Lanenga wrote:
To me this sounds all really obvious and is what I always tell people first.

When looking at 2D images, our brain tricks us in seeing 3D shapes/objects because that's what we have experienced throughout or life when growing up, but with enough practice you can make your brain see what's really there (insert matrix quote). A flat image with gradients on them.

So when people ask me how to become better at retouching, I tell them to train there eyes to see what's really there. This however is always a lot harder than just copying some techniques you've seen on some DVD.

When it comes to anatomy I'd like to suggest to get yourself a copy of Sobotta  or Grey's Anatomy. I find them a lot more useful now, then back when I was in med school.

That behaivor of mentally "abstracting" the forms so they are no longer seeing a nose but a pattern of highlights and shadows isn't something that comes naturally to people. It's definitely something that most people I've taught have to learn (and even after teaching them it's still hard for them to do). Once you "get it," then it's super easy and it's hard to imagine other people not being able to think like that, which is probably why it sounds super-obvious to you.

For those who haven't developed this ability, here are some methods that you can use to teach your brain (these seem crazy, but they work):
• blind contour drawings (draw an object in front of you without looking at the paper)
• draw an upside down image
• draw the "negative space" of an object instead of the actual object
Anything that gives your... "left brain" (I hesitate to say "left brain" as I've been hearing that theory is bullshit lately) a hard time will help you to develop this disconnect between the values and the "meaning" behind them. Sorry, this is tough to explain. 

Appreciate the anatomy book suggestions, I'll check them out. Btw, are you a doctor? Just curious.

Lanenga wrote:
I did see that image and I am still not convinced unless you would call this painting too

Click link for video

Interesting point. I guess it depends on how you define "painting." In this case of the last example and this new example, I wasn't just contouring the nose. A contour generally isn't meant to be viewed from a particular angle, and I think that's the main difference between contour work and "carving." To change the shape of the form to something that isn't there, first you have to build the structure in your mind or draw it on an overlay on the nose, then you have to think about the form of the nose/direction the light will hit/how the light will illuminate the form of the nose, then you have to use your technical understanding of Photoshop to carry it out in a way that reads as realistic (not sure I succeeded in that regard this time). The steps described is very close to the steps that an artist goes through when painting.

Contouring on the other hand isn't that anal. It's more loose, more subtle. It's meant to be viewed from all kinds of directions. The makeup artist is much less concerned about the way the light describes the form (I can say this because I'm a certified makeup artist), and more about the form in an ambient-light kind of way.

I wouldn't say "carving" is exactly the same as painting, but it's much more like painting than makeup contouring. 


Here I painted a nose and I carved a nose. During both I flexed the same artist muscles in my brain.


Here in a makeup contour guide from Kevin Aucoin you can see the general controuring areas, but much less thought goes into contouring like this compared to "carving". The makeup artist doesn't have to think about the direction of light and creating form that isn't there.

Stecyk wrote:
Your comment above with regard to color correcting with d&b reminded me of something I read in Gry Garness's ebook.

Page 15, digital RETOUCHING for FASHION, BEAUTY & PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY
photoshop CS5
Part 2 Skin Retouching
By Gry Garness
http://www.grygarness.com/photoshop/e-b … -books.htm


I am not positive that this information directly relates to your comments Michael about color correction.

However, I hadn't seen the color sampling before when dodging and burning. Perhaps some others hadn't either. So I thought I would mention it in case others find color sampling helpful.

Thanks, I've heard of this before and experimented with a little bit but maybe I should spend more time with it. Now this may not apply to you but in my personal experience I've noticed d&b newbies tend to dodge waaaay more than burn when they're first starting out, which is something to be careful of. When it comes to carving, dodging is more often used to remove depth by reducing the shadows than to add highlights, while burning is more frequently used to add depth. This is why lots of d&b newbies work looks really flat and bright. Again, not saying this is you, just be aware of this newbie tendency.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
But you already know that
x

Aww you're too cute

Michael C Pearson wrote:

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
But you already know that
x

Aww you're too cute

Michael C Pearson wrote:

Here in a makeup contour guide from Kevin Aucoin you can see the general controuring areas, but much less thought goes into contouring like this compared to "carving". The makeup artist doesn't have to think about the direction of light and creating form that isn't there.

Ronald Nyein Zaw Tan wrote:
HEEEEYYYY!!!

