Moose wrote:
> I exist only to create pleasure.
Somehow, I knew this about you. :-)
>> 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.
Well, I am a hot tea in the morning and water in the day kinda gal, so I
am with you on that. :-)
> 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.
You may be onto something there.
>
> - 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.
I think it's a mole. Holy Moley?
>
> - The individual acne spots, coarse areas of skin in general and most of
> the freckles, but using natural skin texture, not a gaussian blur.
Using natural skin texture...is this a tool in PS CSx?
>
> - 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.
It works in Internet Explorer, also. At least it works for me, and I
really enjoy that feature.
>
>> 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 have no idea.
>> 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."?
Yep, I have heard that. So, what do you then suggest?
I was ready to scrap PSE1.0 a long time ago, but got a book for
Christmas 2 years ago "the Hidden Power of PhotoShop Elements 2" for
users of PSE1.0 and 2.0. It has a lot of information, and ways to coax
PSE1.0 and 2.0 to do things it doesn't appear to be able to do. It also
came with a cd of plug-ins, curves, channel mixer, selective color,
layer mask, and more that I can't recall right now. So, that's the
reason I keep plugging along with it.
>> 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!
LOL, I say that to people all the time..."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.
How I feel about my edits on a given image can change hour to hour. I
walk away, come back later in the day, and ask myself what the heck was
I thinking? :-)
>> 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.
Thank you, I will do that.
>
> 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.
And see, there you go again, telling me about things I have no idea
about. :-)
I don't know what applications are color aware and which are not...and
how to tell.
>> , 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
==============================================
|