The limitations of skin processing techniques
This article is written by a member of our expert community. It expresses that member’s views only. We welcome other perspectives. Here’s how to contribute to MM EDU.
I had a conversation with a fellow photographer recently and I realized a few things about skin-processing techniques that I wasn’t consciously aware of.
Imagenomics Portraiture, frequency-separation, high-pass, even Gaussian Blur all do the same thing… they attempt to make skin more evenly toned through blurring.
100% crop of a full-length image I am currently working on. Courtney from Next Models. H3DII/HC 80. 1/250th f/2.8 ISO 200. No skin techniques applied.
This is true of every technique above. Even though you might not know what’s happening in Portraiture, it’s really just automating the frequency-separation technique, and that includes blurring (I use the Surface Blur with frequency-separation).
What each of these techniques fails to accomplish is to discriminately attack the problem areas. What it does is provides you a more even skin tone across the board (face). By definition these techniques behave indiscriminately.
Some may argue, “But then we can mask in only the effects where we want them.”
That will make your overall image better, but it doesn’t change the fact that these techniques are blurring luminosity differences without consideration to content. It doesn’t know (or care) that the problem skin is right next to the fragile details of the eyeball and (depending on the parameters) can very well blur the details of the eyeball into the skin. What now?
“Well we can always set more specific parameters.”
You sure can. But with those parameters, now it’s not nearly as effective with larger patches of problem skin.
“But we can do 2 passes on the blurs, one for more detail and one for less detail.”
The band-aid arguments go on and on…
Don’t get me wrong. These techniques have their place. With careful manipulation they can allow you to retouch more images with less time, assuming the “effect” is not detrimental to the image and the client is tolerant of the results. Furthermore, if you “clean up” the skin before applying these techniques you can apply extremely stringent parameters and achieve amazing results. But regardless of the parameters, what ends up happening (to various degrees) is that the middle frequency of skin tones disappears. You get great overall skin tone (and great pore detail if you use frequency-separation or Portraiture) but the local skin tones (middle frequency) get lost.
It’s something of a conundrum really. It’s exactly why until programmers develop an “intelligent blur” that understands the human face, retouchers will always have a place in this industry.
The decisions I make when I’m dodging/burning, healing, or clone-stamping are all dependent on the area of the face I’m working on. I operate on the “conditionals” provided by the way the light interacts with that particular human face (including the bone structure) so I can intelligently manipulate uneven skin tones. Thus, I am incredibly discriminate. I darken what should be darkened and lighten what should be lightened. I don’t apply an “average” across the board.
I don’t shoot as much beauty anymore, but even when I do, skin-techniques such as the above are the last thing I reach for in my bag of tricks.
LUCIMA
Charles Lucima is a photographer/retoucher based in Los Angeles specializing in fashion, editorial, and beauty. His clients include designers, apparel brands, and modeling agencies around the world. http://www.lucima.com/
Follow Me:
January 26, 2012 at 7:48 pm, Bambang Arianto said:
inisiasi
December 08, 2011 at 6:17 pm, Guest said:
“Imagenomics Portraiture, frequency-separation, high-pass, even Gaussian Blur all do the same thing… they attempt to make skin more evenly toned through blurring.”
Not exactly.
Also the photo you show has nothing to do with skin bluring.
It is low contrast, low saturation and on the soft side. Actual focus is slightly behind the face. Flat light. Full length and shot at f2.8.
Imagenomics protraiture can be used as part of the process to create very crisp skin.
It can also be used to change major features to that have little to do with skin, like bone structure.
October 21, 2011 at 9:08 pm, Steve said:
I’ve found that using High Pass filter and 1/3rd of the blur…i.e., use just see the lights of the eyes will maintain skin texture!
October 26, 2011 at 12:19 pm, Gattacicala said:
Hi Steve,
I am a beginner or so, could I please ask you to have a slightly more details description on how you use your settings? sort of step 1, step 2 and so on…
Thanks in advance.
October 21, 2011 at 4:01 pm, Tensilverdollars said:
Hi,
I know there is 1 sure fire cure that has worked for me for many,many in the past. I am not a Super Hero retoucher. I know and use some of the techniques that you mentioned. In the late 70’s and the 80’s I was an airbrushing expert.