You know what they say...three's a party. Where's my invitation? HAHA. :-P

I thought the saying was "three's a crowd." I'll ravage you next, ladies first!

Michael C Pearson wrote:

I thought the saying was "three's a crowd." I'll ravage you next, ladies first!

Michael C Pearson wrote:
Thanks, I've heard of this before and experimented with a little bit but maybe I should spend more time with it. Now this may not apply to you but in my personal experience I've noticed d&b newbies tend to dodge waaaay more than burn when they're first starting out, which is something to be careful of. When it comes to carving, dodging is more often used to remove depth by reducing the shadows then to add highlights, while burning is more frequently used to add depth. This is why lots of d&b newbies work looks really flat and bright. Again, not saying this is you, just be aware of this newbie tendency.

Thank you for responding to my post and for the heads up. With regard to d&b and retouching in general, I am pre-newbie, so I appreciate your hints for when I put theory into practice. There never seems to be enough time to pursue everything. However, I do like following the posts in this forum. Many of you are generous with sharing your knowledge. Again, thanks.

Michael C Pearson wrote:
When it comes to carving, dodging is more often used to remove depth by reducing the shadows than to add highlights, while burning is more frequently used to add depth. This is why lots of d&b newbies work looks really flat and bright.

Great point...I'm pretty certain I'm guilty of too much dodge and not enough burn.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
I see the thread has matured, thanks to some individuals. Especially Michael C. Pearson. Looking forward to see where it goes from here. And thanks Ronald for having faith in it.

Michael C Pearson wrote:
That behaivor of mentally "abstracting" the forms so they are no longer seeing a nose but a pattern of highlights and shadows isn't something that comes naturally to people. It's definitely something that most people I've taught have to learn (and even after teaching them it's still hard for them to do). Once you "get it," then it's super easy and it's hard to imagine other people not being able to think like that, which is probably why it sounds super-obvious to you.

For those who haven't developed this ability, here are some methods that you can use to teach your brain (these seem crazy, but they work):
• blind contour drawings (draw an object in front of you without looking at the paper)
• draw an upside down image
• draw the "negative space" of an object instead of the actual object
Anything that gives your... "left brain" (I hesitate to say "left brain" as I've been hearing that theory is bullshit lately) a hard time will help you to develop this disconnect between the values and the "meaning" behind them. Sorry, this is tough to explain.

Good steps, will remember these and possibly "steal"/borrow them for when someone asks again.

But, I am well aware of the fact that this doesn't come natural to most people. Hence the comment about this possibly being the hardest part to learn for any retoucher.
But once you do, you finally SEE what was meant before.

Michael C Pearson wrote:
Appreciate the anatomy book suggestions, I'll check them out. Btw, are you a doctor? Just curious.

No, I quit long before I was close of becoming a doctor. Didn't enjoy it enough.
Did take me quite a few years before I had the guts to make  that decision, though.

There are a few retoucher here on MM I know of who actually are physician/surgeons. Wonder what their opinion on all this is.

Michael C Pearson wrote:
Interesting point. I guess it depends on how you define "painting." In this case of the last example and this new example, I wasn't just contouring the nose. A contour generally isn't meant to be viewed from a particular angle, and I think that's the main difference between contour work and "carving." To change the shape of the form to something that isn't there, first you have to build the structure in your mind or draw it on an overlay on the nose, then you have to think about the form of the nose/direction the light will hit/how the light will illuminate the form of the nose, then you have to use your technical understanding of Photoshop to carry it out in a way that reads as realistic (not sure I succeeded in that regard this time). The steps described is very close to the steps that an artist goes through when painting.

Contouring on the other hand isn't that anal. It's more loose, more subtle. It's meant to be viewed from all kinds of directions. The makeup artist is much less concerned about the way the light describes the form (I can say this because I'm a certified makeup artist), and more about the form in an ambient-light kind of way.

I wouldn't say "carving" is exactly the same as painting, but it's much more like painting than makeup contouring. 


Here I painted a nose and I carved a nose. During both I flexed the same artist muscles in my brain.


Here in a makeup contour guide from Kevin Aucoin you can see the general controuring areas, but much less thought goes into contouring like this compared to "carving". The makeup artist doesn't have to think about the direction of light and creating form that isn't there.

Nice explanation and it seems to be a matter of definition again, as always
But I can tell that you are a far better painter/illustrator than I am.

