rest of you...but I kind of hate when ppl ask: How do you get good looking skin with photoshop and they get the "Start with great skin" answer... basically because it's not helpful at all and secondly because that's not always the case.

Natalia, you are looking at this from a Photo Retoucher perspective. From a photographer perspective, I do not care how much I can fix skin and make it look perfect in PP, I aim to get the best results in real life when the shot is taken. Looking at this question from your view the "Start with great skin" answer is ridiculous to say the least..you are given an image and asked to fix it. But in my case if I want great skin I either shoot a model that has natural great skin or get a kick ass MUA... so yes in my case as a photographer the "Start with great skin" answer makes a lot of sense.

Rafael Telles wrote:
Natalia, you are looking at this from a Photo Retoucher perspective. From a photographer perspective, I do not care how much I can fix skin and make it look perfect in PP, I aim to get the best results in real life when the shot is taken. Looking at this question from your view the "Start with great skin" answer is ridiculous to say the least..you are given an image and asked to fix it. But in my case if I want great skin I either shoot a model that has natural great skin or get a kick ass MUA... so yes in my case as a photographer the "Start with great skin" answer makes a lot of sense.

I think the point she was trying to make was that it's a useless answer regardless of whether not you're a photographer or a retoucher. As a photographer the, "get it right in camera" is great attitude to adopt. But you know as well as I do that conditions aren't always ideal and you have to do the best with what you got. Natialia just made a good case that great skin from the get go isn't necessarily required to get great skin in the final product. Hopefully those that say, "start with great skin," will reconsider just how helpful their response really is to others.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
I think the point she was trying to make was that it's a useless answer regardless of whether not you're a photographer or a retoucher. As a photographer the, "get it right in camera" is great attitude to adopt. But you know as well as I do that conditions aren't always ideal and you have to do the best with what you got. Natialia just made a good case that great skin from the get go isn't necessarily required to get great skin in the final product. Hopefully those that say, "start with great skin," will reconsider just how helpful their response really is to others.

You are correct, those answers do not bring anything to the table, hence are as unproductive as they can get. But I can tell you is pure joy retouching an image of a model that has great skin (and I have shot 30 year old models with amazing skin) and just a pain in the arse having to fix the skin of a 20 year old model with bad skin and bad makeup... In the end good or bad skin I know for a fact Natalia can do her magic and come up with exquisite skin..and yes that is a compliment to Natalia, by no means a sarcastic comment

Rafael Telles wrote:
compliment to Natalia, by no means a sarcastic comment

beware of the Argentine rage! lol

x

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

beware of the Argentine rage! lol

x

Lol.. And I was dead serious, you do amazing beauty retouching. And I am almost sure as a retoucher you also rejoice of retouching a pic of a model with baby skin and almost perfect hair..the only downside I can see is that it would take you half the time to do hence less hours to charge.. unless of course you charge by the image and not by the hour...