Candace Lemarr wrote:
> Hooray, I've been Mooseterized!!
> I Love it when you do this.
>
I exist only to create pleasure.
> Do you remember the tv commercials from about 30 years ago or
> so...."we're here at the world famous Tavern on the Green restaurant
> where we've secretly replaced the fresh ground coffee with folgers
> instant crystals"....well, I was "secretly hoping" you'd show me what
> you would change. Thank you!
>
I never liked Folgers ground in the can, let alone instant. Fortunately,
I have transcended coffee.
> I much prefer your final image with the skin tones better and the eyes and
> brows sharpened.
>
Thanks. I'm sometimes frustrated with retouching, but I rather like this
result.
> I don't know why they ended up choosing the image that was so bright,
> there were other options, but at that point I was beyond asking why, and
> just wanting them to be happy, as long as it was something I could also
> live with having people know was my work.
> To be honest, sometimes I think people are so used to getting poor
> photos...used to seeing the plastic skin look, that this is what they
> come to expect and/or think they want.
>
I have a theory, possibly kicked off by John's story about the book
signing photo. Although you did many things to the image as a whole, you
didn't dive in to actually retouch, individually improve/correct, the
things she/they really didn't like.
- The lines and incipient bags under the eyes, leaving only enough
shadow to not look unnatural in the lighting.
- The 'smile dimples' and the strong lines at the corners of the mouth.
- The birth mark (or whatever one calls it) on the cheek.
- The individual acne spots, coarse areas of skin in general and most of
the freckles, but using natural skin texture, not a gaussian blur.
- The lines, insignificant though they may appear to us, in forehead and
neck.
- Dark spot on the bridge of the nose.
- I missed the double chin effect on the lower lip. That should go too.
In Firefox, the original and final version selection boxes are one above
the other, so you can toggle quickly back and forth looking at those
individual areas.
So, the theory goes, they chose the version that most played down those
'flaws', even if it was unnatural in other ways. Better white,
unnatural, featureless skin than all those terrible flaws? Just an idea.
> Moose, you have more knowledge in your little pinky finger about all of this
> stuff than I have forgotten or not comprehended.
>
I tend to notice what I don't know how to do. :-) And it's mostly the
index finger on the mouse hand that does the work.
> Do you use CS3 or CS2 for your retouching?
>
Doesn't matter. I don't remember back past PS 7, but all the tools I
used have been in PS at least since then, I think, or did the healing
brush come with CS?
> I am using (and loving) little ole basic PhotoShop Elements 1.0 I have
> others, but this is my go-to software.
Hmmm. How to put this delicately? Can't. Toss PSE 1(And all PSE unless
the latest has added a LOT) in the bit bucket and move on to tools
suitable to the task at hand. Ever hear than old phrase "When all you
have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."?
> Consequently, when I see or hear what someone is using to make a certain look
> or fix certain issues, I have to try and figure what tool or what process to
> go through in PSE1.0 to get a similar result.
Time for Rehab? Just say no!
> I end up scrapping a lot of projects, but I learn quite a bit in the doing.
>
There are so many more, cooler, more effective things to learn!
> I always enjoy your version of other people's images. Even if I don't
> agree with your version (which is not often)
Thanks! I not uncommonly disagree with my versions. They often go
further than I would end up with on the image if it were my own. I
rather like the idea of finding a limit, which then defines a range of
possibilities and freedom of movement between the original and the
possibly excessive alternative. But then, I often go too far on my own
images, then let them stew for a while and revisit them before deciding
on the final version.
In this particular case, if anything, I think I didn't go far enough
with the individual retouching, at least for my imagined client. I would
work on the bottom of the lower lip and clean up the skin next to and
below her left eye and in the shadow at the bottom of the left cheek.
I'm also uncertain about skin tone and hair color. The revised hair
looks richer to me and the skin tone healthier, so I'm pleased in that
sense - producing something that looks good, without being unnatural. On
the other hand, it would be nice to know what I am starting from.
When purposefully making portraits, it might help to have the subject
hold a color reference in one shot. I like the WhiBal for the black,
neutral gray and white reference and because it is small and easy to
use. But there are lots of others out there. That way, you can get the
WB close before messing with things.
If I were doing serious portrait work, I'd also experiment with a
Macbeath or IT8 target and appropriate software (An IT8 target and
VueScan is only about $100), to get all the tones right, not just
mid-tones. With a color profile for a shoot or studio setup, you skip
all sorts of color accuracy questions. Of course, you need a color aware
application for that to do any good, which PSE is not.
> , I always learn from what you do.
Generally, I do too.
> Thank you for taking the time to play with this image of mine.
>
So thanks for the interesting image to play with. It was an interesting
and enlightening project.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|