The most important technique that everyone here fails to remember to do is, Hire a good MUA. A correctly laid foundation is more important than all the post work you can think of. This cuts my post work by 80%. No skintone adjustments needed. Zap a couple zits, clone over a couple big pores, a layer of sharpen, a layer of blurr blend ’em, and out the door.
October 20, 2011 at 2:12 am, Ovision said:
Lucima and everyone else that made a comment to this post are correct.
October 20, 2011 at 1:47 am, Reston Studio said:
LUCIMA, I appreciate your thoughtful reflections on The limitations of skin processing techniques… while I concur in theory, in practice you may have ignored a critical phase in the workflow… Pre-capture prep… as a tenured make-up artist who trained with Estheticians the epidermis needs to be fully understood and it’s fabric and structure appreciated if true rendering enhancement is an ultimate goal…
Working on a retouch of one’s make-up at 200x is a humbling experience that truly accelerates the learning curve for the artist… likewise, if a “beauty” retoucher were sincere in mastering the craft, then a parallel tract in the fine art of make-up would be a wonderful adjunct to their professional growth…
Keep in mind that wedding images are rarely retouched, the reliance is primarily on technical savvy of the make-up artist for the event… same with so many other social event functions… and HD video? the industry is vast, and photographic rendering is but a small segment of a far larger universe… might be best to expand horizons and look beyond a computer screen…
all the best on your journey…
October 19, 2011 at 7:07 pm, Albino Unicorn said:
Learning how to not use the frequency separation that close to edges is not hard to learn… The use of differing brush sizes and applying them at differing opacity allows for smooth blending… that comes with practice and cant be learned over night…
Stamping layers back to the original layer also allows for a slow and more realistic use of the tools.
October 19, 2011 at 4:19 pm, Badmedezn said:
As I am relatively new to the photoshop work (I use lightroom extensively however), do we have any solution that would allow that ever so close to what we are looking for skin tone…the SI SWIMSUIT EDITION style of skin retouching? with everyone being on a budget, I am about to dump a few bucks into smart software like CS5 but right now…still hammering away in Elements 9. and lastly, does Portraiture make enough of a difference in skin quality..or is it due mainly to the speed of workflow? Sorry such a long one guys, but I am getting serious enough to get on board photography full time now (retireing from the military in 6 months!) and I really intent to spend my start up with software as inteligently and as informed as possible. Thank you all!
October 19, 2011 at 4:26 pm, Joseph Graf said:
Portraiture is a time saver, but exactly the same results can be obtained using Photoshop alone, it just takes a little longer. I would recommend learning as much as you can about retouching without the automation software first, because there are times when you will have to do the work yourself. There is no such thing as one size fits all when it comes to retouching.
October 19, 2011 at 4:01 pm, Joseph Graf said:
The funniest thing here is that an ad for Portrait Professional is running at the bottom of this post!
October 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm, Jamie Harrison said:
Good article, but doesn’t really offer a solution. I personally use Portratiure but only AFTER I have retouched the skin for spots and blemishes etc. I also enhance the eyes and hair etc. I then create a copy layer and use the opacity slider to find what I feel is the correct balance for the model and the overall image/effect I’, trying to achieve. Like Fashmour I’ll selectively erase areas where necessary.
I then save the psd file back into Lightroom before outputting to jpeg from there with the appropriate sharpening for the output (print size, web etc).
Because I shoot up to 10 model portfolios/test per week, I find this solution is quick and effective, though I may spend more time on work for publication if I’m doing my own retouching (everyone’s on a budget nowadays!).
October 19, 2011 at 3:21 pm, FASHMOUR said:
Great article Charles, I totally agree, you can’t get by on just the smoothing alone, it does require a great deal of retouching and if your not really skilled in PS, many do need to go to outside sources to get their images cleaned up.
What I generally do with plugins like Portraiture, is create a copy of the layer and run Portraiture on the copied layer. Obviously the settings vary on each image, then I will selectively erase out the areas that I don’t want to be affected such as the eyes, lips, hair, etc… with a soft brush using varying opacities. I then merge the layers and go in and clean up problem areas with the clone and healing tools. I would then finish up with some overall sharpening and/or high pass.
