Grant Foto wrote:
Thank you all so much for the suggestions!!!

I've actually tried to create a new layer set to color but it makes the shadows like a muddy muted color. I'm sure I'm not doing something correct though.

Of course, that's why gradient map is used.

The same color on different luminosity gives either over saturated or under-saturated results.

CLICK retouch wrote:

Of course, that's why gradient map is used.

The same color on different luminosity gives either over saturated or under-saturated results.

Gradient maps is something I still don't understand how to work. Lol! I've tried to read up on it but it confuses me.

Grant Foto wrote:
Thank you all so much for the suggestions!!!

I've actually tried to create a new layer set to color but it makes the shadows like a muddy muted color. I'm sure I'm not doing something correct though.

Instead, set it to either Multiply or Soft Light depending on the colors you pick. Maybe you need to remap the colors of bright/mid/dark points.

Peano wrote:
Selective color adjustment layer, set to multiply mode. Apply to skin only. If tweaking is desired, make adjustments in the reds panel.

As a result of your technique, there appears to be a significant amount of posterization on the shoulder and face of the first model. What technique do you use to eliminate the posterization?

Robert Randall wrote:
As a result of your technique, there appears to be a significant amount of posterization ...

That isn't a result of the technique.

Peano wrote:

That isn't a result of the technique.

It wasn't there before the technique, what else could be the cause?

Peano wrote:
That isn't a result of the technique.

Robert Randall wrote:
It wasn't there before the technique, what else could be the cause?

Yes it was. The image is only 55K and was originally saved at around quality level 3. It's loaded with blocking and other jpeg artifacts. The multiply layer is simply making those more obvious:

Peano wrote:

Peano wrote:
That isn't a result of the technique.

Yes it was. The image is only 55K and was originally saved at around quality level 3. It's loaded with blocking and other jpeg artifacts. The multiply layer is simply making those more obvious:

I suppose that's a persuasive argument, until you realize it's the technique embellishing flaws. I've found that simple tool techniques almost always carry a downside with them. Personally, I think channel swapping via apply image is a less problematic technique. It's not a simple fix, but it usually works out better.

Robert Randall wrote:
I suppose that's a persuasive argument, until you realize it's the technique embellishing flaws.

Flaws that won't be present in a high-res image:


If you have a better approach, post it and stop trolling.

Peano wrote:

Flaws that won't be present in a high-res image:


If you have a better approach, post it and stop trolling.

Sorry for the delay, I was away with friends and family for the holiday.


I wasn’t aware that pointing out the failings in a technique was trolling; where I come from we call that being helpful.

Your technique embellishes flaws. The basic result of using the Multiply blend mode increases the density of darker tones, it has no effect on white. The result isn’t just a darkening of the image; it also increases the contrast of the image. In the first instance you posted, while flaws were present in the image, posterization was not. That only occurred after you applied your multiply method.

“Posterization of an image entails conversion of a continuous gradation of tone to several regions of fewer tones, with abrupt changes from one tone to another. This was originally done with photographic processes to create posters. It can now be done photographically or with digital image processing, and may be deliberate or may be an unintended artifact of color quantization.
The effect may be created deliberately, or happen accidentally. For artistic effect, most image editing programs provide a posterization feature, or photographic processes may be used.
Unwanted posterization, also known as banding, may occur when the color depth, sometimes called bit depth, is insufficient to accurately sample a continuous gradation of color tone. As a result, a continuous gradient appears as a series of discrete steps or bands of color — hence the name.”

In the second, higher res image you posted, posterization was not apparent after the application of the multiply layer, but increased contrast was. The increase in contrast led to an embellishment of flaws in the skin, thus increasing the retouch load for the picture. While your method might be suitable for the hobby enthusiast, it is far from desirable for the professional retouch artist.



I think the following method leads to less of a retouch load, and it’s a bit simpler than plate swapping.

Create a duplicate layer of your base image. Set the blending mode of the dupe layer to Luminosity. Click on the channel of the dupe layer with the least amount of detail (usually the red channel), and ask for a curve by clicking Command M. Drag the highlight point down from 255 to 128, or lower if you prefer. This method darkens the image without increasing contrast, thus eliminating the need for additional retouch caused by the technique used. If you feel this move dulls the image too much, simply apply a strong salt and pepper inverted HL mask to the dupe layer to allow the original HL values to shine through the technique. While this last part might increase unwanted contrast in certain areas, the simple fix is to paint away the part of the inverted HL mask that offends you.

Robert Randall wrote:
I wasn’t aware that pointing out the failings in a technique was trolling;... Your technique embellishes flaws.

So does sharpening. So does increasing contrast. So does increasing saturation. I didn't read any further, Robert. I'm just not interested in your trolling.

The increase in contrast led to an embellishment of flaws in the skin

Flaws in the skin. Not flaws in the image.

Robert Randall wrote:
I think the following method leads to less of a retouch load, and it’s a bit simpler than plate swapping.

Create a duplicate layer of your base image. Set the blending mode of the dupe layer to Luminosity. Click on the channel of the dupe layer with the least amount of detail (usually the red channel), and ask for a curve by clicking Command M. Drag the highlight point down from 255 to 128, or lower if you prefer. This method darkens the image without increasing contrast, thus eliminating the need for additional retouch caused by the technique used. If you feel this move dulls the image too much, simply apply a strong salt and pepper inverted HL mask to the dupe layer to allow the original HL values to shine through the technique. While this last part might increase unwanted contrast in certain areas, the simple fix is to paint away the part of the inverted HL mask that offends you.

I know how to make a highlight mask, but I'm not sure what you mean by salt and pepper. Can you elaborate on that?

Ruben Vasquez wrote:

I know how to make a highlight mask, but I'm not sure what you mean by salt and pepper. Can you elaborate on that?

A salt n pepper mask is a term engravers applied to a method of creating a mask that held back pin dot highlights. It is nothing more than a deep highlight mask thats been inverted. I use engravers terms a lot because old habits die hard.

NS Berlyn wrote:
you need some more texture and try to put out the blue from the highlights

sounds about right