Ana-Maria Nedelea wrote:
Why you wanna do that

Here is a heavy Inverted High Pass,  the most fake and unnatural effect you could ever apply to pores.

i have some photos and they arenot from a good camera.So it's so hard to use healing brush or clone stamp. i mean without highpass, whats the best way to create custom skin texture to the whole face?(bush with some styles or texture map or any other method?)

scubie wrote:
could try this.  http://phlearn.com/amazing-power-freque … -photoshop

Thanks a lot. (y) But he's also saying clone stamp ... but i wanna create the texture like on that photo.

Ana-Maria Nedelea wrote:
Show a before image please.

Ana-Maria Nedelea wrote:
The image is too small to understand but Im sure that with DB /heal/sharp/heal/again DB you can have whatever texture you want to reconstruct

If you prefer to blur the skin try then a pores brush (you will find them on DA deviant art), brush the skin and will look like texture.....but ...but.

wow..yeah.thats the word.pores. but why "but" ?

SDretoch wrote:
wow..yeah.thats the word.pores. but why "but" ?

I learned this through trial and error because I used to have the same question -

Simply put, because you shouldn't have to use a pore brush in the first place when pores exist and are visible. That image looks fine. Maybe for designs / digital paintings. But for beauty or fashion? No. If you actually have to consider that from a technical perspective then it means that the photography is questionable but I'm not seeing that. For aesthetic purposes you shouldn't have to add a plug in / download a free brush to add skin texture. For a beauty image your best tool is the skin that's already there. Trust me.

Just heal / clone on an empty layer and apply some local dodge and burn to get rid of any inconsistencies in the skin texture and then add some global dodge and burn to bring out more high lights and deepen the shadows.

You can't just rush an image with a quick fix to bring out the pores or 'add' pores.

You have to be willing to do the amount of skin work required to get the image you want. There are no short cuts.

So if it takes over 4 hours to do with all of that d&bing it'll be worth it because you'll understand how to work with skin properly - and in a way where you won't get an overcooked image like in the sample you provided.

It'll be clean and natural and I really think that's probably what you're going for.

SDretoch wrote:
i have some photos and they arenot from a good camera.So it's so hard to use healing brush or clone stamp. i mean without highpass, whats the best way to create custom skin texture to the whole face?(bush with some styles or texture map or any other method?)

If the photos are bad quality then the retouching will be as well. Learned that from this fantastic retoucher - Natalia Taffarel. She's on MM as well.



That's all local d&bing to get that 'textured' effect on a base level. That's why I'm saying that you don't need to add any unnatural textures to your image. If she's lurking this thread she can correct me if I'm wrong about that action.

Kami Fore  wrote:

SDretoch wrote:
wow..yeah.thats the word.pores. but why "but" ?

I learned this through trial and error because I used to have the same question -

Simply put, because you shouldn't have to use a pore brush in the first place when pores exist and are visible. That image looks fine. Maybe for designs / digital paintings. But for beauty or fashion? No. If you actually have to consider that from a technical perspective then it means that the photography is questionable but I'm not seeing that. For aesthetic purposes you shouldn't have to add a plug in / download a free brush to add skin texture. For a beauty image your best tool is the skin that's already there. Trust me.

Just heal / clone on an empty layer and apply some local dodge and burn to get rid of any inconsistencies in the skin texture and then add some global dodge and burn to bring out more high lights and deepen the shadows.

You can't just rush an image with a quick fix to bring out the pores or 'add' pores.

You have to be willing to do the amount of skin work required to get the image you want. There are no short cuts.

So if it takes over 4 hours to do with all of that d&bing it'll be worth it because you'll understand how to work with skin properly - and in a way where you won't get an overcooked image like in the sample you provided.

It'll be clean and natural and I really think that's probably what you're going for.




If the photos are bad quality then the retouching will be as well. Learned that from this fantastic retoucher - Natalia Taffarel. She's on MM as well.



That's all local d&bing to get that 'textured' effect on a base level. That's why I'm saying that you don't need to add any unnatural textures to your image. If she's lurking this thread she can correct me if I'm wrong about that action.

thanks bro. Can you name some best pro tutorials?i aready have 2 phlearn pro tutorial about retouching.but he teaches what i already know.  (around US $ 100)

Daniel Meadows wrote:
Are you going into beauty retouching as a business or a hobby?

If it's a business get hold of a lot of fashion magazines and see how different the skin textures are to the heavy FS/IHP examples that are common on internet retouching forums.

Then learn to dodge and burn exceptionally well.

The problem with FS-style techniques is you'll see dramatic results so it seems like a shortcut, but you'll plateau quickly and you won't have spent the time needed on D&B to break out of it.

Everything you need for professional skin work you'll find in clone/heal, dodge and burn. The IHP smoothing techniques are useful little time-savers much further down the line, well after you've got the fundamentals.

