Before and After retouching, check this!

[action junkie]

Has anybody seen this link?

http://glennferon.com/portfolio1/index.html

[Matt Grunau]

Holy cow! That is amazing.

[Blaine]

I just goes to show you that you can no longer believe what you see.:cool:

[seejay1031]

That was... educational.

[Sacksnack]

Conclusion...Halle Berry is hot even without re-touching. And the girl in the second pic reminds me of my future girlfriend that I haven't met yet.

[videoav]

They Seem Very Fake After Being Re-touched

[bdt09]

wow insane.........so they really are human

[Isaac_Brody]

That is creepy. I like a lot of the before photos better.

[surf]

I like things like this

[Jim Kilgour]

The trouble is, they're obviously retouched, much too flat and cartoony.

In good work, it shouldn't be noticable.

[Slimothy]

They look fake. They're very obviously re-touched. As Jim said, they look almost like they were painted in the first place.

[safarijoe]

Looks good to me!

[vidled]

Actually I think they are quite well done also. He seems to know his stuff.
They are certainly what most magazine covers show. The fact that he puts the before/after in a hover-over type way is not only very neat and clever, but it of course makes us immediately identify the "unnatural" look. And that's the look we seem to crave according to the number crunchers at them glossy magazines, and they ought to know.

[adam powell]

he likes big butts and he cannot lie.

[MattC]

I do quite a bit of this work. When I get back to my studio I'll post some board appropriate examples. I'll also post a site for a celebrity retoucher that does AMAZING work.

The problem of the fake vs. real thing is for a while fake (or more fake) has been "in" when it comes to modern glamour photography. If that's what the client wants, then that's what you do. Some folks like the MAXIM/Playboy look others don't. But virtually every photo you see published has been retouched, it's just a matter of degree. Also a lot of the time you're working to deadline or there isn't much time/budget. I've spent two days retouching one photo. Other times I've had two hours. It's hard to get a two day result in two hours....

EDIT: It also depends a great deal on what you start with. If I shoot a beautiful young model with clear skin and professionally applied makeup for camera (airbrushed foundation, etc.) and I light her correctly, then I can retouch her in an very short amount of time and she wont look plastic. She'll look flawless, but she wont look plastic. However, if you're shooting an "aspiring model" for her portfolio and she doesn't have flawless skin and her makeup is not satisfactory, or if it's an older woman who want to look 15 years younger.... Well the more you have to do, the more plastic they're going to look...

[MattC]

Here's a before and after example of a portrait. I'll post more as I dig them out.

Before:

http://www.birthofthecool.com/images/girls/FlorB4.jpg

After:

http://www.birthofthecool.com/images/girls/Flora.jpg

[MattC]

Before:

http://www.birthofthecool.com/images/girls/whistleB4.jpg

After:

http://www.birthofthecool.com/images/girls/Whistle.jpg

[TajJackson]

Great work mattC.. I always wondered though.... How much do you charge for this type of retouching work. I know it depends on the client, but like for the two above examples. Do you charge hourly or a flat rate?
Thanks in advance.

[MattC]

That's a tough question to answer. If it's a one off for a client it could be billed hourly if everything else was being billed that way and itemized. More often then not, you're charging a flat rate and these days the clients expect more for less. They seem to think that "digital" makes everything "easy".... Honestly, the move to digital has, in certain respects, made things more work intensive per dollar earned then film...

Often times you're shooting on spec. If this is the case, you know what the magazine/publication pays per image and it's up to you how much work you want to do - of course they may not accept your images either....

If the retouching is being done for another photographer, or for a model who feels her photographs need retouching, I generally would quote a flat rate per image and the rate would depend on the image. If there were a slew of them, I might quote an hourly. The problem with the hourly is, if you're getting credited as the photog you want your best images out there. However a model/client may only want to spend so much. So do you do half a job, because they put a cap on your time, and have bad images out there? Or do you do them all good because you know your rep is on the line? See where I'm going with this?

