Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Glamour & Nude Talk 
Thread started 05 May 2017 (Friday) 22:01
Search threadPrev/next

Beauty shots - facial hair (remove or not?)

 
starlights
Senior Member
Avatar
657 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 123
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC
Post edited over 1 year ago by starlights.
     
May 05, 2017 22:01 |  #1

Recently I did a beauty (headshots) shoot for a beautiful young client who appears to have a ton of soft fluff (facial hair) all over her face. Although the hair are skin colored, they are very noticeable when looking at 50% or 100%. She has great skin and the images themselves have come out great. My question is that should I attempt to remove all the facial hair, or just retouch the images without completely removing facial hair? It would be substantial work to retouch 20-30 images in PS if attempting to remove them completely.

Is there any smart technique for such an endeavor? I am fairly comfortable with PS but off late I rely on getting images right in-camera so LR would suffice in most cases.

Thanks for your advice!


Website (external link) l Facebook (external link)
Lenses for SALE (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
Avatar
2,470 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Likes: 1167
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Austin, Texas
     
May 05, 2017 22:21 |  #2

It would help to see a sample. You don't necessarily want to eliminate it entirely. Hair that interrupts lip lines and such are important to deal with. For elaborate retouching, PS (especially with a tablet) is much more efficient than LR.


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,893 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1207
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
Post edited over 1 year ago by Dan Marchant.
     
May 08, 2017 00:32 |  #3

starlights wrote in post #18347522 (external link)
....when looking at 50% or 100%.

What does the image look like when viewed at the proper viewing distance. Zooming in is for fixing problems, not finding them, because a problem no one will see when viewing the image normally isn't actually a problem and any time spent fixing it is time wasted.

If the client is going to use the images as headshots on a website (at web resolution) or printed on cards etc then no one will ever see the hairs. But, if the client also wants a really close crop of part of the shot, where the hairs will show up, then it might be worth doing some work.

Obviously the above does not apply when you are shooting glamour work or advertising shots where the client actively wants a fake zero defect look.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
F2Bthere
Senior Member
Avatar
853 posts
Likes: 358
Joined Oct 2015
     
May 08, 2017 08:51 |  #4

Every photographer needs to make their own call on this based on how well they know their client. My opinion: I think you want to decide this with your client.

If there is a temporary red mark on a clients face and you take it off, or reduce dark shadows under they eyes, take dust or loose threads off do clothing, a client is unlikely to mind or even notice. If you fail to take such things off, they are likely to notice them :).

When it comes to features which are a part of them, removing them without asking can backfire. Badly. Because you are making a judgement about there being something wrong with who they are. She, her family or her partner might love that "feature" which is not a flaw to them.

Making credible moves which reduce the emphasis on a feature is generally safe. So, if the hair stands out because it is darker and you make the color be closer to the color of her skin without removing it, you are making what is probably good move. If the hair is creating shadows or has highlights on it and you reduce or eliminate the shadows or highlights, again this is good. If the light is emphasizing the issue and you reverse the effect or if there is a way to light her that deemphasizes the issue and you edit so as to give the impression that is how that part is lit, that is also safe as long as it is credible. Same goes for protecting this region from contrast enhancing or sharpening effects.

Models will probably expect to be Photoshopped, but even so, there are lines better not crossed. I remember a rant about a photographer who removed a tattoo without talking with the model first :).


C&C always welcomed...
On my images, of course, and on my words as well--as long as it's constructive :).
https://www.instagram.​com/storyinpictures_co​m/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
saea501
... spilled over a little on the panties
Avatar
6,136 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5785
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Florida
     
May 08, 2017 08:54 |  #5

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18348881 (external link)
What does the image look like when viewed at the proper viewing distance. Zooming in is for fixing problems, not finding them, because a problem no one will see when viewing the image normally isn't actually a problem and any time spent fixing it is time wasted.

Truer words were never spoken.


Remember what the DorMouse said.....feed your head.
Bob
https://www.flickr.com …282@N06/with/38​203470844/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Garry75
Member
91 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 64
Joined Aug 2016
Location: Neilston, Glasgow, UK
     
May 08, 2017 16:10 |  #6

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18348881 (external link)
What does the image look like when viewed at the proper viewing distance. Zooming in is for fixing problems, not finding them,

You have just revolusionised the way I will edit from now on! This is such a sensible approach, thank you for your wise words Dan


"The incredible pleasure of photography is that you have to be there to do it"
David Hurn

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,705 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 385
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 08, 2017 22:22 |  #7

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18348881 (external link)
What does the image look like when viewed at the proper viewing distance. Zooming in is for fixing problems, not finding them, because a problem no one will see when viewing the image normally isn't actually a problem and any time spent fixing it is time wasted.