I hope this helps a bit.

Danny

yeah.thank you too i'm earning money from retouching.But, it's not my main job.So you mean only way is copying and pasting textures from good part of the skin?

SDretoch wrote:
thanks bro. Can you name some best pro tutorials?i aready have 2 phlearn pro tutorial about retouching.but he teaches what i already know.  (around US $ 100)

Natalia Taffarel's dvd (going to buy it myself) and the other dvd provided by Krunoslav Stifter's that's next to hers - http://digitalphotoshopretouching.com/o … uching-dvd

SDretoch wrote:
yeah.thank you too i'm earning money from retouching.But, it's not my main job.So you mean only way is copying and pasting textures from good part of the skin?

The best way yes. You can use noise or texture brushes, or even skin texture from another similar shot but it's akin to weeding your small garden with a huge Caterpillar/JCB digger.

Spend some time evening out the texture, dodge, burn, and I think the step you might be missing is simply sharpening at a low radius.

SDretoch wrote:

Kami Fore  wrote:

SDretoch wrote:
wow..yeah.thats the word.pores. but why "but" ?

Can you name some best pro tutorials?i aready have 2 phlearn pro tutorial about retouching.but he teaches what i already know.  (around US $ 100)

Natalia Taffarel, Julia kuzmenko mckim, Michael Woloszynowicz are the BEST! ( Michael has just made his DVD, but you can check his channel on youtube, he puts plenty of very good tutorials for free. )

SDretoch wrote:

i have some photos and they arenot from a good camera.So it's so hard to use healing brush or clone stamp. i mean without highpass, whats the best way to create custom skin texture to the whole face?(bush with some styles or texture map or any other method?)

You create texture by using lighting. Prominent texture on an overall soft image would look off anyway, so why even try to replace it.

Kami Fore  wrote:

Natalia Taffarel's dvd (going to buy it myself) and the other dvd provided by Krunoslav Stifter's that's next to hers - http://digitalphotoshopretouching.com/o … uching-dvd

Thanks i'll def check it.

Daniel Meadows wrote:

The best way yes. You can use noise or texture brushes, or even skin texture from another similar shot but it's akin to weeding your small garden with a huge Caterpillar/JCB digger.

Spend some time evening out the texture, dodge, burn, and I think the step you might be missing is simply sharpening at a low radius.

i really wanna do this to images not as quality as this.(ex.skin textures are little out of focus situation,...)

Abdel Kebdani wrote:

SDretoch wrote:

Kami Fore  wrote:

SDretoch wrote:
wow..yeah.thats the word.pores. but why "but" ?

Can you name some best pro tutorials?i aready have 2 phlearn pro tutorial about retouching.but he teaches what i already know.  (around US $ 100)

Natalia Taffarel, Julia kuzmenko mckim, Michael Woloszynowicz are the BEST! ( Michael has just made his DVD, but you can check his channel on youtube, he puts plenty of very good tutorials for free. )

Thanks a lot.Michael's dvd is too expensive to me unfortunately.and is Julia's one is just a pdf?I like video tutorials and kinda boring to rad pdf s.

CLICK retouch wrote:

You create texture by using lighting. Prominent texture on an overall soft image would look off anyway, so why even try to replace it.

mm sorry.didnt get what you said.

SDretoch wrote:

mm sorry.didnt get what you said.

You cannot add hard texture if you have softly lit image. You can't add it. If you want a lot of texture, you shoot with lighting that enhances texture.

Kami Fore  wrote:
Natalia Taffarel's dvd (going to buy it myself) and the other dvd provided by Krunoslav Stifter's that's next to hers - http://digitalphotoshopretouching.com/o … uching-dvd

don't. the dvds out-dated, she uses photoshop CS3 or something like that in them, and she works with a mouse (which is really surprising when it's someone who claims to be super professional).
yes, she teaches some good stuff - but if he got knew whatever Aaron Nace taught, He'll know pretty much what Natalia teaches in the dvd (and yes, I got both). All he'll get is a few small tips - definitely not worth 100 bucks

BoazR wrote:

don't. the dvds out-dated, she uses photoshop CS3 or something like that in them, and she works with a mouse (which is really surprising when it's someone who claims to be super professional).
yes, she teaches some good stuff - but if he got knew whatever Aaron Nace taught, He'll know pretty much what Natalia teaches in the dvd (and yes, I got both). All he'll get is a few small tips - definitely not worth 100 bucks

all she shows In her DVD is already all Over in you tube, and  better videos, I saw the other video for free the art of dodge and burn in you tube and is mostly the same  in a lot of free videos on you tube, just go to Vimeo, you tube, google, type dodge and burn and you will find many videos,  research and you will save money in the long run.

