mike258

This is going out on a limb for a newbie like me on this board but please C&C this retouching effort.? (I am thick skinned)? Full res version @ http://www.knot2worry.us/ff/h1.jpg (WARNING - 7.8 Mb).

Thanks,
Mike

Gaussian

That's a good effort Mike, glad you didn't go too much over the top with your correction (which is a common mistake). [righton]

WOLVERINE

That's a really nice job. 8)) The only change I would think about (if this is a commercial image) would be to try and clean up the one tooth that lies over (her) right front tooth but trust me, that's a lot easier said than done. I think you've done a great job already.

ladyfinger007

Very good work!
What kind of retouching were you after? magazine cover, or just simple corrections of small skin problems, etc ?
If it is the former, it is a very good job. For the latter, I'd have kept some texture under the eyes.
I like the subtle work on the air, and the color of the skin.

Gaussian

I think corrections like this take away some of the person's personality unless it's a shot for a fashion magazine or whatever. Actually I would not correct the woman's face at all if it was a family shot, because corrections under those circumstances are only distracting, since the people know what she really looks like.

Personally I would go for a better background. I added a quick, sloppy example.
Easy? Absolutely not. Effective? Yes.? ?

SnowDog

I agree about the background you need to change it.

The wrinkle lines under the eyes alot of people get carried away and try to use the healing brush too much to get rid of the lines all together. Its better to leave a slight trace , this gives a more realistic look.

OVerall you have done a great job.

SnowDog

ronmatt

I think you did a fine job. I agree that for a cover or an ad or something of that sort, some attention needed to be paid to the tooth overlap and the bachground. The technique you used I believe is simular to the one I use. I took the liberty of taking 2 more steps ( see attached ). 1) I added a slight amount of noise to reduce the 'shiney plastic' look that this technique tends to produce and 2) re-introduced some of the under eye detail you eliminated. I could have spent more time on both, but this is just to give you an idea.

Now a technical question for the boss....This file was 107 k and was rejected cause it was too big. So I reduced it. The .jpg I 'saved' by right clicking, not the downloadable file, was 372. How did that one get posted?

Gaussian

372 what? Saved by right clicking? \:/

Which one are you talking about Ron, I'm a bit confused here, maybe something got lost in my translation, after all I didn't grew up with English all day.
Files can be 100KB and max 700x700pixels, anything beyond that results in an error message.

mike258

Maybe I can answer. My images were not uploaded to the forum's server but actually reside on my website and were linked within the body of my message.

Mike

ronmatt

Gaussian. I right clicked the original image posted and 'saved image as' to my desktop. Opened it in PS and it was 372 kb. No English problem involved. I was only wondering how it could be there at that size. \:/ I believe Mike explained what he did. I wasn't complaining about it, just wondering.