October 19, 2011 at 9:52 am, Anonymous said:
nice posting….
October 19, 2011 at 5:25 am, Neil said:
The above mentioned retouching methods are being so popular they will be almost built in to cameras in the future.
While I cannot agree that they are blur methods, they are not, they do when abused at the rate they are eliminating the very detail that builds character and reality in an image.
You are right, with better methods, plug ins could actually analyse the face and better adapt the entire methods. Almost like the 3D cells work in the camera metering and autofocus, build a map, apply the right things in the right places.
October 19, 2011 at 2:21 am, Adam Lang said:
You might hate me now but i think the face looks perfect as is. a little work on the eyes maybe, the skin looks great to me, i really like the vintage appeal of the photo. doesnt look very digital either …
October 19, 2011 at 1:30 am, Mike Parsons-Digitography said:
The first issue you have with skin imperfections on a photo is that the camera picks up more detail than we see with the human eye. All of these editing software does, quite rightly said is to blur the details, however what it is also doing is mimicing the realistic effects of 20/20 vision.
I am in a good news/bad news situation being I am short sighted and wear contact lenses(ok i am very short sighted) and what people with normal vision cannot see is the dual way eyesight impaired people see. With lenses or corrective glasses, we see what you see, which is less detail than a camera lens. When you remove the lenses/glasses you have to move closer to an object to bring it into focus, but when you do, you actually see it in more fine detail than even a camera lens.
So criticism of software that essentially makes your pictures look like 20/20 vision is a bit crazy. If you wanted your pictures that pinprick sharp, you could scrutinise every blemish,scar and blackhead then why oh why are you editing them at all?
When we look at modelling photos we want to see smooth skin, elegant eyes, great hair etc and we dont want to see broken veins, crows feet, spots, scars and blemishes and these programs/manual operations allow us to do that. But if you want a program that understands the human face to edit without loss of detail by blurring, I am sure in return they would like a photographer who understands the limitations of human eyesight.
If you doubt what I say about eyesight, find a friend with bad eyesight(pref short sighted) and contact lenses. Get them to stand in front of a mirror and look at their face in detail. then remove the lenses and repeat(they will need to get closer to the mirror and instead of viewing all of the face in one, they will focus on each part, with both eyes open, then each eye shut in turn) – then ask them how much clearer they can see the details……..once you have done this and have your own results and opinions, I welcome the informed critique of my personal opinion.
October 21, 2011 at 1:09 am, CP_ said:
Huh?
October 18, 2011 at 11:55 pm, Therionerik said:
No ” auto ” effect will ever make up for doing things yourself.
October 18, 2011 at 11:52 pm, finnegan said:
“It’s exactly why until programmers develop an “intelligent blur” that understands the human face, retouchers will always have a place in this industry.”
This comments makes me think that you are just looking for a “one button” solution to retouching? Sounds absurd 🙂 It’s like saying you want a programmer to develop software that can take a good photography with the press of a button…
As far as losing your middle frequency… any time you blur an image it will reduce tonal depth. Sometimes you just need to compensate by making your highlights even hotter before you do any blurring. Maybe it’s not that you are losing your mid freq, it’s just that your highs and lows are coming more toward the middle, thus making the middle seem less… middle? Does that make any sense?
I’d need to see examples of what exact loss you are referring to…
October 18, 2011 at 11:10 pm, Film123 said:
There a lot of other tools to remove skin defects that should be used first. Then possibly just a slight bit of smoothing to get rid of the excessive sharpness that digital shows in skin.
October 19, 2011 at 3:38 pm, Jamie Harrrison said:
Good article, but doesn’t really offer a solution. I personally use Portratiure but only AFTER I have retouched the skin for spots and blemishes etc. I also enhance the eyes and hair etc. I then create a copy layer and use the opacity slider to find what I feel is the correct balance for the model and the overall image/effect I’, trying to achieve. Like Fashmour I’ll selectively erase areas where necessary.
I then save the psd file back into Lightroom before outputting to jpeg from there with the appropriate sharpening for the output (print size, web etc).
Because I shoot up to 10 model portfolios/test per week, I find this solution is quick and effective, though I may spend more time on work for publication if I’m doing my own retouching (everyone’s on a budget nowadays!).