Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Darkroom > Retouching & Repairing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 16th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,166
Default

Hi, Asher,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Well Ray,

We are not going to cross swords, but let me tell you my perspective. There's skin; babies skin, a whore's skin, a virgin's skin, acne skin, aged skin leather, the weathered leathery skin of saliors, gardeners, the homeless, Irish poets and highwaymen. As artists we can document them exactly as they are or as we romanticise their conditon.
Then there's the recently infamous matter of ethnic skin and its beautification in post processing.

Carla is Cherokee, but we find that her skin is someplace between African American (Charlize Theron) and Pacific Islander (Nicole Kidman). We hardly know which sector of the ColorRight MAX to use.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old December 21st, 2008, 07:54 PM
David Thomasson David Thomasson is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meghan Robinson View Post
i used the spot healing tool, some cloning, some very light airbrushing on a low opacity, and ummm. i think thats about it, just went very slowly, and thoroughly
I did this with Imagenomic Portraiture after touching out a few of the larger blemishes with the clone stamp. Took about two minutes.

__________________
David
RadiantPics.com
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old December 21st, 2008, 10:09 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Thomasson View Post
I did this with Imagenomic Portraiture after touching out a few of the larger blemishes with the clone stamp. Took about two minutes.
Wow! .
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old April 21st, 2010, 01:48 AM
sherief mohamed sherief mohamed is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: cairo
Posts: 25
Default

nyschulte .. there is a better filters than this one ..

i think filter works well with old peoples skin .. fast retouching .. peoples who doesnt prefer alot of smoothing ... but i think for professional work the hand is the only way to retouch
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old June 27th, 2010, 05:59 AM
Sandrine Bascouert Sandrine Bascouert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brighton (UK)
Posts: 991
Default

Maybe it has nothing to do with that, but, when I used to do some studio shots, mainly food and objects, we absolutely wanted to get rid of what we called the "return" (don't know the word in English, simply made the translation) of the background color on the light areas/drop shadows of the main subject. At that time - no PS- we tried to avoid them when shooting, and cannot achieve it completely. Now, with digital retouching, sounds easy, but it's getting less realistic ; as for myself I got used to see these casts and they become part of the picture- as long as they are quite subtle. If you eliminate completely, I think it's getting weird. What do you think?
__________________
Sandrine: the genuine "5th wheel of the wagon". Second to none! Established 1970.
website
C&C always welcome!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old June 27th, 2010, 06:05 AM
Sandrine Bascouert Sandrine Bascouert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brighton (UK)
Posts: 991
Default

oups wanted to reply to this:
Quote:
I guess this opens up the whole "correct" skin color debate. As an example I recently shot a couple with their new baby in natural light. There was a lot of green in the shadows due to the trees and grass outside the window reflecting green light into the room.

I removed the green cast which gave a more pleasing skin tone, but one which was not accurate to the scene shot.

having said all that I would love pointers on skin tone workflow as well. Don't really have any of my own unfortunately.
at the beginning of the thread sorry for that!
__________________
Sandrine: the genuine "5th wheel of the wagon". Second to none! Established 1970.
website
C&C always welcome!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old June 27th, 2010, 11:45 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,600
Default

Sandrine,

Glad to see this thread revisited. "Return" of other lights. in the French might be "spill" in the English terminology.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old June 27th, 2010, 11:49 AM
Sandrine Bascouert Sandrine Bascouert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brighton (UK)
Posts: 991
Default

Thanks, time to upgrade my dictionary...
__________________
Sandrine: the genuine "5th wheel of the wagon". Second to none! Established 1970.
website
C&C always welcome!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old September 13th, 2010, 12:58 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandrine Bascouert View Post
Maybe it has nothing to do with that, but, when I used to do some studio shots, mainly food and objects, we absolutely wanted to get rid of what we called the "return" (don't know the word in English, simply made the translation) of the background color on the light areas/drop shadows of the main subject. At that time - no PS- we tried to avoid them when shooting, and cannot achieve it completely. Now, with digital retouching, sounds easy, but it's getting less realistic ; as for myself I got used to see these casts and they become part of the picture- as long as they are quite subtle. If you eliminate completely, I think it's getting weird. What do you think?
Sandrine,

