🚀 go-pugleaf

See them through God's eyes. :-)

Your question is too unclear to be answered.

Can you describe exactly what you want to do? What is wrong with the image now?

      See them through God's eyes.




XD

If that doesn't work, maybe throw in a little Clinique.

      If that doesn't work, maybe throw in a little Clinique.




Or both :-)

then, how could i do the make up

just want to learn only my trainer never teach me

<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=glamour+makeup&btnG=Google+Search&aq=0&oq=>

(I hope this doesn't break the forum format---Ram�n will kill me. 8) )

(Phew...)

(or plunk you) 8o

Well I think this is a good topic that has a lot of possibilities, I understand the OP is seemingly being vague but I think perhaps it might be grammatical more then lack of content.

But there are techniques and different approaches to capturing the best qualities of the subject especially those of the human subject.

cjmah

the best way to go about this is post an image that you took of someone that you think can be improved and we can share with you techniques and ideas about equipment that you might like to have to help you achieve what you want to achieve.

Her you save the image as a jpeg about 600 to 700 pixels on the longest length the go to this link

 <http://www.pixentral.com> you follow the instructions for uploading the file then you copy the text in the top text field and paste it into you message before you post it.

Make certain you copy all the text including the link you know from and including this

It is a good subject.

no la
i'm just learning only
thank u

I've posted this before.
 <http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1zfmod2L10lzEtOocQPP0LCAzKpo9>

Cleanups can be minor or dramatic. In this case all that was done was cloning out the stray hair, smoothing the skin, softening the shadow under the chin and ever so slightly narrowing the nose. The color was tweaked to give a better result on my printer.

This site has changed since I bookmarked it, but it still has some glamour tips.

 <http://www.garageglamour.com/forums/view.php?pg=phototips>

Gaussian Blur - Radius 20 Pixels.

Thank you, Shep!

I think that the fact that the new Adjustment Brushes work so smoothly and subtly is their great attraction and, because you are working in ACR, all adjustments are totally non-destructive and re-adjustable.

Lightroom uses the ACR 5.3 as the engine that drive it as well and gives you an easier way of managing your assets.

Ann, isn't that your granddaughter?

In which case as I remember from the last photo your posted of her it really was unnecessary in my opinion to do this as the more natural look to me looked �well more natural which I thought was more then attractive enough.

But since my wonderful remembrance for faces and names are no more I am not certain if it is the same person.

I construed the OP a little differently:

How do you retouch/restore photographs taken by others? 

Tolstoy may have experimented with taking his glasses off to make people look more beautiful.

In your case yes.

you just said that to make yourself look smarter
[to yourself]
somewhat like I did, but without reason : )

In the Boyhood part of his autobiographical trilogy, Tolstoy described one of his reactions to starting wearing glasses
women stopped being as pretty as they used to be

When you think about it, our eyes are just portals to our brains. All the more reason not to try to somehow standardize/categorize what we are "seeing."

      Tolstoy may have experimented with taking his glasses off...




beer used to work for me. :)

Let me try this again... I meant to type 'Gaussian Beer @ Radius 20 pixels.

      I meant to type 'Gaussian Beer @ Radius 20 pixels.




In earlier days, I favored the "Beer" and "Beer More" filters.

      as I remember from the last photo your posted of her it really was unnecessary
      in my opinion to do this as the more natural look to me looked �well more
      natural which I thought was more then attractive enough.




She never saw the totally unretouched version of that earlier shot because teenagers (and most of the rest of us too?) are very self-conscious and want to see perfect skin in their photographs � so just a little retouching is tactful and is necessary in order to keep them happy!

I just tried to do the minimum but without going as far as getting that "suede" finish to the skin that we see so frequently.

Adjustment Brushes are indeed part of the new Lightroom (it also uses the ACR 5.3 software) but I dislike LR intensely (and particularly its interface) and find the Bridge CS4/ACR 5.3 so much more efficient and much quicker to use � particularly as I often find it useful to open several hundred shots directly into ACR to both preview them at 100% and then work on the whole batch simultaneously.

I also need the rest of the CS4 Suite anyway � so LR would just be an unecessary extra expense.

Lightroom helps me work much faster with a lot less worries.

And as far as your granddaughter goes using her as an example for this topic is sort of cheating since it is obvious that one does not have to make her look beautiful.

She actualy reminds me a little bit of you in your wedding photo. And I see a little bit of Jeremy there as well.

It doesn't matter it all work out extremely well.

For skin retouching try this tutorial:

 <http://www.ferradasphotography.com/skinsosoft/>

For skin retouching try these tutorial:

 <http://www.ferradasphotography.com/skinsosoft/>
 <http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1169397>

Here's retouching more than just skin...click on tutorials:

 <http://www.christyschuler.com/retouching.html>

      And as far as your granddaughter goes using her as an example for this
      topic is sort of cheating since it is obvious that one does not have to
      make her look beautiful.




I don't think that I should tell her that you said that because I wouldn't want to encourage Vanity!

:)

I don't think you will have to tell her.

tell Wade!
(there's no way his vanity could be affected : )

LT I think we are talking about the young lady here did you read something wrong?

