R G wrote:

No Randal I know your serious but your not a beauty retoucher using filters is what i mean, lol.

Hey, as long as your retaining your clients why not. right? I had a crazy experience one time when I did that on the arm of the model it was a high end job (perfume involved) and they spotted that so quick I was embarrassed, so crazy! lol.

If you're trying to set a 4d finish nail, generally speaking, you don't use a 5lb maul.

Robert Randall wrote:

If you're trying to set a 4d finish nail, generally speaking, you don't use a 5lb maul.

ha ha not at all I used like a 3 1/2 pd one and still.

Robert Randall wrote:
My new rep wants me to re-do a bunch of images that were worked on for the old reps web site. In the process of that exercise, I ran across an image that is perfect as a test for this plugin. So I downloaded the plugin, and realized that with an extra 5 minutes of masking work, I just saved myself about 4 hours of tedious pore busting.

I'm sorry all you beauty pixel pushers, but this thing is awesome!

That is the key to these tools, doing that extra masking and healing before anything else.  The "bad results" are from people who just click the button or slide everything to max.

R G wrote:
using filters has a specific look when you use it on skin. You can use it at low strength but at that point you might have just dodge and burned, zoomed out. As for me I don't bother.

You remind me of a dog that won't let go of a rag, no matter how tattered it is.

R G wrote:
No Randal I know your serious but your not a beauty retoucher using filters is what i mean, lol.

I’m a photographer first, and a retoucher second… at least that’s the way I see things. But at one point I supported myself solely from my efforts as a retoucher. Your post, and my recent experience with this plug-in, made me think of a job I did for a photographer out of NYC that specialized in catalog and seniors pictures. I could be wrong about some of this; it was back around 2000 when I worked for him.

If I recall correctly, his name was Patrick Demarchelier. I specifically remember one job I did for him retouching a member of a some kind of community church theater group. The subject was an actress whose name I think was Gwyneth Paltrow. The two of them had raised a furor by shooting implied nudes that were going to appear in some catalog named Vogue something or other.

Among the images I worked on, there was one that was to become a silver print that would hang in the foyer of her home. I believe the size of the finished print was around 5’ X 8’. I know the actual file was 20070 X 15974 pixels, because I just opened it. I pounded on those files for days, getting rid of every little flaw I could find. Now I know I’m not an official beauty or glamour retoucher, but if I had access to this plug in at that time, I would have used it without hesitation… and I don’t think either one of those fringe players would have noticed.

You official guys kill me!

Raphael747 wrote:
Hi, i love this skin effect but im wondering how do i get this kind of effect ?
Maybe a gaussian effect but what else ?
any ideas ?

Thx

Raphaël

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltq2l … 1_1280.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltq2r … 1_1280.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2097 … 1_1280.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6zvy … 1_1280.jpg

R G wrote:
Actually, Randall I still work for Patrick Demarchelier among others and if you had used those filters you probably would not have gotten that check as he doesn't like that look. ha ha. Official out! ; )

You keep saying stuff like that, but in context, you makes no sense. Do you think that because I have access to a plug in, it means that all of a sudden I've become an idiot? I see a measure of success in adding another tool to my arsenal, that for some reason you can't seem to wrap your head around. The only thing I ever give my clients is perfection, and not a one of them cares how I get there. Today I found another very useful tool, and that makes me vey happy.

Gees, you sound as nuts as those get it right in camera guys!

Robert Randall wrote:

I’m a photographer first, and a retoucher second… at least that’s the way I see things. But at one point I supported myself solely from my efforts as a retoucher. Your post, and my recent experience with this plug-in, made me think of a job I did for a photographer out of NYC that specialized in catalog and seniors pictures. I could be wrong about some of this; it was back around 2000 when I worked for him.

If I recall correctly, his name was Patrick Demarchelier. I specifically remember one job I did for him retouching a member of a some kind of community church theater group. The subject was an actress whose name I think was Gwyneth Paltrow. The two of them had raised a furor by shooting implied nudes that were going to appear in some catalog named Vogue something or other.