This is an apt topic today! What is you practice today to prevent, so called, spill or "return". Interesting that they are mostly in the shadows from the main light and that's now obviously correct! I hadn't thought of that before.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old September 13th, 2010, 10:48 AM
Sandrine Bascouert Sandrine Bascouert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brighton (UK)
Posts: 991
Default

I usually make a new layer with simply paint in the shadows with some color picked in the background, with opacity set at 5%ish (I found that it's especially noticeable on the hair eg: if you are standing under a tree there might be a very slight cast of green in your hair shadows, more likely if you are brunette) I absolutely don't know if I'm right, it's just the way I feel it. Depending on the background for studio pictures, and the background, the immediate surroundings and the quality of light for the rest.
__________________
Sandrine: the genuine "5th wheel of the wagon". Second to none! Established 1970.
website
C&C always welcome!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old September 13th, 2010, 10:52 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandrine Bascouert View Post
I usually make a new layer with simply paint in the shadows with some color picked in the background, with opacity set at 5%ish (I found that it's especially noticeable on the hair eg: if you are standing under a tree there might be a very slight cast of green in your hair shadows, more likely if you are brunette) I absolutely don't know if I'm right, it's just the way I feel it. Depending on the background for studio pictures, and the background, the immediate surroundings and the quality of light for the rest.
Sandrine,

I thought that the color in the shadows is coming from light from the background in the first place. So adding more would increase that color. Don't we need to neutralize it? an example might help.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old September 13th, 2010, 05:14 PM
Sandrine Bascouert Sandrine Bascouert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brighton (UK)
Posts: 991
Default

I'll try to post one..What I said is that retouchers usually neutralize it so turn all things neutral...That what seemed odd to me. If you look at old 80's fashion photographs in open air you'll have that feeling that the background is real, and I thought that (surely I'm wrong) was because of the spill that was slightly present. It's the same as for example for cookware packshots where whenever you put a neutral gray background and filter the light or whatever I could possibly have been inventing there would always been that cast - only a few photons of color. One of my first job in photography was in a chef's magazine, as an assistant. The photographer used to turn on a small torch light from several meters away, just to add that fake sunlight spill and make the dishes more appealing, this is something that I've learned.
__________________
Sandrine: the genuine "5th wheel of the wagon". Second to none! Established 1970.
website
C&C always welcome!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old September 14th, 2010, 02:50 AM
Sandrine Bascouert Sandrine Bascouert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brighton (UK)
Posts: 991
Default

I forgot to delever an essential information...I do that (adding color)whenever I have to change the background in a comp. Of course there no need to add a cast if the shooting already contains the proper background with the spill...(and sometimes of course, in that case I got to reduce the spill) I hope it makes more sense :-)
__________________
Sandrine: the genuine "5th wheel of the wagon". Second to none! Established 1970.
website
C&C always welcome!

Last edited by Sandrine Bascouert; September 14th, 2010 at 06:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old September 14th, 2010, 03:06 AM
Joachim Bolte Joachim Bolte is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 151
Default

I'd have to look it up, but I thought that a shadow consists of the complementary color of the light that is throwing the shadow, combined with the caustic light reflected from the object that is making the shadow. In the paintings of impressionist painters like Renoir, Cezanne and Monet you can see the application of this theory.

yellowish sunlight will cause a shadow with a bit violet in it. When the shadow is made by a red object, the parts of the shadow closest to the object will also have a bit of red in them. It's bound to be a very, very faint hint of color, just 'off-gray'.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old September 14th, 2010, 03:14 AM
Sandrine Bascouert Sandrine Bascouert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brighton (UK)
Posts: 991
Default




Brooke shields 1981, I think theres a spill of the orange shirt on the cheek.



