Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

soft skin on portraits
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what I see, original on forum left, clicking it opens in new tab on right.

#1


PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wow it does look completely different like WB setting was different but surely it should not meter for chrome. Did you try in IE? I am using Chrome Version 25.0.1364.172 m. Maybe clear cache from your browser as well.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nurkov wrote:
wow it does look completely different like WB setting was different but surely it should not meter for chrome. Did you try in IE? I am using Chrome Version 25.0.1364.172 m. Maybe clear cache from your browser as well.

I'm on the same version of Chrome. I haven't used IE in 10yrs and I'm not about to start now Wink Laughing
I don't understand what causes it but maybe we have a techno-chap on the forum who can get to the bottom of this.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've sent a query to Google about this issue, maybe they can point out what's amiss.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Huge difference indeed! I did upload large size photo, GD library re-sized it to 1024px wide, in my latest Chrome looks also a bit different, but not much.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've seen a similar colour cast on photos here before, I just put it down to someone's white balance error. Now I feel a bit guilty for thinking that when it appears something else is to blame.

So er, sorry to anyone I might have knocked for a dodgy looking white balance. Sad

I'll add that until last week I've been mostly using Firefox, but some small annoyance has made me jump ship to Chrome.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not saying to start using IE oh no but just try it out to see how it shows the images. Did you clear history and cache?


PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nurkov wrote:
I'm not saying to start using IE oh no but just try it out to see how it shows the images. Did you clear history and cache?

Yeah I cleared everything, still got the same result. Sad


PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

no idea Sad maybe google will get back to you and help but I doubt it. You are getting same results in other browsers yes?


PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nurkov wrote:
no idea Sad maybe google will get back to you and help but I doubt it. You are getting same results in other browsers yes?

Yeah, cleared everything on Firefox, same results.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

more then weird no idea then, sorry


PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Weird indeed...


PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The "big" pictures (obtained after double-clicking the ones in the thread) retain the exif including the colour space - Adobe RGB 1998 in the ones I looked at. The pictures seen in the thread appear to have lost their exifs - and colour space. So if your browser uses sRGB as a default you might see a difference between the two sets of pictures.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bingo!

Using Adobe RGB is a sure way to screw up colors, since every one uses SRGB by default. I think even Ken Rockwell of all people had a rant on that and for once his rant was spot on. I once got burned printing Adobe RGB from something else instead of photoshop.

That being said, the pictures in threads look significantly worse compared to clicked ones even without color mismatch. I wish this is fixed somehow....


PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still have to do to fix built in upload graphic processor , currently run on GD, I know better one , but I couldn't get work it on new server.
Nice find what reason of difference thanks!


PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've tried a few methods and they look like aliens. Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

martinsmith99 wrote:
I've tried a few methods and they look like aliens. Laughing Laughing


Smile yes I had same experience , try this what I linked, first one what is works well.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent work, much better than a soft focus lens imho.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice shot. The high resolution reveal your red wig.

Last edited by ShayneThill on Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:17 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did try this technique, probably I over applied it... Wink


Dorothea Lange Skin Care campaign by Nesster, on Flickr


Destitute pea pickers in California. Mother of seven children. Age thirty-two. Nipomo, California (LOC) by The Library of Congress, on Flickr


DSC00238 ed by Nesster, on Flickr

DSC00239 by Nesster, on Flickr


PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My usual softening technique. It keeps the details but softens them out. The skin tone appears lighter (intentional) Clients like it. Eyes un touched.



PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps it is just personal preference, but both images look WAY over-smoothed to me. It is perfectly ok for a model to have some texture to their complexion. The "mannequin" look has always looked so fake to me.

There are times when a subject has a rough complexion and smoothing it can be more flattering. But to turn their skin into plastic is never flattering.

I took this image of Shawna about 10 years ago. She is a gorgeous woman and was about 40 when I took this image. She had a few wrinkles, to be expected with age. I softened them a little but did not eliminate them entirely. The end result is a very flattering portrait of a woman who is in middle age. She does not look like she did when she was 20, but she is still gorgeous nonetheless.



Now in this portrait, Ellen had a pretty rough complexion, as well as some acne blemishes. I had to get a little more "aggressive" in retouching, but I still left some texture in her skin



PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, the sharpening trick the other way!, I need to test this too Wink