nice beauty retouchings

looks like cheap but effective extreme makeover... :-)

www.kaydesign.be

Njoy

Berry SP

Berry Special Price wrote:

looks like cheap but effective extreme makeover... :-)

www.kaydesign.be

Njoy

Berry SP

The retouching is amazing
and on the other hand their business will last,
for there's no change they close down since "photographers" make shoots like that:
http://www.kaydesign.be/retouches/retouches17.html
(the "before" of course)
what a pity!

--
Houba, houba !

Marsupilami

Marsupilami wrote:

http://www.kaydesign.be/retouches/retouches17.html
(the "before" of course)

I think, though their after images well retouched, their "before" images are somewhat bogus, too. I would bet that the "before" image in the example above was blurred to show off a more impressive sharpness in the "after" image.

--
Gregor's Motorradreisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

Greg N. wrote:

I think, though their after images well retouched, their "before" images are somewhat bogus, too. I would bet that the "before" image in the example above was blurred to show off a more impressive sharpness in the "after" image.

It looks like a typical retouch job to me-- but not for a high-end fashion model.

I don't think the original is blurred though, just to try, I downloaded the before image and was able to achieve the same illusion of "sharpness" by adjusting the curves of the image without using any sharpening techniques.

The blur almost seems to be an illusion by the light, blended tones of the original.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
http://www.fotofix.ca

FotoFix.ca wrote:

It looks like a typical retouch job to me-- but not for a high-end fashion model.

I don't think the original is blurred though, just to try, I downloaded the before image and was able to achieve the same illusion of "sharpness" by adjusting the curves of the image without using any sharpening techniques.

The blur almost seems to be an illusion by the light, blended tones of the original.

Once again I am dismayed by the direction of the edits...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UberBabes/

Greg N. wrote:

Marsupilami wrote:

http://www.kaydesign.be/retouches/retouches17.html
(the "before" of course)

I think, though their after images well retouched, their "before" images are somewhat bogus, too. I would bet that the "before" image in the example above was blurred to show off a more impressive sharpness in the "after" image.

Or maybe the bad shoot was done in purpose?
I hope so...

--
Houba, houba !

Marsupilami

"Marsupilami" wrote in message

Greg N. wrote:

Marsupilami wrote:

http://www.kaydesign.be/retouches/retouches17.html
(the "before" of course)

I think, though their after images well retouched, their "before" images are somewhat bogus, too. I would bet that the "before" image in the example above was blurred to show off a more impressive sharpness in the "after" image.

Or maybe the bad shoot was done in purpose?
I hope so...

--
Houba, houba !

Marsupilami

the super- sharpness makes the knuckles look MORE wrinkly not less. it most likely blurry because it's blown up from a small part of the original?
nice job on the nails though
in general I liked her stuff
most glamour clients want you to make them look how they'd like to look ,not how they are.
In almost every model shot I do, I think I over retouch it, but in 6 of 10 cases they ask for more retouching.
I encourage models to be more representative of what they actually look like, so many of their comp cards represent a fantasy.
At most castings now they take (hideous, badly lit) digital snapshots for the client to see what the models "really" look like.

KatWoman wrote:

In almost every model shot I do, I think I over retouch it, but in 6 of 10 cases they ask for more retouching.
I encourage models to be more representative of what they actually look like, so many of their comp cards represent a fantasy.
At most castings now they take (hideous, badly lit) digital snapshots for the client to see what the models "really" look like.

I always think it is a good idea for a model to maintain at least two comp cards-- one with retouched photos, one without retouched photos, and optionally, another one of just being casual.

Different modelling jobs would require different degrees of retouching from none to blade and hilt, I think.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
http://www.fotofix.ca

KatWoman wrote:

"Marsupilami" wrote in message

Greg N. wrote:

Marsupilami wrote:

http://www.kaydesign.be/retouches/retouches17.html
(the "before" of course)

the super- sharpness makes the knuckles look MORE wrinkly not less. it most likely blurry because it's blown up from a small part of the original?
nice job on the nails though
in general I liked her stuff
most glamour clients want you to make them look how they'd like to look ,not how they are.
In almost every model shot I do, I think I over retouch it, but in 6 of 10 cases they ask for more retouching.

I encourage models to be more representative of what they actually look like, so many of their comp cards represent a fantasy.

When you say "what they actually look like", do you mean how they photograph on film, or how they look in real life? Some people look very average in real life and photograph amazingly well without retouching. I take it that is what you mean. There would be no point in showing the client their real world average looks. The client only needs to know how they will photograph (assuming we are only talking about a photographic model).

At most castings now they take (hideous, badly lit) digital snapshots for the client to see what the models "really" look like.