I have been asked a few times if I soften the skin on my photos. The answer is always no, I do not. Whenever I look at them, I realized that the little details give character and style that I find appealing. Perhaps that is why I don't shoot glamour or women with heavy make up. At any rate, sometimes I do remove zits and blemishes if they detract from the purpose of the image, but that is as far as I go, and it has to be by special request.
Does anybody have a way of dealing with skin so that looks natural and at the same time even and smooth? Any techniques?
Dec 09 12 03:03 pm Link
London, England, United Kingdom
I can see why you get those comments - you don't shoot for sharpness which makes skin softer as you can't see pore detail or blemishes as well.
There are heaps of ways. All of them booooring
The quick ones you can spot a mile away.
The good ones take a lot of time.
Start by looking for tutorials on YouTube and in the edu section of this site.
You can go a long way by just using the healing brushes in Photoshop.
Dec 09 12 03:32 pm Link
Amherst, Massachusetts, US
This is what I do:
Dec 09 12 09:38 pm Link
Beijing, Beijing, China
Follow this tutorial -> http://www.computerarts.co.uk/tutorials … separation
I have PS actions for that technique, step-by-step, at least all the steps that can be automated. You still have to heal-brush manually. Just ping me.
Dec 09 12 09:41 pm Link
Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
For most control, you can use Dodge & Burn. Here are some tuts and info ...
// Overview by Natalia
http://www.dmd-digital-retouching.com/b … -tutorial/
A problem with the Frequency Separation Tutorial in above post is that the smoothing of the skin is done by blurring, and while the result may look good at 100% it will often change appearence when viewed smaller. This is because when viewed close the details are the priority in the image, but when viewed from a distance the details are lost and the bigger/blurred areas are getting thru. An excellent example is the classic image of Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein you can see in Natalias very good article on this ( and Frequency Separation ). http://nataliataffarel.tumblr.com/post/ … nd-cloning
Dec 10 12 01:07 am Link
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
In cs5 and 6 there is a tool called mixer brush. Set all brush values very low, below 10 but you can play around with settings. It is like a soft smudge, but keeps texture intact. Amazing for smoothing skin whilst keeping detail!
Dec 10 12 04:48 am Link
Florence, South Carolina, US
The answer is simple.... a soft lens, soft light. The down trodden, price slashed Canon 24-135mm is a good choice for example (if you shoot Canon ). I've shot dozens of portraits and not retouched the vast majority, where my "L" glass means super detail... and inflamed carpel tunnel (on portraits).
Dec 10 12 05:44 am Link
Thanks for all the comments. I am trying some right now.
Dec 16 12 06:29 am Link
Brandon, Florida, US
Gloria Budiman wrote:
This. Learning frequency seperation took my quality up a level or two.
Dec 16 12 06:50 am Link
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Dec 16 12 06:57 am Link
Frequency separation is wayyy better than any black box filters. Versatile and customizable. Definitely what I was looking for.
Dec 16 12 10:02 am Link
Seattle, Washington, US
start with a great model and great lighting.
Dec 16 12 10:56 am Link
Rancho Cucamonga, California, US
My philosophy on editing is... acsentuate the positive... eliminate the negative. Also guilty of sparatically tossing in alittle 'creative flare' when I feel it's applicable. Not only does that include the subject... but also the background and anything that falls into this criteria. To me... photography is an art form... and I'm definitely guilty of being an artist...
Dec 16 12 11:03 am Link
Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
Dec 16 12 11:59 am Link