What's your general preferences in a candid/lifestyle pictures retouching?

[sergezap]

So, if we don't talk about some specific genres as fashion and beauty, what's your thoughts?
Pictures looks natural and untouched?
Classic "glamour" beautifying?
The harsh truth of life?

Pictures are attention trap.
After:

Before:

 

[Jeff15]

I do not see anything wrong in doing this in PP. In my photography I often enhance the image

 

[hdrcol]

Very nice job! I would have left the mole though.

 

[sergezap]

Thanks for your feedback!
I mean what type of retouching do you prefer: natural look or some kind of magazine cover style?

 

[Jeff15]

In this case, the edit looks much better, in my opinion.............

 

[smoke665]

To me it depends on the end use of the image, the quality of the exposure, and the photographers vison. Most times I already have an idea of how i want the final image to look before I snap the shutter. My lighting and exposure are geared to that end. If I've done a good job here, there's very little processing on the backend. I find that easier to control in studio, my eye for natural light is still developing.

I don't find the overly perfect processed skin look appealing. Each face is unique and has features that identifies it as such.

 

[hdrcol]

In my opinion, less is more.

Thanks for your feedback!
I mean what type of retouching do you prefer: natural look or some kind of magazine cover style?

I always prefer a natural look if it's a casual portrait. Something more elaborate would be ok it's for a headshot or commercial job in which something is else is presented, like as an accesory, garment or line of services.

 

[sergezap]

I think they're both good. I prefer the natural one.

These are unprocessed & processed images, not 2 types of retouching.
In this case my friend/model was definitely selected a retouched one!
With a lot of laugh, looking at before and after.

 

[Fujidave]

I like both, but if I had to pick then it would be the original. A pretty model with a good face and structure too she has, if it`s for a magazine then yes a bit of PP.

 

[dennybeall]

I don't see anything wrong with touching up to achieve the same result that could be achieved with make-up. But to me the subject decides, not me.

 

[texxter]

I think the postprocessing has created an unrealistic, fabricated image of her that has even a different facial bone structure. It is an idealization of her, which I am sure she finds appealing because it has eliminated age and human natural "flaws." I personally prefer a portrait with light processing, one that preserves skin texture and facial structure, but may have some softening of shadows to minimize wrinkles without making them go away, and a bit of sparkle on the eyes. It's akin to what makeup does, as @dennybeall suggested, without being totally smoothed over.

Now if the purpose of the work is not to produce a portrait of her, but to create an idealized illustration of beauty, then the sky is the limit. Advertisers do it all the time creating impossibly perfect skins, hair and eyes to sell products.

 

[Breezy85]

I prefer natural look. When I retouch, I don't normally do anything to a person's skin unless they ask me to. I'm more likely to retouch backgrounds, take out objects that don't need to be there, etc.

 

[chuasam]

Great Edit! The really important thing is what the client wants.
If she prefers the edit..by all means go for it

 

[Cody'sCaptures]

The edit overall looks more appealing although I would refrain from removing anything that's part of her regular appearance. You have removed the freckle on her neck and the natural bump above her lip. If it's not a blemish, wrinkle, or stay hairs it's part of her natural beauty and IMO shouldn't be removed (perhaps diminished slightly).