Matt

[TajJackson]

Yes.. I do.. Thanks for the quick reply.
I have a friend of a friend who shoots a lot of different people for glamour shots. She use to retouch them herself, however she doesn't have the time anymore. I offered to do the retouching for her but didn't know what to charge her. Of course, these are shots of normal people (non models) who just want nice glamour pictures of themselves. I will post some of my work as well..

[TajJackson]

http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/5650/evebefore6mg.jpg

http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/4186/eveafter3ga.jpg

[TajJackson]

Added the top for a magazine cover.. The bare skin was considered too risky. I hope this isn't considered pornographic for this board. If it is I will remove instantly.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/5742/notopbefore3fa.jpg

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2659/notopafter6zz.jpg

[vidled]

Yeah, Matt,
that is nice work also.
Like I mentioned earlier, for what this is for (especially the original link) this is actually good work, and quite well executed. It matters little if we personally think it "looks plastic". It sells product, and is what the client wants.

And TajJackson, I must admit I had to check the IMAGE PROPERTIES to see which was before and which was after. AND I got it wrong! Ouch, I like the first one better (except for teeth color). Just a personal opinion, sorry. (This in reference to your first example, not the second one, which i just saw after i posted this.)

[MattC]

NICE JOB on adding the top. I think we're ok with this. Much of what I've done I could never post - LOL!

I also like the job you did on the first one - but don't forget the hands!

[MattC]

And TajJackson, I must admit I had to check the IMAGE PROPERTIES to see which was before and which was after. AND I got it wrong! Ouch, I like the first one better (except for teeth color). Just a personal opinion, sorry.

I assume the second photo was the "after", no?

[TajJackson]

Yes the second one was the after...lol
Good point about the hands....got lazy...hehehe

[vidled]

Aye, but I think the second goes too far into the blueish hue, especially given the clothing and the background. I see some wrinkle removal on closer inspection, but have to say that overall i prefer the first one. Again, except for the teeth.

[MattC]

I think the second one would have been more pleasing if you warm the skin tones. Try adding a curves adjustment layer (or simply duplicating the layer and adding a warming filter) and then hide it with a layer mask. Then pain the warm skin tone back in.

[vidled]

I think the second one would have been more pleasing if you warm the skin tones.

Ah, yes, maybe that's what I thought was slightly off. I think it's very "cold" at the moment.

[seejay1031]

The top add was nice, but made the pose look odd. If I didn't know that the top was added I'd wonder why she was grabbing her boob.

[TajJackson]

You guys were right about the image feeling "cold". Serves me right for using Photoshop's Auto Levels and Auto Color. I added some warmth back into the image.

Before
http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/4186/eveafter3ga.jpg

and After...
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/3750/eveafter3cb.jpg

PS. Still got to work on those hands....

[vidled]

taj: VERY nice!!
Very cool that you took the contructive critique so well, and implemented it right away! I like that new AFTER pic; well done!!!

[TajJackson]

Thanks for the help everyone...

[MattC]

That is nice Taj, but I'd still like to see you do it one more time, this time keeping the cool tone you first created, everywhere except her skin. You might warm it just a tad so that the white t-shirt is actually white, but other than that leave it how you had it. I'm not saying this will be the "right" way, really there is no right way, but it will be interesting for you, and us, to see the three different examples.

Matt

[Justin_Kirch]

wow, i wish i had photoshop so i could work on my skills. you guys are pretty good. it's amazing i think, because it's not really the photographer that makes the model look good, it's really the photoshop artist. atleast, in the professional world it seems this way.

[vidled]

...because it's not really the photographer that makes the model look good, it's really the photoshop artist

Well, NOT quite, in the examples shown here the images were VERY good to start with. Look at Matt's pics!! The saying goes: crap in, crap out!
But yeah, they sure can be improved a lot!

[MattC]

Actually, in the "professional world" ps plays a role, but not a very big one.

I'll give you an example, everyone thinks the photos in Playboy (the monthly magazine) are heavily retouched - they aren't. In fact, most of the time there is very little to no retouching at all.