If the client is going to use the images as headshots on a website (at web resolution) or printed on cards etc then no one will ever see the hairs. But, if the client also wants a really close crop of part of the shot, where the hairs will show up, then it might be worth doing some work.

Obviously the above does not apply when you are shooting glamour work or advertising shots where the client actively wants a fake zero defect look.

Repeated for emphasis.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tdlavigne
Senior Member
Avatar
329 posts
Likes: 99
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
May 09, 2017 17:50 |  #8

Depends on your arrangement with the client. If the client asks for the hairs to be removed then I'd do it, if I were being paid hourly for retouching. If it were a package deal (ie. fixed rate for the shoot and x amount of retouched images) then I wouldn't. This could all be moot though depending on the intended usage and size of the final images. If they're to be used on business cards it very well could be a waste to deal with, but if she's printing a 3'x5' photo to sit behind her at her desk then maybe that's another story.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
starlights
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
657 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 123
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC
Post edited over 1 year ago by starlights.
     
May 19, 2017 19:43 |  #9

Thank you for responding guys. I apologize for not being able to reply sooner - just overwhelmed with my cybersecurity work.

Anyway - I agree that unless there is a problem at proper working distances, its not a problem, but I believe in this case there is a problem. I have attached a comparative sample, one is with normal processing in LR and the other one with touchup in PS using Nik skin softner. I think its a lot better after about 10 mins of touch up although not perfect. This was a free shoot for a friend so I am not planning to go overboard with the processing but didn't want to give images that were no good in my eyes. I will post proper processed samples here later, but for now here is a sample shot. Whats your opinion on both counts (unprocessed and processed). Thanks so much.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Website (external link) l Facebook (external link)
Lenses for SALE (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,893 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1207
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
May 19, 2017 22:36 |  #10

Yes the hairs in the original are noticeable, but your solution appears to be far to heavy handed. The middle of the subjects face is completely blurred, making the image appear very strange. I would suggest dialling it back to just reduce the appearance of the hairs slightly, rather than trying to eliminate them. Alternatively try using an adjustment brush in Lightroom just on the worst areas and then reducing clarity/sharpness slightly.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
starlights
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
657 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 123
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC
Post edited over 1 year ago by starlights.
     
May 19, 2017 23:34 as a reply to  @ Dan Marchant's post |  #11

The above sample was just a quick experiment - I agree its a heavy handed and in the actual edits I will dial back substantially in addition to lowering the layer opacity and masking areas. Moreover, perhaps due to being a screen capture the image I posted above is not as sharp as it shows on my computer. Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it.


Website (external link) l Facebook (external link)
Lenses for SALE (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,705 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 385
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 22, 2017 12:16 |  #12

I don't know your attitude toward plug-ins, but applications like Portraiture and Portrait Pro will handle that particular problem with a couple of clicks.

Otherwise, you can manipulate the Photoshop "Dust and scratches" filter to clear up the hairs over the face (IOW, treat them like scratches).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
starlights
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
657 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 123
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC
     
May 22, 2017 19:34 as a reply to  @ RDKirk's post |  #13

I am fine with plug-ins. The Nik software skin softening that I used is a plugin so no issues there. I have never used the dust and scratches filter in PS so that's something I would definitely like to try - thanks for pointing it out. I am hoping youtube can provide some info on its application.


Website (external link) l Facebook (external link)
Lenses for SALE (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Iancentric
Senior Member
Avatar
710 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 492
Joined Apr 2011
Location: State of Confusion
     
May 22, 2017 23:33 |  #14

Just leave it in the photo. Your client knows she has facial hair, she would have dealt if she thought it was an issue.


Ian
Flickr (external link)
Tumblr (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tdlavigne
Senior Member
Avatar
329 posts
Likes: 99
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by tdlavigne.
     
May 23, 2017 02:06 |  #15

I hope you don't mind, but I tried my hand at it to see how doable it would be quicky vs being too involved to be worth the trouble. I found that trying Inverted High Pass (choose correct radius and don't forget to turn down opacity!) then masking out everything except the troublesome areas (left cheek mostly) and running Dust and Scratches on that (again, play with opacity and then use Blending Options to narrow the effect to the lighter hairs instead of skin tones). Finally Split Frequency separation to get rid of the last couple tricky spots and then also bring back some texture sampled from areas you might have lost texture in. Results look passable so far, and took about 5 minutes. I imagine if you took 15-20 minutes to do those steps properly (it's late, and I just wanted to see how I would do it if I had to) then it's definitely doable. The Plug-In unfortunately looks too heavily processed and blurred/smoothed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY

3,178 views & 16 likes for this thread
Beauty shots - facial hair (remove or not?)
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Glamour & Nude Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is livingHi
774 guests, 377 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.