Abbie

[DGMPhotography]

The first from my shoot with Abbie. C&C appreciated.



Are the flyaway hairs okay? I normally like to get rid of them, but I'm trying to make myself not over-edit.

And here's a wider cropped version (sized for Instagram).

 

[smoke665]

Attractive young lady, and overall nice image. Commenting on personal opinions and not as a professional, I find the hair a mess (nothing you did) this might be her style but you'd spend hours trying to clone out all the fly away hair. If you shoot her again, you might suggest a less frizzy hair style. I'd also like a little more detail on the upper part of the eye. The eye brow/forehead is shading some pretty eyes. Lastly on a slightly technical note, I find the multiple skin tone/textures putting my OCD on alert. You have one tone/texture on the forehead, another on the cheeks and chin, and yet another on the chest area. I'd think smoothing all or none would be a better approach in her case.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Attractive young lady, and overall nice image. Commenting on personal opinions and not as a professional, I find the hair a mess (nothing you did) this might be her style but you'd spend hours trying to clone out all the fly away hair. If you shoot her again, you might suggest a less frizzy hair style. I'd also like a little more detail on the upper part of the eye. The eye brow/forehead is shading some pretty eyes. Lastly on a slightly technical note, I find the multiple skin tone/textures putting my OCD on alert. You have one tone/texture on the forehead, another on the cheeks and chin, and yet another on the chest area. I'd think smoothing all or none would be a better approach in her case.

Thanks for the feedback. She said she got her sunken eye sockets from her dad haha. It was a bit of a challenge in that area.

As for the skin, the only real smoothing I did was on her forehead, and that was only because she had a lot of acne up there. I'm gonna have to figure something out to make it all more consistent.

 

[smoke665]

I'm gonna have to figure something out to make it all more consistent.

When you do, please re-post along with directions, because I'd like to know how you handle it. I've done some smoothing on orchids to get a creamy smooth look with the Smudge Tool, but I've always struggled with skin.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I'm gonna have to figure something out to make it all more consistent.

When you do, please re-post along with directions, because I'd like to know how you handle it. I've done some smoothing on orchids to get a creamy smooth look with the Smudge Tool, but I've always struggled with skin.

Well with skin it's a lot of healing brush and clone tool, and a technique called frequency separation (though I use that sparingly). I think it would just be a matter of me smoothing everything else a little more, and bringing a little more texture back in the forehead.

 

[smoke665]

Well with skin it's a lot of healing brush and clone tool, and a technique called frequency separation (though I use that sparingly).

Familiar with and used all of these. In the case of Orchid petals I mentioned, even frequency separation wasn't cutting it. Tried playing around with the smudge tool out of frustration, and surprised at well it worked. With really rough surfaces, the smudge tool moves pixels around slightly to even out the highs and lows, without totally demolishing the texture. In PS duplicate a layer, apply the smudge, then adjust your transparency to suit. Here's a snip of the flower I talked about after the smudge/color/transparency adjustment. Just a thought.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Well with skin it's a lot of healing brush and clone tool, and a technique called frequency separation (though I use that sparingly).

Familiar with and used all of these. In the case of Orchid petals I mentioned, even frequency separation wasn't cutting it. Tried playing around with the smudge tool out of frustration, and surprised at well it worked. With really rough surfaces, the smudge tool moves pixels around slightly to even out the highs and lows, without totally demolishing the texture. In PS duplicate a layer, apply the smudge, then adjust your transparency to suit. Here's a snip of the flower I talked about after the smudge/color/transparency adjustment. Just a thought.

View attachment 138238

Not a bad idea!

 

[DanOstergren]

I don't feel like the light is very flattering to her eyes. A white reflector from below would help fill the eye sockets in, and make her brow less overbearing. The skin is a bit weird looking; there's texture everywhere but her forehead, which looks very noticeably edited. I agree withe smoke; you can't just edit one area and expect it to blend in with the rest. Just like with good makeup technique, it all has to have a natural blend with the rest of the face and body.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I don't feel like the light is very flattering to her eyes. A white reflector from below would help fill the eye sockets in, and make her brow less overbearing. The skin is a bit weird looking; there's texture everywhere but her forehead, which looks very noticeably edited. I agree withe smoke; you can't just edit one area and expect it to blend in with the rest. Just like with good makeup technique, it all has to have a natural blend with the rest of the face and body.

White reflector... not a bad idea.

 

[smoke665]

Not a bad idea

Took the liberty of trying the smudge tool out of curiosity, on the JPEG of your model. I think it will work better on the raw file, but even on the JPEG it was pretty radical. I'm anxious to try it on my next serious portrait touch up. The first snip is an enlarged section from her right cheek, untouched.

The second was an enlarged snip from the left cheek after using the smudge tool on a new layer with 50% opacity. At 50% you still get some of the underlying texture of the skin, so it doesn't look painted on.

The thing I like about the smudge tool vs frequency separations is when there's radical softening required it seemed like I was getting a little halo with FS. With the smudge tool, adjust your brush to a very soft edge when you work the lines and transitions.

 

[DanOstergren]

Not a bad idea

Took the liberty of trying the smudge tool out of curiosity, on the JPEG of your model. I think it will work better on the raw file, but even on the JPEG it was pretty radical. I'm anxious to try it on my next serious portrait touch up. The first snip is an enlarged section from her right cheek, untouched.
View attachment 138248

The second was an enlarged snip from the left cheek after using the smudge tool on a new layer with 50% opacity. At 50% you still get some of the underlying texture of the skin, so it doesn't look painted on.

View attachment 138249

The thing I like about the smudge tool vs frequency separations is when there's radical softening required it seemed like I was getting a little halo with FS. With the smudge tool, adjust your brush to a very soft edge when you work the lines and transitions.

I think you would get better results with dodging and burning. You retain more detail because you aren't blurring anything.

 

[smoke665]

I think you would get better results with dodging and burning. You retain more detail

It would be hard to argue with any of your technical skills, your work is fantastic. Just found the Smudge tool to be helpful for me in leveling out surfaces that have a lot of uneven Imperfections (pores, acne, wrinkles) things that would catch shadows. By appling on a new layer, then using opacity slider you can retain as much or little of the surface detail as you want.

 

[DanOstergren]

I think you would get better results with dodging and burning. You retain more detail

It would be hard to argue with any of your technical skills, your work is fantastic. Just found the Smudge tool to be helpful for me in leveling out surfaces that have a lot of uneven Imperfections (pores, acne, wrinkles) things that would catch shadows. By appling on a new layer, then using opacity slider you can retain as much or little of the surface detail as you want.

There's a hundred ways to do the same thing is PS. Always do what works best for you, and always use non-destructive methods.

 

[smoke665]

There's a hundred ways to do the same thing is PS. Always do what works best for you, and always use non-destructive methods.

Yup, I use LR more than PS, but when more manipulation is required PS still holds a lot of tools.

 

[DanOstergren]

There's a hundred ways to do the same thing is PS. Always do what works best for you, and always use non-destructive methods.

Yup, I use LR more than PS, but when more manipulation is required PS still holds a lot of tools.

I almost never use lightroom. I only use it for making image proofs for clients. ACR and Photoshop are what I use 99% of the time.