Among the images I worked on, there was one that was to become a silver print that would hang in the foyer of her home. I believe the size of the finished print was around 5’ X 8’. I know the actual file was 20070 X 15974 pixels, because I just opened it. I pounded on those files for days, getting rid of every little flaw I could find. Now I know I’m not an official beauty or glamour retoucher, but if I had access to this plug in at that time, I would have used it without hesitation… and I don’t think either one of those fringe players would have noticed.

You official guys kill me!

You are funny!

R G wrote:
I had a crazy experience one time when I did that on the arm of the model it was a high end job (perfume involved) and the senior retoucher spotted that so quick I was embarrassed

Senior retouchers, "official" retouchers, art directors, photo editors -- they will notice the difference because most have spent years training themselves to notice minutiae. Retouchers develop eagle eyes and take great pains because they know their work will be judged by editors with eagle eyes.

But I wonder: Has anyone every done any empirical testing with readers of the magazines to see if they have eagle eyes?

Suppose the full-page Maybelline ad with the close-up face shot was done in minutes using Portraiture rather than in hours using D&B. Would the woman reading under the dryer at the hairdresser notice the difference? Would it have the slightest effect on her behavior as a consumer of magazines and the products advertised in them?

I doubt it. I suspect that all the high-end sweating is done by and for a little clique of industry perfectionists who are so internally focused on each other's opinions, they've forgotten to ask whether it makes any difference to consumers' behavior.

R G wrote:
Actually, Randall I still work for Patrick Demarchelier among others and if you had used those filters you probably would not have gotten that check as he doesn't like that look. ha ha. Official out! ; )

Could you give us some samples of the work you do for Patrick also are you going to be working for Victor.

This would set the record straight in regards to what is expected from retouchers.

Peano wrote:
Senior retouchers, "official" retouchers, art directors, photo editors -- they will notice the difference because most have spent years training themselves to notice minutiae. Retouchers develop eagle eyes and take great pains because they know their work will be judged by editors with eagle eyes.

But I wonder: Has anyone every done any empirical testing with readers of the magazines to see if they have eagle eyes?

Suppose the full-page Maybelline ad with the close-up face shot was done in minutes using Portraiture rather than in hours using D&B. Would the woman reading under the dryer at the hairdresser notice the difference? Would it have the slightest effect on her behavior as a consumer of magazines and the products advertised in them?

I doubt it. I suspect that all the high-end sweating is done by and for a little clique of industry perfectionists who are so internally focused on each other's opinions, they've forgotten to ask whether it makes any difference to consumers' behavior.

Hey Peano my friend. Hope all is well?  and yes you are right. It probably wouldn't have gotten noticed by the woman under the hair dryer. But when you work in house everyone has an opinion and clients pay top dollars so they do get into the smallest of details but listen check this out  it's not about removing removing removing that is why portraiture is not used because it is too heavy handed (looks sandblasted) the pores/shape lose their integrity and lets say you try just using a little of it then you realize you might as well d&b believe or not it does have a different look. People can tell the difference of plastic skin or not and it seems that people have different ideas of what plastic is.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Could you give us some samples of the work you do for Patrick also are you going to be working for Victor.

This would set the record straight in regards to what is expected from retouchers.

Well Chris, photographers vary and projects vary. You would go further on a cosmetics job than a editorial as you know (that said the way i do it I want the skin to have a fresh look like fresh out the shower in the morning look). When you get the job you research the photographer and have a dialogue as to how far to go. I'm not posting images because I am not looking for work here or sell a product but just like you I come here to contribute and learn a couple of things and also to share my experiences.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Could you give us some samples of the work you do for Patrick also are you going to be working for Victor.

This would set the record straight in regards to what is expected from retouchers.

R G wrote:
Well Chris, photographers vary and projects vary. You would go further on a cosmetics job than a editorial as you know (that said the way i do it I want the skin to have a fresh look like fresh out the shower in the morning look). When you get the job you research the photographer and have a dialogue as to how far to go. I'm not posting images because I am not looking for work here or sell a product but just like you I come here to contribute and learn a couple of things and also to share my experiences.