My vanity is intact and as inflated as is humanly possible, so I am content with its state.

And your how is yours?

8D!

fine : )

LRK - 7:11pm Mar 6, 09 PST (#1 of 40)		
See them through God's eyes.

I get it Linda. Also, it shows in your work.

Very nice.

Ken

Hi Ken! :-) Thank you! It's nice to see you posting again.

<http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/03/09/opinion/1194838469575/sex-lies-and-photoshop.html>

I retouch but I remove things that are not part of the subject and I do that rarely I will straighten the image and i will dodge and burn but I think it is unnecessary to alter the person or building or product. I can see cleaning up a label that was not like the label you would be more likely to see in the store but to make it look perfect is not acceptable in my opinion as there is no real perfection and anyone who thinks so has a problem with their own self esteem.

But then I do not lie in order to win arguments or present myself in a better light and so I do admit I am not the norm.

Of course if the object of the visual is to be fantasy for instance then it is fine to alter it all you want, that is what fantasy is about. However the law they are making in France is a really good one s they recognize the hypnotic effect of flashing through the pages of a magazine or a ton of magazines and the the same is true for tV and Film but even more so because of the incredible number of images that passes by the viewer's eyes.

Unfortunately the film makers and the TV producers know this and take advantage of it to the point of even making any films and releases them knowing they will loose money at first on them but in the future the viewers will be drawn to them because of the training they have invested in.

And I know this to be true.

I think that leaving the subject as is is the best policy and gives the most natural look.

Just look at the photo I took of Peter Figen, she can definitely make the cover of vogue!

LOL!

the french just discovered that subliminal stimulation is harmful? : )

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message>

or are you talking about epilepsy inducing video frequencies
(mainly in video games)

Wasn't referring to subliminal messages. The film sequence and the video scanning in itself is so repetitive that it has an hypnotic effect on the viewer.

Add some food and you induce an almost sleep like effect and though you might not actually sleep you can become caught up in the events of what you see or more accurately what you think you see.

But back to the topic making people look good is to photograph them as they are and as Linda said in the first place see them as being beautiful.

There is a photograph of Albert Einstein that is great and shows him as the person he probably really was and the image is quite an expression. I can't be certain but I do not detect any retouching.

There is a photograph of the actress Frances Farmer by Edward Steichen that is my favorite portrait photo over any other portrait and it does not at all look retouched in any way. the lighting is subtle and simple as well.

I think when you retouch a retouch a portrait you insult the subject. If someone asks for it then�well it is their call but it is no longer a portrait of the person.

      I think when you retouch a retouch a portrait you insult the subject.
      If someone asks for it then�well it is their call but it is no longer
      a portrait of the person.




I disagree.

IMO every image is contrived by definition. For example every portrait is modified by the photog's choice of aperture/DOF, focal length, lighting, film type, etc.

Do you really believe that?

A painter or sculptor portrays their subjects in the way that they perceive them and they try to embody that experience in their media in such a manner that they hope that you, the viewer, will perceive and share their vision.

As a photographer, I do the same thing � and I will use whatever tools that I need either before taking the shot (in my case, it is usually BEFORE) or afterwards to attain that result.

      Do you really believe that?




Yes or I would not have written it.

Do you really opine that taking the shine off a nose in post is all that different from doing it with makeup? Or that selecting Portra instead of Velvia is less "modifying" than adjusting white balance in post?

      Just look at the photo I took of Peter Figen, she can definitely make
      the cover of vogue!




How did Peter make you look so good, Wade?
:)
;)

Well I don't know Peter's secret!

ceci n'est pas une top model : )

I can see Wade's point. It's the same as a woman putting on makeup. Most women don't even need any, some may need just enough to cover the defect that they think they have. But it is also possible to put on way too much makeup making the woman look horrible.
Touch up on a photo can do the same thing. Especially if the person doing the touch up, does not know when to stop.
I don't know about you guys, but i would take a bare faced woman over a clown any day. :)

The problem with retouching a portrait perhaps arises when the subject finds that what you have done emphasises, to them, the original flaw - until you remove or reduce it, they might not have been particularly aware of it, but your implied 'criticism' of the flaw can then heighten their awareness of it.

In other cases, they might well be grateful. Perhaps it's a matter of what and how much, and individual judgment of particular cases rather than a hard and fast rule.

For me, I am who I am, warts and all.

The problem with professional portraiture is that the "Product" and the "Client" are one and the same.

Danger: Explosive mixture � proceed with all due caution �.

Well there is another focus to take and many people concentrate on the method I might focus on and that is t simPly establish a relationship and rapport withe the subject and you and using that to bridge the gap for the subject to work with the camera by handing over control to the photographer and letting the camera do its work.

We often hear that the photographer employed rock music to put the subject in a receptive mood. I think that would b good in certain circumstances but it is better to get the subject on your side and have the subject learn to trust you. This way it is not the mood of the music but the relationship of to real living things, the photographer and subject I feel one would get to see the subject at its best this way through the photographic media.

Of course in Mr. Oz' case, it does sound a bit hopeless.