This is one of my favorite shots I've ever taken. What do you think?

[Turn]

 

[Alpha]

Lighting is great, but she needs more neck, a more natural retouch (particularly better cheek-bone definition and skin texture), and removal of stray hairs from the chest. I also find the upper-chest highlight to be a bit distracting.

Other than that, very nice.

 

[NateWagner]

I agree... it is a nice photo... the main problem is the upper chest area. it doesn't seem to have gotten the same retouching as the arms and face, and the hairs all over it are quite distracting. Other than that though it is nice.

 

[Turn]

Yeah... actually, the right side of her face and her arm are the only thing that was really touched. So apparently the parts that are bad are what i did in post-dang. She had some big pores and a little acne. I wanted to do as little as possible to it. I'll try backing off the softness a bit and repost.

 

[Alex_B]

i like the image if looked at from a distance. but when getting closer, her face looks computer generated.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

I agree with Alex, she looks too fake here. Now, I know people don't find acne or bad pores to be beautiful, but artificial beauty isn't beautiful either. But, I mean, she doesn't look extremely fake or anything like that, haha, so I'm not saying you've butchered this work, at all, because you haven't. It really is a nice photo, and I feel you lit this shot quite well. I just wish her face had the same texture as her arm, her arm looks very smooth, yet natural, which I feel is an absolute necessity for portraiture. Still a nice shot though, I love the composition and it's a shot you should be proud of.

 

[Village Idiot]

how did you do the skin smoothing? What I like to do is do skin smoothing in it's own layer and do it to the max, then cut back the opacity to an acceptable level where it helps with any blotches or rough skin, but not to where it looks fake.

 

[Turn]

how did you do the skin smoothing? What I like to do is do skin smoothing in it's own layer and do it to the max, then cut back the opacity to an acceptable level where it helps with any blotches or rough skin, but not to where it looks fake.

There's a few different ways i do it, but my quick and dirty way (and the way i did this particular time) i created a seperate layer, laid a really absurd surface blur, masked the layer, inverted the mask, and painted in with white at a low brush opacity. Then, like you mentioned, i play with the layer opacity to adjust the overall strength of the treatment. I removed blemishes on the previous layer.

 

[Turn]

Ok so I backed i went back into my "soft" layer and backed to opacity off. Looks a little more natural, eh? Also, there are some tonality differences in this one from the first one i posted, i had to go back to a point before i merged a few layers and i don't have time to go back in and redo that work with the new opacity on the softness (if that makes any sense). I'm supposed to be working on a web project Oh, and i tried to pull that highlight back a bit on the chest, burned her tank top to bring out the ribbing <shrug> i never said i was any good at this.

Also, here is a closer shot of her skin:

 

[Village Idiot]

Much more realistic.

 

[visualpoetry]

Beautiful photograph!
The only negative thing I can say is get rid of those stray hairs on her chest.
Also, I would have made her eye color pop a bit more.

 

[Alpha]

You didn't fix much in the retouch. The skin looks a little less plastic but she still has no cheek bone and her chest is still hairy.

Third time's the charm.

 

[Turn]

You didn't fix much in the retouch. The skin looks a little less plastic but she still has no cheek bone and her chest is still hairy.

Third time's the charm.

I wasn't doing a full retouch, just trying to get the skin more realistic looking (one thing at a time). And as far as the cheekbones go, if she isn't smiling there really isn't a lot there. I mean, how do you say it politely... She isn't a terribly thin girl. I don't know her too well and we didn't have a conversation about altering her appearance to my (or your) taste. She did ask about her skin which was a little broken out. I just want to get her as close as possible to what she really looks like. I mean, removing flyaways and small blemishes is one thing. But, i don't know, going out of my way to make someone look skinnier than they are is a little touchier for me- Am i the only one? If someone asks me specifically (which I've had happen a lot) I'll bring in their waist or their double chin, etc...but if they don't, i know (assume) they think "he sat down at his computer and looking at the files decided i was too fat". I don't want people to think that. I could stand to lose a few myself

Here's one that, other than bumping the exposure +1, is right out of the camera. I'm really trying to get it right in the camera. Eh.

**Yes, that is my sync cable by her leg running to the light behind her. The softbox to my right wasn't triggering the optical slave on the one behind her and i had to switch it up.

 

[Alpha]

I'm not suggesting that you make her thinner. Just give her a cheek bone. For whatever reason, this photo makes her cheek look concave. If her cheek is concave in real life then that's one thing. Otherwise, fix it. You can rebuild the cheek structure without using the liquify tool, if that's the line you're drawing in the sand.

 

[Turn]

I'm not suggesting that you make her thinner. Just give her a cheek bone. For whatever reason, this photo makes her cheek look concave. If her cheek is concave in real life then that's one thing. Otherwise, fix it. You can rebuild the cheek structure without using the liquify tool, if that's the line you're drawing in the sand.

Hmmm. I can see what you mean now that you put it that way- how would you do it? Feel free to edit the photo, i wouldn't really know how to tackle that.