I believe that is double speak for forget it.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
R G I don't see any contribution a contribution would be to show examples especially if your name droping.
Or even a link to your web site would be good.
It's not as if I'm asking for Patrick's home tel number.

This is a retoucher that has no problems contributing and showing her work https://www.modelmayhem.com/1298955
Natalia Taffarel with some quiet impressive clients.

I shouldn't have done that. Let's talk in private.

Peano wrote:

Senior retouchers, "official" retouchers, art directors, photo editors -- they will notice the difference because most have spent years training themselves to notice minutiae. Retouchers develop eagle eyes and take great pains because they know their work will be judged by editors with eagle eyes.

But I wonder: Has anyone every done any empirical testing with readers of the magazines to see if they have eagle eyes?

Suppose the full-page Maybelline ad with the close-up face shot was done in minutes using Portraiture rather than in hours using D&B. Would the woman reading under the dryer at the hairdresser notice the difference? Would it have the slightest effect on her behavior as a consumer of magazines and the products advertised in them?

I doubt it. I suspect that all the high-end sweating is done by and for a little clique of industry perfectionists who are so internally focused on each other's opinions, they've forgotten to ask whether it makes any difference to consumers' behavior.

I believe consumers are influenced by aspects of an image that they don't necessarily even consciously recognize, nor have the ability to articulate.

R G wrote:
What I hear a lot on the forum is about retouchers (photographers get a pass they don't know usually) complaining how long d&b takes and then you find out they use the brush at 1 to 3 % just insane, lol.  That will take you all day my friends. Another one issue is try to d&b something really dark or white not gonna happen either learn to use the clone stamp, etc, etc.

So R G, what do you use for D&B? what are your brush settings?

Peano wrote:
Senior retouchers, "official" retouchers, art directors, photo editors -- they will notice the difference because most have spent years training themselves to notice minutiae. Retouchers develop eagle eyes and take great pains because they know their work will be judged by editors with eagle eyes.

But I wonder: Has anyone every done any empirical testing with readers of the magazines to see if they have eagle eyes?

Suppose the full-page Maybelline ad with the close-up face shot was done in minutes using Portraiture rather than in hours using D&B. Would the woman reading under the dryer at the hairdresser notice the difference? Would it have the slightest effect on her behavior as a consumer of magazines and the products advertised in them?

I doubt it. I suspect that all the high-end sweating is done by and for a little clique of industry perfectionists who are so internally focused on each other's opinions, they've forgotten to ask whether it makes any difference to consumers' behavior.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I believe consumers are influenced by aspects of an image that they don't necessarily even consciously recognize, nor have the ability to articulate.

Peano and I got into it a while back over the same issue. While we both have our personal take on the issue of what people do and don't see in an image, it is astounding how much gets past most people. You would think in a culture as inundated with imagery as ours is, people would be more in tune to the imagery. What you touch on is the basis behind a number of books outing process in the ad industry.

R G wrote:
People can tell the difference of plastic skin or not ...

No offense, but you're glossing over the key question I raised: Which people? The art directors and retouchers notice "plastic" skin, of course. But if you include everyday readers of the magazines -- the woman under the hair dryer --  my question is: How do you know? What empirical evidence do you have?

EDIT: See, for example, this:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18355920

That's an example in which shadow inconsistencies that are obvious to experts sail right past most viewers. Isn't it possible that what you instantly spot as "plastic" skin isn't at all obvious to untrained eyes?

Peano wrote:

No offense, but you're glossing over the key question I raised: Which people? The art directors and retouchers notice "plastic" skin, of course. But if you include everyday readers of the magazines -- the woman under the hair dryer --  my question is: How do you know? What empirical evidence do you have?

EDIT: See, for example, this:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18355920

That's an example in which shadow inconsistencies that are obvious to experts sail right past most viewers. Isn't it possible that what you instantly spot as "plastic" skin isn't at all obvious to untrained eyes?