Here's the "trick"....

You get a pool of applicants in the thousands (about 20,000 per month). From there you pick the one with the most flawless skin imaginable. You bring her in about three months prior to the shoot and you put her on a strict regimen of diet, exercise, tanning, and skin care.

When it comes to the shoot, bring in the best makeup artist and they work on her for a couple hours, quite literally airbrushing her. They'll airbrush on the foundation (silicon based to fill) they'll airbrush on the base and the rest of the basic makeup. Then they'll carefully craft the remaining makeup.

Then comes the lighting. For Playboy it's very formulaic, but get this, for each photo the use between 20 and 40 lights. That's 20 to 40 strobes (maybe a few hotlights thrown in) for, essentially, a single portrait.... Think about that....

Go through all that and then tell me how much airbrushing needs to be done....

And it's not just Playboy, ANY beauty model (makeup ads, hair ads) tend to be pretty flawless. Runway, not so much.

As vidled said, garbage in, garbage out...

[im.thatoneguy]

Adjusting the color temperature definitely helped.

However, I think the skin is a bit too yellow now.

Also, personal preference on this, but I would burn or dodge the hair a bit. The value/color is too similar to her skin color.

If you haven't submitted your Bikini add picture, you need to add a shadow under her hand and sculpt the lighting a bit more. It all looks kind of flat and cut-out right now.

[g0ldenb0y55]

MattC,
Awesome job on the retouching! How about a little tutorial for us beginners! :)

[MattC]

Sure, but that'll take time to do. I'll also recommend some books when I get home.

Tell you what. Go get a photo you would like to "galmourize" and post it here. Then we'll look at it and analyze it, and I'll walk you through how I would do it step by step. We'll all post examples along the way as well as the finished images. While you'll be posting jpgs here, you should work on the highest resolution image you have. Oh and if any others want to do this too, join in!

Waddya say? Should I start this as a new topic. The glamour workshop in PS thread? LOL!

[g0ldenb0y55]

Sounds like a plan.

Let me find a picture worth using!

[MattC]

AHG. Way big!!!

Keep watching this forum. Tonight or so I'll post a new thread. It will be a stick and it will contain some basic information and then we'll structure the class from there. I'd like to get more people involved, so if any one else is interested let me know.

For the record we will post smaller, size appropriate jpgs on the site, but your work at home will be done on the full size files. You'll just save the file for the web and post the results.

Sound good? Give me some time to work this up!

Matt

[g0ldenb0y55]

Alright, here you go! This is the best picture I have for the time being.:)

http://www.stickypod.com/stickypod_upload/uploads/picture_1_1.jpg

high res link: http://www.stickypod.com/stickypod_upload/uploads/picture_1.jpg

[MattC]

If you want to take a portrait for this go ahead, if not I'll show you how you can even turn this into something neat.

Matt

[g0ldenb0y55]

I'm cool with using this one.

Lead the way Jedi Master!

[vidled]

Great idea, Matt! It'll be fun to watch the progress; cool!

[MattC]

Watch??? No, watching Mister get an image ready for tonight! At most you'll have till tomorrow night.

Get crackin'!

[vidled]

:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[MattC]

Ok guys I started the new thread, let's see some interest.

[Matt Grunau]

Burnt an hour or so. I haven't done this kinda thing for a while. Good fun.

http://www.paramm.com/pic_1a.jpg

[MattC]

LOL... Not yet hotshot. If you want to play sign up for the thread, it's a sticky here in the photoshop section!

And we're going for a glamour head shot... Not a "cool film look"...

[g0ldenb0y55]

Hey that looks pretty good!

[MattC]

Golden boy are you going to sign up for the thread and submit an image?

[Matt Grunau]

Hey that looks pretty good!


Thanks. I know it's not a "glamor" shot, but it was a fun time.

[grupeproject]

That is pretty crazy. I just figured I was not a part of the attractive people. Anybody can look like the magazines with enough money. hahahaha