Funny how those off topic talks can sometimes become the most valuable.

nebulaoperator wrote:
Hi,

Lovely post coming and coming back to it. Was about to post a sample of carving but but stopped just a second before I saw a sample of make up contouring made by Michael. In terms of retouching is there a difference between carving and contouring?  So before I posted my sample I took precaution to ask fellows retouches

I discussed the differences in this post, and just to be clear that image was made by the late Kevin Aucoin.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
To nitpick, I'm not sure I agree with the brightening under the cheekbone bit above the 5 o'clock shadow and angle of the jaw.

It looks quite good, though.



I spent some time wondering if the zygomatic arch (where the cheekbone hooks around to meet the ear) should be aiming more for the back corner of the sideburn than the front, but it seems unchanged from the original, so must be right as is.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
You could think of painting as frequency separation in reverse. Then carving is painting, except you are given the first level or two and, jumping in 'already in progress,' you finish it.

Exactly! That`s how I get people to understand FS

nebulaoperator wrote:
hi Ron,

    My carving is based on my observations so far and a little bit of knowledge which is quiet modest. Most of the things I picked up here at MM. Still every time when I do carving, contouring I stop for a while browse some profiles and follow the light and shadow lines, look for the changes in after image.         
  While I d&B I also carve but not too much to a point I think I confident what I do. One's all the preparation is done and image just about to be finished I start my final carving. I use 50% grey for this purpose, I would say quiet a few of them. I paint light and shadows enhance features that I want to stand out trying to follow the natural flow of light(hope I do so) then I use a thick strokes of light and shadow strokes like on my sample and blur them.It happened in the past that I tend to over do.It looks rather fake after. So I rather bit by bit.
   This is only a small illustration how I do it. Why I chosen 50% grey and blur? because I want to to make smoother transition in the gradient.

When I started redoing my book 5 years ago, I made each image as you did above. Even last year I hacked some images with too much. The agencies DO NOT like it.

In retro respect , it was just way too much. If you take it that far it's like someone punched a pretty girl in the face.

Okay if you insist on the term , carving is something that has to at least correspond to the light. It is also something that should be subtle, or at least where used. What you posted to me is DB, and too much. Some of the examples posted take the DB first to a lower density ( darker) then is improved with this so called carving.

I said above, that the saturation is very noticeable when you've gone too far, and it's something that leaps out and screams unnatural.
Since this thread is looking for subtle but beautiful improvements, the above conditions insist there are limits to be very aware of.

Neil Snape wrote:
When I started redoing my book 5 years ago, I made each image as you did above. Even last year I hacked some images with too much. The agencies DO NOT like it.

In retro respect , it was just way too much. If you take it that far it's like someone punched a pretty girl in the face.

Okay if you insist on the term , carving is something that has to at least correspond to the light. It is also something that should be subtle, or at least where used. What you posted to me is DB, and too much. Some of the examples posted take the DB first to a lower density ( darker) then is improved with this so called carving.

I said above, that the saturation is very noticeable when you've gone too far, and it's something that leaps out and screams unnatural.
Since this thread is looking for subtle but beautiful improvements, the above conditions insist there are limits to be very aware of.

Hi Neil,

Thanks for the notes. Even while I was uploading the sample I noticed that saturation is gone too far it began to look unnatural. Thanks for pointing that to me.
Will you correct me if I am wrong. So is the enhancement of the features and altering them not  carving any more. Like nose bridge, chin, cheek etc that have been intensified in my sample.
Does it looks so over done to your eye even at 100% view ?
Thanks

Iliana Valeva wrote:
I'm not  fan of the carving it's very easy to go over. IMO if the image has great lighting you don't need carving. Yeah you could touch here and there a little but that's all.

nebulaoperator wrote:
...Lanenga- I might get Grey's Anatomy eventually.

I meant of course Gray's Anatomy.

That's this one


and NOT this one


but you might be better off getting an anatomy book for artists.

Lanenga wrote:
and NOT this one

I did learnt a lot about anatomy from http://tinyurl.com/7s5byoc

Lanenga wrote:
but you might be better of getting an anatomy book for artists.

Do you have link for this one?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

I did learnt a lot about anatomy from http://tinyurl.com/7s5byoc

1472 wrote:
wow thank you all & esp ron tan for starting this thread

Mateusz Musielak wrote:
I've just printed off this whole thread. It's worth to be treated as a book.

Damn guys, you rock.