No offense taken Peano it's noticed by lots of normal non industry people I use my mother a lot, lol. She's great bless her heart (and she would say thing like wow if I saw her/him in the street I would be scared, so funny) and a couple of other non industry people for their input I even asked the fed ex guy once and they know when something is off not all the time but a lot. With a lot of high end they want those valleys of light and shadow on the skin left in. What your seeing here in several ports with comments like Awesome is extremely smooth skin with texture laid over it it reminds me of like a block of cheese and it looks fake to my eyes then they sharpen it. I feel that an image looks plastic when too much is removed that is my point.

R G wrote:
No offense taken Peano it's noticed by lots of normal non industry people I use my mother a lot, lol. She's great bless her heart (and she would say thing like wow if I saw her/him in the street I would be scared, so funny) ...

What your seeing here in several ports with comments like Awesome is extremely smooth skin with texture laid over it it reminds me of like a block of cheese and it looks fake to my eyes then they sharpen it. I feel that an image looks plastic when too much is removed that is my point.

Before I could be persuaded by these comments, I would have to see the actual images in question. I don't dispute that some people use plug-ins so heavily that the result looks fake even to an untrained eye.

I'm not talking about extremes of that sort. I'm talking about Portraiture used as illustrated here. I have a hard time believing that casual (i.e., untrained) viewers would find anything amiss in the retouched image on the right.

In any case, the question I raised can't be answered by references to your mother or my Aunt Minnie. It would require some larger surveys using methods that didn't bias the results.

I agree with you on this point:

I feel that an image looks plastic when too much is removed that is my point.

The question remains: how much is too much, and who would judge it to be too much? I doubt that we'd get the same answers from the art director at Elle and that woman under the hair dryer flipping through a copy of Elle.

But as far as I know, we have no empirical data to tell us, one way or the other. I merely raise the question for whatever minds are open to considering it.

Peano wrote:
...
I'm not talking about extremes of that sort. I'm talking about Portraiture used as illustrated here. I have a hard time believing that casual (i.e., untrained) viewers would find anything amiss in the retouched image on the right.

I think it greatly depends (even for the untrained viewer), what context the image is in.
If, it's a picture taken at a wedding, maybe there would be more tolerance (although even within that context the inconsistency would drive me nuts).
But if it was in a copy of Elle at the beauty shop for a perfume ad. Damn right, I think Aunt Maude would notice it.

Robert Randall wrote:

This is probably going to upset the beauty/glamour retouch crowd, but why in the world would you need a DVD tutorial on skin when you can get results like that with the push of a button. Granted, there are a few leftover artifacts to be dealt with, but for the most part the job is pretty much done.

For someone who likes to try and brag on here as much as you do, I am absolutely FLABBERGASTED at this post. 

I don't know if we are looking at the same link or not, but I think you just said that the skin work in this...

http://imagenomic.com/pt.aspx

is not just similar, but even in the same league as actual dodging and burning with good taste/skill?

The picture in that link is a joke.  It literally looks like some kind of blurring technique that you'd find in a Scott Kelby Photoshop CS2 book.  I'm not even trying to be funny.  I'm so confused.   

Maybe I missed sarcasm, it is late.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I believe consumers are influenced by aspects of an image that they don't necessarily even consciously recognize, nor have the ability to articulate.

This.

So this.

Peano wrote:
But I wonder: Has anyone every done any empirical testing with readers of the magazines to see if they have eagle eyes?
...

I doubt it. I suspect that all the high-end sweating is done by and for a little clique of industry perfectionists who are so internally focused on each other's opinions, they've forgotten to ask whether it makes any difference to consumers' behavior.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I believe consumers are influenced by aspects of an image that they don't necessarily even consciously recognize, nor have the ability to articulate.

Could very well be true. So how would you go about actually testing the effect of this on consumer behavior?

Peano wrote:
No offense, but you're glossing over the key question I raised: Which people? The art directors and retouchers notice "plastic" skin, of course. But if you include everyday readers of the magazines -- the woman under the hair dryer --  my question is: How do you know? What empirical evidence do you have?