Kelly le brock 1985 The red turban/dress reflects on the white wall



Pete Shelley 1981, there's spills everywhere I cannot count them..

All these images are copyrighted


There's no way one of these images could appear like that nowadays...I'm not talking about the quality of the reproduction (I myself owned Shelley's record and the cover was correctly printed)
maybe the scanner used to digitalize these images might have introduced a color but not selectively :-)
__________________
Sandrine: the genuine "5th wheel of the wagon". Second to none! Established 1970.
website
C&C always welcome!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old September 14th, 2010, 03:33 AM
Sandrine Bascouert Sandrine Bascouert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brighton (UK)
Posts: 991
Default

Here's the today's vanity fair images
The first one is Annie Lebowitz..


Too neutral to me, looks a bit fake, I don't know why...








apart from the smooth color cast applied consistently to the picture...
__________________
Sandrine: the genuine "5th wheel of the wagon". Second to none! Established 1970.
website
C&C always welcome!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old September 14th, 2010, 08:21 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandrine Bascouert View Post
Here's the today's vanity fair images
The first one is Annie Lebowitz..


Too neutral to me, looks a bit fake, I don't know why...








apart from the smooth color cast applied consistently to the picture...
Sandrine,

You're quite right!

From now on, I'll think of that too! As folk get more successful, they use retouchers more and more who build beautiful bodies and perfectly aligned clothes. The mistake, I see is that the b.g. has to show the presence of the objects, materials and people within as lit by the lighting in the space. Otherwise we get to sterile. I have my pictures for printing brochures and magazine advertisements cut out by retouchers routinely now. Care is taken with the shadows. We need to have the color of the shadows in a separate layer to use for composition in the new background.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old September 15th, 2010, 09:19 PM
John Kirby John Kirby is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36
Default Subtlety is paramount

Sandrine and Asher,

Interesting to have this thread re-booted. With contemporary digital retouching we'd probably remove most of the spills from the Peter Shelley shot in Sandrine's post, from a standpoint of removing distractions or compositional improvement. Leaving some of them behind (perhaps toned down in a layer mask) would still help to tie the multitude of elements together, giving a near subliminal boost to the "reality" of the shot.
Digital capture has given us so much control. It's far too easy to overstep the line where the reality teeters; we've all looked at countless digitally manipulated shots feeling that they're not quite right and we can't put a finger on the reason why.
I'm constantly referring back to my original background layer to check for nuances of colour, reflection and shadow as I work on the layers above. It's all a matter of balance, which can be so elusive, regardless of your level of experience.
The old axiom that a well retouched photograph doesn't look as though it has been, is still so true.
It's all still good fun though!

John.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old September 15th, 2010, 11:31 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kirby View Post
I'm constantly referring back to my original background layer to check for nuances of colour, reflection and shadow as I work on the layers above. It's all a matter of balance, which can be so elusive, regardless of your level of experience.
Well John, my way of dealing with that is to take a break after each layer by working on a different picture and then when I return to aim to decrease whatever mathematical effect I've done by as large a percentage as possible. In the end, I always try to bring back, (where structurally possible), some of the original hues, even just 0.5%. This is to preserve some of the original mysterious essence that makes things seem real. Because as you point out:

"The old axiom that a well retouched photograph doesn't look as though it has been, is still so true."

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old September 16th, 2010, 09:27 PM
John Kirby John Kirby is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
"my way of dealing with that is to take a break after each layer by working on a different picture and then when I return to aim to decrease whatever mathematical effect I've done by as large a percentage as possible."
Good point Asher. Walking away and coming back with fresh eyes is a good practice, as is cranking down the effect of whatever you've done. Unfortunately commercial deadlines will often put a dampener on this!
John.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!