Facial retouching c&c

[dlanter]

Below is a before & after of a shot from a workshop last weekend. I was just playing around with the facial retouching and wanted to see what everyone thought. The first is straight out of the camera, second is after raw processing in Lightroom, touch up in Photoshop Elements & skin smoothing in Portraiture. All comments & suggestions are welcome.

PS - After uploading here, I see some discoloring at the left side from me cloning the stray hairs, I'll have to go back & fix that.

[bondarnes]

Sorry Dan, but this is what is sometimes referred to as "image failure". The image itself is doomed to failure from poor lighting and bad posing. Your processing is good, but cannot overcome the flaws in the original image.

[MicWayWal]

Dan,

I like the retouching work you did on the image, although it borders on being a little too much.
However, I agree with Don that it was wasted on an image that you should not use. Pick a better image, retouch the same way and you will have a winner.

[rockpics]

I don't do portraits for a living, but I would like to learn from the previous posts. I see that the lighting in the first photo brings out some lines and details that a woman would rather leave unseen, but the post processing seems to mask those. Also, the second photo seems brighter over-all. The angle of the face seems nice to me. I would like to know specifically the changes in lighting and posing that would improve the photo.

[LonestarMan]

I retouch most of my portraits, and for me... I rarely leave wrinkles or discolorations under the eyes. Even as slight as the wrinkle is under the eye, hit it with the clone tool set to "lighten" on her right eye and normal 50%ish on the left. There are still remnants of the blemish on her right cheek. I would also hit the dark spot on her left forehead with a little clone in lighten mode too. Overall, you've done a real good job with the skin retouching while maintaining the texture. I have to agree with Don and the others on the overall picture though. Thanks for posting.

[MicWayWal]

Originally Posted by rockpics

I don't do portraits for a living, but I would like to learn from the previous posts. I see that the lighting in the first photo brings out some lines and details that a woman would rather leave unseen, but the post processing seems to mask those. Also, the second photo seems brighter over-all. The angle of the face seems nice to me. I would like to know specifically the changes in lighting and posing that would improve the photo.

As I said the retouching looks good but the pose and lighting has ruined what could be a very nice portrait. Lighting and posing creates mood in your subject.

Lighting - if it is right you will not need to retouch as much.
- I like the softness of the light but the direction is not flattering. The softness is created by the soft-box being close to the subject. But the main light is way too high at the point of being almost overhead like a skylight. This is creating a lot of undesired lines and pores that you notice even with a soft light. The direction of light is creating undesired texture. For a more flattering look, and less retouching required, the center of the main light or soft box should be slightly above the eyes and off to one side like a big picture window. Look at the two catch-lights in her right eye. There is a fill light that is right in the center of the eye, and the main is above that. It is so overhead you almost can not see the catch-light in the eye. Keep the softness, change the direction to be more like a window and the lighting would be very nice and flattering.
- You are correct about the second being lighter. He has brightened the tones in PP. But it is a little light for printing. The highlights are a little blown out and will be hard to control in printing.

Posing - I will write about what makes this pose unflattering as to a normal portrait pose.
- First the camera angle is too low. He is shooting up into the subject. This is going to make the jaw, mouth and nose appear larger than the rest of the face perspective wise. It is more flattering to the feminine face for the camera angle to be slightly above the eyes of the subject and shoot down.
- The face is turned too far to her left. Her face is turned away from the direction of light and thus creates a somber mood. Most of the time you want the face turned "into" the light creating a more upbeat mood.
- This angle of the face is almost a profile angle but lit with more normal lighting. A mixture that is not going to work very well. Dramatic posing usually requires dramatic lighting.
- You can't see the mask of the face. It is hidden or distorted. The mask of the face is the forehead, eyes, two cheeks, nose, two corners of the mouth, and the bottom of the chin. You should see each of these elements separately. They should not blend together. In this pose the turn of the subject's face lets the top of the nose line breaks into the eye. The left side of her mouth is at the edge line of the face. The left eye is also next to the face edge. Shooting with her nose turned so far shows all the bumps and corners of the nose, instead of a flattering roundness. All of these creates an appearance of distortion for the left side of her face.
- There is no support for the right side of the image. There is nothing but emptiness which draws your eye away from the subject. There is no balance. If her face were turned back toward the light, her hair would fill that void and create a frame for the mask of the face.

Know and understand the rules so you can break the rules and know WHY you are breaking them. These rules are not set in stone, but you should know what they are and know how to use them normally.

What I have explained are the normal rules for a flattering portrait.
- Now suppose you have a subject who comes to you with a severely burned face left side. Now you can do something about it. You can hide the disfigurement.
- This pose would be perfect if you were selling blush for women. It is a portrait of her right cheek.

One last thing
If this subject were posed better and lit properly, she would not require as much retouching in post processing as she does now. Could you imagine having to retouch 25 of these images. It would take forever and be very hard to be consistent.
Get it right in the camera means less post processing for you.

[rockpics]

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I'm going to bookmark this for reference.

Jill

[dlanter]

Thanks for the comments everyone. My reason for posting was for retouching tips, but I appreciate the comments on the lighting & posing also. I knew that this was not the greatest shot, but I picked it to work with simply because I felt it needed the most retouching work out of the all that I got from this set and was working with it simply for practice.

Michael, thanks for taking the time for a very detailed explanation. The posing was completely my mistake. This lighting in this shot was set up for a straight on shot, not with her turned like this. It was basically a clamshell set up with a large octobank above the camera, white board reflector about her chest level for fill and second light with modeling lamp only straight on to shrink her pupils. I meant to clone out the second catchlight in her pupil, but forgot that.

If your interested, I will process one of the shots that this setup was designed for and post it later.

[sdenman]

well Michael, I have a severely burned face left side, so I am glad that you took the time to let people know how to get a good picture of me.

[rockpics]

Dan, you changed the model from a thirty-something to a twenty something.
Most women would be very happy to see ten years removed from their face.

[dlanter]

I went ahead & processed another pose from this set that may be better suited for this light setup. I'm still not all that crazy about this shot either. First the straight on shot is kind of boring to me and her expression looks like she is bored. Next her head is tilted to camera right and I think that may have caused the uneven lighting on her face. I just now tried something by holding my hand over each half of her face. Doing that I thought both sides looked ok but the combination doesn't work for me.

Anyway, my original question was about the processing and that is still what I am mainly interested in. Keep in mind that I am not doing this for a client, I enjoy shooting portraits and I am doing this strickly for myself.

Here is another set of before & after:

[dlanter]

Originally Posted by rockpics

Dan, you changed the model from a thirty-something to a twenty something.
Most women would be very happy to see ten years removed from their face.

Actually, she is twenty something, my shot made her look thirty something and I am trying to make her look twenty something again.

[rockpics]

Oops! Don't tell her what I said. She's a very pretty girl!

[pjt72611]

I am impressed by the before and after. This shot does fit the lighting scheme better. I would be blown away with results like that. Great job Dan.