Let me be the first to say that I hate skin processing and find nothing at all pleasing about plastic looking skin, glamour glows or any other processing that stops people looking like people. But when taking portraits, particularly when trying to achieve a beauty look, sometimes we need to give the subjects a little bit of loving care in Photoshop. Especially when we use sharp lenses that render every little hair, spot and blemish! The shot of "Simplicity" in my gallery was a shot I worked on for about an hour, trying my best to achieve the look I wanted without resorting to blurring the skin. I thought I did a pretty good job. Since then, I have sent the full resolution on to a guy that shoots a lot of fashion photography and he has reworked it. In addition to that, I've finally reworked his version. All the shots are shown below.

Far left: Original portrait
Second from left: My original edit
Second from right: Toms edit
Far right: A combination of both edits

I've sized the shot down for posting, but it's still pretty wide. Unfortunately even at this size, a lot of the detail is lost. As such I've posted a larger version (still not full resolution) here: http://www.thewonderoflight.com/misc/christine_large.jpg

I thought people might be interested in seeing the results.

So how much work do you do on skin? Do you blur? What's the secret to your retouching technique? Which of the above would you pick?

Ryan.. please do have a go. Ross, I think regardless of make-up, lens sharpness can be unforgiving at times? There was a MUA involved on this shoot and to be honest I was/am delighted with the makeup on the day. But the makeup vs. retouching is a learning curve for me.

I want to avoid shots being too polished/false, but at the same time have them shine. My cake and eat it kind of thing.. 

  I mentioned in this forum just before Christmas that it was worth looking at the trial download for skin retouching   www.portraitprofessional.com   It does not do much more than you can do in Photoshop but it is easier and quicker well worth looking at and having a play.

            &nb sp;               Colin

Really it does depend on what the final outcome is.....

The skin type of a person also plays a big part, the pore size....etc., and as already outlined make up and lighting.

In you pics Ciaran, I personally like No 2 because, all but for a wee bit more healing, it holds the detail and reality of the image as a portrait.....the next two, retouching is more obvious to me but then I am looking from a perspective of one who retouches....

Depending on what I am doing Ciaran, if its a client portrait to hang, I have seen myself working for literally hours....using healing, gaussian and clone........if I am doing graphics then the process is completely different....its extreme retouching, less time and to the point of surreal, to achieve the 'unreal' reality of what the brief dictates.

But I know one thing.......good retouching is very time consuming...

Going off subject ....I have never had a complaint from removing a spot  ..but ironically,  I was asked for an image of a spotted person (if that politically correct) last year...and I could not find one!!   Its hard to put spot/ blemishes onto a face!! 

Art