This is a before and after retouching of a headshot I just did. There were two problems when I shot the original: 1) that my fill was too low and I got shadows in her eyes and above her mouth (I didn't have an assistant and had to balance the reflector against my legs) and 2) her eye makeup wasn't quite good enough to eliminate her natural sark circles. I retouched it in Photoshop my making selections with the pen tool and adjusting the levels. This technique seems to work quite well. It allows you to tone down areas without losing detail (which you can see at full size).

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 02, 2001

Answers

John,

The retouching is great but how are you going to make prints from the digital retouching...like very big prints? Really?

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 03, 2001.

Actually this is a pet topic-fixation of mine. I fell in love with Pshop 3 years ago for the reason john's using it... You think "oh, that's cheating" until you see what it can do for your own work...

Once a shot is Photoshopped, output is a bit of a problem. Or I should say was, because inkjet papers and printers have come so far so quickly, but trust me its still a rabbithole not for the faint of heart.

Some people wont accept an inkjet print as original artwork no matter how good it looks or how good the paper is. They want a "real" photograph. The best way to make them happy is to take the inkjet print to a service bureau and have them copy and print it. (Or do it yourself if you have the gear and time) They may look at you like you're nuts but if they're any good, and your print is good, loss of detail won't be a factor vs. the improvement in the shot...

john, how do you output post-pshop?

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), June 03, 2001.

Output from Photoshop

Once a shot is Photoshopped, output is a bit of a problem

Why do you think so? The output of digital files is not restricted to inkjet printers. If you need an 8x10 or lower, find a lab with a Fuji Frontier system (or upload your images to e.g. www.shutterfly.com) and they will print your file on real photo paper.

If you need larger sizes, drum scan -> Photoshop -> Lightjet ouput is the way to go. It is fairly expensive, but considered to be the very best way, wet-chemistry or digital, to make big prints from slides. I suspect results from negatives will be as good (subject to the quality of the original, of course).

This is all regularly rehashed on regular photo.net forums, so a search there will provide loads of info.

-- Akor (eye@kaax.org), June 04, 2001.

Orlando has a printer that specializes in reproducing (offset and laser) model and actor headshots and comps. Even if you bring them a print, they will scan it. I've proofed this on my inkjet and will take it in to tomorow to get a high-quality 8x10 for the model's portfolio off of a Fuji Frontier. I'll also give the model a cd with the file on it.

As for enlargments, digital lets you enlarge bigger and with better quality than traditional methods. The original negative was scanned at 2000x3000. I retouched it and then resampled it to 2400x3600 for printing on the frontier (as an 8x12).

PhotoPlus (developing and scanning), www.photo-plus.com

Great Graphics Photoscan, www.ggphotoscan.com

Color Reflections (Frontier output), www.color-reflections.com

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 03, 2001.

I like the original better. The second one looks too much like a studio shot. The first one looks more natural, like it was candid or something.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), June 04, 2001.

The first is a picture of a person. The second is an image of an actress.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 04, 2001.

Well said.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), June 04, 2001.

My question is, and remember I have no idea in regard to these things, what happens when this girl gets hired for a job based on retouched photo's, and turns up with all these 'blemishes' over her face? Do models get 'viewed' in person for jobs, or from portfolio's. Is there a requirement to have a untouched photo in a portfolio (for hiring purposes, not 'best work' portfolio). I imagine you wouldn't be happy having her turn up to a job without knowing you had too retouch every photo.

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@unite.com.au), June 04, 2001.

Her moles/freckles are still there in the retouched version - just less noticeable (as if she were wearing heavier makeup). So are the laugh lines in her skin. The purpose of a headshot is to show what an actor/model does look like - but with ideal lighting and makeup.

The hard thing about doing headshots is that - in person - it's much harder to notice shadows, laugh lines, and circles under someone's eyes. B/W just exacerbates the problem. The second shot is much closer to the perception you have of this girl when you are face-to- face with her.

But by the same token, have you ever watched a "Making of the SI Swimsuit Edition" video? Most of the girls look bony and awkward when not posed and lit carefullyu (and come across as pretty immature). The image that the photographer and makeup artist create is just that - an image.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 04, 2001.

thanks John... I guess when we examine these pics we look at every nitty detail, talking to a person we don't scrutinise them near as closely, and in reality, they will always have appropiate makeup on for a shoot.

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@unite.com.au), June 05, 2001.

I just got an 8x12 Frontier print (upsampled from the cropped 3Kx2K scan) of this that looks stunning - and exactly like the on-screen version. All the detail is there - down to the finest lines and subtlest freckles. The retouching looks really good too, but I can tell where I did it upon close inspection - I brightened a couple of areas a bit too much. However, I don't think anyone who didn't know what to look for would notice.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 07, 2001.