Dreamscape Creative wrote:
What gets me is the obsession with pore detail to the extent where people will bring attention to it at distances the naked eye would never be able to appreciate it.

I think in this case it's close enough to have it be significant, isn't it?

That's a valid statement generally speaking, though.

Dreamscape Creative wrote:
What gets me is the obsession with pore detail to the extent where people will bring attention to it at distances the naked eye would never be able to appreciate it.

This obsession is why you have retouchers with images that have skin that looks retouched and the rest of the image looks like it was never touched. IMO you retouch the way thats needed and your client wants.

To the OP... Keep practicing, the first thing you need to work on is your eye. Had your eye been honed, you would have known this image shouldn't have been posted for critique.

btdsgn wrote:
. IMO you retouch the way thats needed and your client wants.

OMG finally someone agrees +1

Mae LR Photography wrote:
The make-up retouching could be much much better! And I can still see blemishes on the cheaks. And I think the mole on her lip should be removed

What about the mole on her hair?

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
from a scale of 1-10 it's a 1

Oh, come on!  Get over yourself!  No where near a one.  This is decent 5 or 6 work.  I've seen so much worse.

Not too shabby.

Charles West wrote:

Oh, come on!  Get over yourself!  No where near a one.  This is decent 5 or 6 work.  I've seen so much worse.

Not too shabby.

So you can have your opinion but she can't? The OP asked for a rating. She gave hers. End of story.

x

Charles West wrote:
Oh, come on!  Get over yourself!  No where near a one.  This is decent 5 or 6 work.  I've seen so much worse.

Not too shabby.

For me it's a 1.

I honestly think it looks incosistent and badly done I can see the blur tool was done incorectly you can see  the uneveness on some areas of the skin , as he only selected some areas  and left other areas unselected If you are going to blur you need to be consistent through out the whole image. I would not consider that no where near a 6. My retouching is not a 10 either but I know average retouching and that it's not it.

I'm honest and if you think I'm full of myself for saying the truth then oh well... I'm not going to sugar coat anything and I don't expect no one to do the same for me. But the again I have very high standards.

XKRetouch wrote:
I think it needs to be a tad color corrected on top of the things already mentioned (the mole on the hair cracked me up =P). The right side of her face (our left) is a little bit too magenta while the bottom half of the image is too yellow. Some blemishes near the edges of her face also need to be taken care of (esp on the darker side).

Otherwise it's not bad. Yay~

+1 Finally, someone to point out the eyesore, which is this huge weird red cast. Her face looks like a lavalamp.

A red cast would be cool if it was 1) intentional, and 2) even across the image. This example is blotchy and unintentional - I suspect OP used a simple burn tool along the jawline thinking it would make the cheeks and jaws look more slim?

When I see a person's face turn that color I call 911 stat.