I really hate to admit this but I don't have any empirical evidence to support my position; just personal experience and observation. That being said, I think more and more people are becoming aware of retouching. For one thing, the word "photoshopped" is a verb (often times a derogatory one), and quite often people will look at an image and say that it's been airbrushed. Many times over, I've heard people comment about how much different and better food looks in advertisements vs what they actually get served. There are magazines and websites that are writing about the issue as well and pointing out some rather funny mistakes that have managed to get published. So people are at least talking about the issue and I wouldn't be surprised if that included women under the hair dryer...

Robert Randall wrote:
Peano and I got into it a while back over the same issue. While we both have our personal take on the issue of what people do and don't see in an image, it is astounding how much gets past most people. You would think in a culture as inundated with imagery as ours is, people would be more in tune to the imagery. What you touch on is the basis behind a number of books outing process in the ad industry.

I'm going to toss out a hypothesis for the level of detail some art directors/photo editors demand. Can anyone tell me if there's a flaw in my reasoning?

For reference purposes, let's assume that there are 100 possible ways an image can be observed to be retouched; shadows, colors, etc. And the numbers cited below aren't to scale other than higher numbers meaning more potential errors spotted.

Joe Blow hobby photographer might 'see' 20 of them.
Jack Doe, commercial photographer might 'see' 50 of them, not necessarily including all of what Joe saw.
Andy Art Director might 'see' 90 of them; again, not necessarily including all the ones Joe and Jack might have seen.
Harry High End Retoucher might 'see' 95 of them; same disclaimer.

Roberta Reader might only see 15 of them.

Given that, why would they bother trying to catch every little giveaway? My guess/hypothesis is that even if every reader might only see a very few types of possible errors, there are thousands to millions of those readers, which probably includes some whose triggers happen to be in the 5% group: the ones which nobody on the team saw.

It's one thing when trying to sell a wall portrait, where you only have to be better at avoiding/hiding errors than the buyers' ability to see them. It's another when you have to be better at hiding/avoiding errors than someone among a million+ people's ability to see them.

Am I overthinking it? I know that some people, 'see' issues there very few others can, even when they're pointed out, while they in turn might miss things that are obvious to others.

None of the above obviates the chance that it's just a dominance game of pixel-peeping by an AD or any other 'office politics' reason; I'm just wondering if there might be (or have been) some reason behind it in the first place.

Lee K wrote:
I don't know if we are looking at the same link or not, but I think you just said that the skin work in this...

http://imagenomic.com/pt.aspx

is not just similar, but even in the same league as actual dodging and burning with good taste/skill?

What I read was that he wrote that the tool which generated the awful results you link to can also generate results he felt were very acceptable.

Lee K wrote:
For someone who likes to try and brag on here as much as you do, I am absolutely FLABBERGASTED at this post. 

I don't know if we are looking at the same link or not, but I think you just said that the skin work in this...

http://imagenomic.com/pt.aspx

is not just similar, but even in the same league as actual dodging and burning with good taste/skill?

The picture in that link is a joke.  It literally looks like some kind of blurring technique that you'd find in a Scott Kelby Photoshop CS2 book.  I'm not even trying to be funny.  I'm so confused.   

Maybe I missed sarcasm, it is late.

I never brag about myself, at least in my mind it isn’t bragging. My posts are usually directed away from myself, sometimes to the point of deflection. Hell, I just made a post the other day in which I praised Joey L, while lumping myself in here with the rest of the wannabes... I hardly call that bragging. What I find I’m forced to do much of the time is defend myself. For instance, in this thread, on multiple occasions, it was intimated that I didn't know what I was talking about because I wasn't an official glamour/beauty retoucher. I used humor as a method to let the respondents know that I did have some pretty credible history in that department. Possibly it’s a character flaw on my part, but when someone challenges me, I find it hard to walk away.

