Definately a good tutorial. I don't shoot a lot of shots like this, and really didn't know what kind of work was involved. I will certainly give this a try, sometime. I think you went a bit overboard with the neat-image (and other noise removal tool..) bashing, however.
In a studio setting, taking shots like this, NeatImage is probably unnecessary to begin with. But Neat Image != Gaussian blur.
If the result in the last picture is typical of your neat image use, perhaps you need to evaluate how you are using the program? If it is atypical, perhaps you should avoid such hyperbole so as not to mislead those inexperienced with noise removal.
jzev wrote:
...If the result in the last picture is typical of your neat image use, perhaps you need to evaluate how you are using the program? If it is atypical, perhaps you should avoid such hyperbole so as not to mislead those inexperienced with noise removal.
It's tounge-in-cheek representation of photographers who overuse the program not for noise removal, but for skin processing. I wouldn't touch the app with a ten foot clown pole for noise removal or as a coaster for my drinks.
jzev wrote:
I figured as much. I didn't mean to be rude, I just think the last image could mislead those who have not used software such as neat image previously.
No worries, you weren't rude at all, and I appreciate the time you took to comment.
Thanks for the tutorial. I have been struggling with how to smooth skin but not turn it plasticky. I think there is a fine balance but I have yet to find it!
nice job and thank for the time &effort it nice that ppl share there trick in ps
is there any good cd that you know off it faster then reading book
thank you goalie
Thank you VERY much for that! It is extremely helpful to see a pro's process from start to finish. It's also nice to know that even models have a tiny bit of underwear flab
Outstanding tutorial. Am I correct that much of this optimization is for the web and not necessarilyl for printing? My main guess is that the shadow work was a bit much if you were planning on printing it.
Fred needs to make this into a full fledged article. Thanks for taking me to the next level.
Darn, you just destroyed my last illusion I thought that models just came out that way, no work needed. Great tutorial. Is there a way to post it in an easily downloadable form? This is worth keeping as a reference.
My main guess is that the shadow work was a bit much if you were planning on printing it.
It depends on the shot. THis shot in question was somewhat flat, and I think needed it for print or just to give it some kick....really depends on the image itself, I'd say.
Excellent and informative post! Thanks for your time!
I agree with the points being made about the bashing of Neat Image; while it does "destroy photographic information", so does sensor noise. And Neat Image does a fairly good job at targetting sensor noise in the image recorded by the sensor. This is somewhat unrelated to the barbie-doll-effect novices tend to end up with during their first Neat Image-session.
For more information about beauty retouching, check out Kevin Ames' "Photoshop CS: The Art of Photographing Women".
Nice effort but seriously though. Neat Image, like most tools are just tools. Overusing it will cause your image to deteriorate but knowing HOW to utilize it with layer masks, etc. will highly enhance your images. It's not the tool but the mind behind the tool that makes your images great.