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:
One thing I don't understand is why people always answer "why" to this question.  Maybe the OP has a customer who wants the fake plastic look; do professional retouchers tell them no and turn down the work?

Yes

365 Digitals Exposed wrote:
all she shows In her DVD is already all Over in you tube, and  better videos, I saw the other video for free the art of dodge and burn in you tube and is mostly the same  in a lot of free videos on you tube, just go to Vimeo, you tube, google, type dodge and burn and you will find many videos,  research and you will save money in the long run.

thanks! I guess I had to learn that in the hard way

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:
One thing I don't understand is why people always answer "why" to this question.  Maybe the OP has a customer who wants the fake plastic look; do professional retouchers tell them no and turn down the work?

the retoucher who do it for the money - probably yes. they'd go for the same plain look they make all the time and if it doesn't fit the no thanks.
those who are in it for the artsy self expression - will do probably say yes to almost anything.

AKMac wrote:

Yes

Interesting

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:

Interesting

I was only speaking for myself. I wouldn't use this approach.

As far as I'm concerned, if it looks fake or plastic then it's either bad taste, bad technique or both.

Some people may find this look attractive, and may argue that there are no rights and wrongs and that it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I think there are rights and wrongs when it comes to beauty retouching. I believe there is such a thing as good and bad taste. Also there is such a thing as an educated, discriminating eye, which develops with time and experience.

AKMac wrote:

I was only speaking for myself. I wouldn't use this approach.

As far as I'm concerned, if it looks fake or plastic then it's either bad taste, bad technique or both.

Some people may find this look attractive, and may argue that there are no rights and wrongs and that it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I think there are rights and wrongs when it comes to beauty retouching. I believe there is such a thing as good and bad taste. Also there is such a thing as an educated, discriminating eye, which develops with time and experience.

or they are looking for plastic look specifically, because it's not natural? it might not be the classic retouch most ppl do on here, but some clients do look specifically for doll-like retouching

BoazR wrote:
......or they are looking for plastic look specifically, because it's not natural? it might not be the classic retouch most ppl do on here, but some clients do look specifically for doll-like retouching

I think this thread and the ongoing thread about (Ikea)CGI have an overlapping interest when it comes to the issue of attempting to artificially reproduce human characteristics. The "Uncanny Valley" research which was quoted by Kevin Connery is worth a look, and though it's hardly an exhaustive study, it clearly highlights the issue.

The irony is that the closer an artificial substitute gets to the real thing, the greater is the negative reaction (often one of mild revulsion). When things are 'honestly' fake, they are easily accepted as such. But when you cross the boundary and try to fool the viewer with artificial skin textures then you are in danger of evoking a natural, negative response, which is not on the level of aesthetic taste but at a more basic instinctive level.

I'm not saying that the use, under certain circumstances, of borrowed skin textures is wrong per se, or that it will always be detectable. Cloning is borrowing adjacent skin textures, and to borrow from one compatible image to another, provided you respect and understand the anatomical issues, can be successful.

But what I would argue is that 1/ A retoucher with the skill, knowledge and visual discrimination necessary to produce a thoroughly convincing result using the above approach, would rarely have any need to resort to it. 2/ Relatively inexperienced retouchers who are learning their craft should avoid this approach, even if they can't yet see the difference.

Personally, I need to feel confident that my work is good and to know that the skin is "real". When I send out work, I don't have the fresh eye that my client is going to cast over it, and I want to be confident that it will stand up to scrutiny.

AKMac wrote:
I think this thread and the ongoing thread about (Ikea)CGI have an overlapping interest when it comes to the issue of attempting to artificially reproduce human characteristics. The "Uncanny Valley" research which was quoted by Kevin Connery is worth a look, and though it's hardly an exhaustive study, it clearly highlights the issue.

The irony is that the closer an artificial substitute gets to the real thing, the greater is the negative reaction (often one of mild revulsion). When things are 'honestly' fake, they are easily accepted as such. But when you cross the boundary and try to fool the viewer with artificial skin textures then you are in danger of evoking a natural, negative response, which is not on the level of aesthetic taste but at a more basic instinctive level.

I'm not saying that the use, under certain circumstances, of borrowed skin textures is wrong per se, or that it will always be detectable. Cloning is borrowing adjacent skin textures, and to borrow from one compatible image to another, provided you respect and understand the anatomical issues, can be successful.

But what I would argue is that 1/ A retoucher with the skill, knowledge and visual discrimination necessary to produce a thoroughly convincing result using the above approach, would rarely have any need to resort to it. 2/ Relatively inexperienced retouchers who are learning their craft should avoid this approach, even if they can't yet see the difference.

Personally, I need to feel confident that my work is good and to know that the skin is "real". When I send out work, I don't have the fresh eye that my client is going to cast over it, and I want to be confident that it will stand up to scrutiny.

you actually convinced me. touche!