Take you for instance, and this response. I could have, maybe even should have, just kept quiet. After all, I’ve stated my case about this plug-in to the point of boredom. I’ve explained several times that when used judiciously, it can be a wonderful, time saving, tool. But that isn’t good enough for you; you had to come in here and insult me twice before feeling good enough about yourself to leave. So once again I’ll explain it to you, and seemingly brag about myself at the same time.

I’ve been a retoucher in some form or another since 1976. I have, and still do to this day, worked for a great many of the iconic publications and corporations of our time. Within the last month I shot and retouched an international consumer ad for OfficeMax, a national consumer ad for Eckrich, and an international B2B ad for a water company. Do you think that the creative decision makers involved in those ads would hire an idiot to make their images? More to the point, do you think I'm so stupid I would jeopardize my reputation with those people by using an inferior tool, and delivering an inferior product?

There I go again, needing to lean on my experience in order to validate my opinion. If that seems like bragging to you, so be it. But the bottom line for this issue is that I say the tool works!

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
So how would you go about actually testing the effect of this on consumer behavior?

I'm bias since my expertise is advertising communication, but leaving the marketing  a side and paying attention to the clear connection between high end advertising and higher prices that people pay for it.

Also advertising now is incrementally based on psychology (traditional psychoanalysis) , cognitive neuroscience or behavioral psychology.

Color - Texture - light -- All manipulated for the same intention.

Interesting: http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/feat … explained/

You perceive it even if you don't consciously understand it.

Kevin_Connery wrote:

I'm going to toss out a hypothesis for the level of detail some art directors/photo editors demand. Can anyone tell me if there's a flaw in my reasoning?

For reference purposes, let's assume that there are 100 possible ways an image can be observed to be retouched; shadows, colors, etc. And the numbers cited below aren't to scale other than higher numbers meaning more potential errors spotted.

Joe Blow hobby photographer might 'see' 20 of them.
Jack Doe, commercial photographer might 'see' 50 of them, not necessarily including all of what Joe saw.
Andy Art Director might 'see' 90 of them; again, not necessarily including all the ones Joe and Jack might have seen.
Harry High End Retoucher might 'see' 95 of them; same disclaimer.

Roberta Reader might only see 15 of them.

Given that, why would they bother trying to catch every little giveaway? My guess/hypothesis is that even if every reader might only see a very few types of possible errors, there are thousands to millions of those readers, which probably includes some whose triggers happen to be in the 5% group: the ones which nobody on the team saw.

It's one thing when trying to sell a wall portrait, where you only have to be better at avoiding/hiding errors than the buyers' ability to see them. It's another when you have to be better at hiding/avoiding errors than someone among a million+ people's ability to see them.

Am I overthinking it? I know that some people, 'see' issues there very few others can, even when they're pointed out, while they in turn might miss things that are obvious to others.

None of the above obviates the chance that it's just a dominance game of pixel-peeping by an AD or any other 'office politics' reason; I'm just wondering if there might be (or have been) some reason behind it in the first place.

In my experience, (sorry Lee K, I don't know how else to phrase it) it isn't just a measure of self absorption by the power brokers on the creative team. It actually makes sense that they tune an image as much as they can. First and foremost, their jobs and reputations rely on their diligence. Also, their pride of craft/workmanship demands their diligence. I don't think for a second they even consider their viewing audience. I believe they are considering themselves, their production people, their bosses and their clients.

More often than not, I'm amazed I'm even called in to work on a project. The imagery they work up for market testing is so buttoned up, it looks as good as any final image I can bring to the table. This is especially true in the pharma marketplace, where the visuals are the point man for the roll out of a new drug. In those instances, that first wave of ads sits on top of 7 to 10 years of research, FDA approval, and potentially billions of dollars. Not only do they have to please the client, but the ads have to pass FDA approval as well. By the time one of those ads gets to me, there is nothing left to chance.

Usually, at least in my experience, the final product is a result of a lot of people looking very closely at the images in a team effort. Only a few times have I had the feeling that someone was brokering power just because they could.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
People seem to forget how much soft focus was used with film blurring/softening the skin.

Don't you think that was done because there was no better way?