btdsgn wrote:
I'm the last guy thats going to tell anyone not to use blur, in fact people that say they don't use blur are full of it IMO. But this would be one of the cases that people point to when the say bluring is bad. I think you over did it.

On a positive note, at least you didn't make it look like a blotchy mess...

thanks for your answer. i swear i did'nt use blur...you can see all the pores?!

btdsgn wrote:
I'm the last guy thats going to tell anyone not to use blur, in fact people that say they don't use blur are full of it IMO. But this would be one of the cases that people point to when the say bluring is bad. I think you over did it.

On a positive note, at least you didn't make it look like a blotchy mess...

I think there are other ways to have the final image end up looking like they used blur... but they got it without using blur.  For example... I don't use blur... but my images look like I did... or so I am told by some...  Just my opinion.

Ex Voto  Studio wrote:

I think there are other ways to have the final image end up looking like they used blur... but they got it without using blur.  For example... I don;t use blur... but my images look like I did... or so I am told by some...  Just my opinion.

inverted high pass was involved...I'll upload the PSD ...

Neil Snape wrote:
It's a style, if you like that style then you did well.

I think the screen captures remove the detail. I see lots of detail but your change in density make it look very brushed as the light doesn't follow the contours.

So it is well done for that style, nothing technically wrong, rather a lot of good technique to getting there.

Personally , I like more crunchy detail, albeit realistic at times. Yet I'm in Europe, where we try for something more realistic.

I'm europe too

selmakoparan wrote:

I'm europe too

Then your style is not>
The agencies are looking for clean work but in your book it has to be detailed. Now I know much is obliterated in retouch for L'Oreal etc, but that is not what counts. IF it works for you , your style that is , then there is hope . All of my too clean pictures fell flat on their face so to speak in all the big agencies.
Of course the agencies don't necessarily give you work even if they do like your work and the style, there are other things too nothing to do with photography>

RD Outpost wrote:
I was going to say

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL but then I saw you didn't use blur

I see in the far right image there are some pores but you'll need to try again.

''LOOL'' ?! please a bit of respect i'm trying to get constructive critique to get better and your images are over-sharpen by the way.

Neil Snape wrote:

Then your style is not>
The agencies are looking for clean work but in your book it has to be detailed. Now I know much is obliterated in retouch for L'Oreal etc, but that is not what counts. IF it works for you , your style that is , then there is hope . All of my too clean pictures fell flat on their face so to speak in all the big agencies.
Of course the agencies don't necessarily give you work even if they do like your work and the style, there are other things too nothing to do with photography>

thank you! i'm a fan of yours! can you maybe show examples i dont get this difference with the ''styles'' between the continents?!

Ni Anluain wrote:
ok HP method does use blur, so technically you did use blur! anyhow

I think your frequency separation is off hence why it looks like um...a doll? It's just "off" to my eyes. A full face would be more beneficial than sections

I'd download the psd but I'm a lazy cow and busy downloading Dean Winchester - he's more important! *drool*

thanks for the answer...what do you mean with the frequency separition being off?

selmakoparan wrote:

thanks for the answer...what do you mean with the frequency separition being off?

Its going back to the 'doll' look. (which people like and people dont like, I'm the latter) The blur used may be of, hence the HP later when set to the linear light looks "off". I don't have any other way to describe it as its just what I see. I cant be of much help as its a perception thing.

Ni Anluain wrote:

Its going back to the 'doll' look. (which people like and people dont like, I'm the latter) The blur used may be of, hence the HP later when set to the linear light looks "off". I don't have any other way to describe it as its just what I see. I cant be of much help as its a perception thing.

ok TY

btdsgn wrote:
After viewing the full image, I think it works with the style you were trying to achieve. Whether you use blur or not, the end result is you have a blurred image. On a side rant if your going to make an image that looks blurred why waste your time doing it a slower way. Just use BLUR.

What I question is you say you were going for a “Perfect” look. Although the skin has a illustrative feel, I don’t think you went far enough with the image. Look beyond the skin. What about the hairline, the lashes, the brows? Why aren’t they perfect? If you want perfect make everything perfect.

$.02

you are totally right about the brows lashes and hairline i need to take care of all the details