ATTN: Photoshop Experts

[MrsKellyPierce]

This girl on another forum did this to my pics and wont tell me how she made my skin appear like that..can someone tell me so I can start doing that to all my pics lol :lol: and I also noticed it's a PNG file not a jpeg???

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/kellylicious82/kel-1.png

[kukm4]

kinda looks like a glass filter/plug-in

[MrsKellyPierce]

kinda looks like a glass filter/plug-in Did she use photoshop you think or another program

Other ex.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/kellylicious82/jessus.png
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/kellylicious82/goe.png

[Ecstatic]

Certainly can be done in Photoshop. Looks like it might be a combination of noise > median and blur > surface blur, but selectively and progressively applied so that areas of detail (such as the eyes) are not blurred. Look at that Garden of Enden pic: the hair adjacent to the face is slightly blurred.

I remember doing a version of that pic for you, Kelly. As I recall, it was maybe a web cam pic? Anyway, there was a lot of noise (random pixelated colors) in the pic, especially in the skin tones, which is common with low res images. It's much easier to work with a high res (6 mp or larger) image. It takes time and patience to retouch such an image as she did for you. Could also be some airbrushing involved, but that too is very tedious in Photoshop.

[muhmuh]

im guessing blur and dodging afterwards

[Ecstatic]

muhmuh, I think you're right about the dodging. Surface blur was added in CS2 and is a much nicer way of dealing with smoothing skin, removing jpeg artefacts and noise. It has the look of median, also, at a low setting, maybe 1 pixel.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Certainly can be done in Photoshop. Looks like it might be a combination of noise > median and blur > surface blur, but selectively and progressively applied so that areas of detail (such as the eyes) are not blurred. Look at that Garden of Enden pic: the hair adjacent to the face is slightly blurred.

I remember doing a version of that pic for you, Kelly. As I recall, it was maybe a web cam pic? Anyway, there was a lot of noise (random pixelated colors) in the pic, especially in the skin tones, which is common with low res images. It's much easier to work with a high res (6 mp or larger) image. It takes time and patience to retouch such an image as she did for you. Could also be some airbrushing involved, but that too is very tedious in Photoshop. Really the other girls shots are webcam too and she id it in like 3 minutes but yeah I understand

[MrsKellyPierce]

im guessing blur and dodging afterwards I need to learn how to do that :( I like the way it looks

[MikeyLikesIt]

an easy way in photshop is to

duplicate the photo then hit filter>Blur>Gaussian Blur>make the radius about 1.0 pixels. Then select the layers bar and switch the blurred layer to lighten. Kinda the same :idea:

[MonsieurValentine]

ha ha ha ha ha.

[muhmuh]

im guessing blur and dodging afterwards I need to learn how to do that :( I like the way it looks

tbh i think it looks overdone and unprofessional

[MrsKellyPierce]

an easy way in photshop is to

duplicate the photo then hit filter>Blur>Gaussian Blur>make the radius about 1.0 pixels. Then select the layers bar and switch the blurred layer to lighten. Kinda the same :idea: I don't have photoshop I usually let others do it for me

[MrsKellyPierce]

im guessing blur and dodging afterwards I need to learn how to do that :( I like the way it looks

tbh i think it looks overdone and unprofessional I like overdone lol

[kukm4]

Free Paint program.
paint.net
http://www.getpaint.net/index2.html

you may need to download plug-ins. here is one Glowing
Effect. w/ pix example.

http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1124&sid=4d234c8992f1f6b2179ca139401464e5

[suckseed]

MikeyLikesIt, great gif!

[MrsKellyPierce]

Free Paint program.
paint.net
http://www.getpaint.net/index2.html

you may need to download plug-ins. here is one Glowing
Effect. w/ pix example.

http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1124&sid=4d234c8992f1f6b2179ca139401464e5 Do you know a program where it make me look like a Barbie Doll?

[kukm4]

do you have an example?

[MrsKellyPierce]

do you have an example? Hold on give me a second

[jiggly]

looks like bevel emboss or what ever it's called, but it's been a while since ive used photoshop

[jiggly]

looks like bevel emboss or what ever it's called, but it's been a while since ive used photoshop

[MrsKellyPierce]

do you have an example? Hold on give me a second Something like this I love the way it looks

[muhmuh]

for that sort of thing youll need much better base material
better cam
better make up
much better lighting

[Tranny 411]

simple to do but you must have a good hi resolution pic to start with. Garbage in garbage out.

[MrsKellyPierce]

simple to do but you must have a good hi resolution pic to start with. Garbage in garbage out. I have high resolution pics

[kukm4]

I played with paint.net. I think you can get similar effects w/ Effects--Blur--Median. I'm sure a true photoshop expert can pull it off.
here is the amateur version. heh

here is what I did.

[MrsKellyPierce]

I played with paint.net. I think you can get similar effects w/ Effects--Blur--Median. I'm sure a true photoshop expert can pull it off.
here is the amateur version. heh

here is what I did. ha ha I am purple

[kukm4]

here is before (left) After (right)

[MrsKellyPierce]

here is before (left) After (right) Ooh I like that!

[MrsKellyPierce]

I would like to do that to this pic

[Ecstatic]

Not bad, kukm4, but I think a little too heavy-handed (of course, the customer is always right). Also, I always work with a separate layer and feather the selection as well. Feathering helps make a smooth, seamless boundary with the areas which have not been blurred or otherwise filtered, and by using a separate layer (as someone suggested above), you can apply different filters to different layers and merge with varying opacity, etc. One trick, for instance, for pixelation around the border is to use the clone tool (depending upon the resolution of the pic, set at perhaps 3 pixels, aligned, single layer, at maybe 30%--play with it--opacity) to select the bottom layer (original pic, no visible) to apply that data over the feathered area on the top layer.

Lots and lots of tricks are available. But Tranny 411 is right about GIGO, which is why I hate to work with small, low res photos: there's little data to manipulate, plus these images are typically very noisy (sort of digital's version of film grain, this is extraneous visible artifacts, like splotchy color pixelation on skin), have high chromatic aberration, and, since jpeg/jpg is a lossy format (data is lost each time the algorithm runs when you save the image), have often been saved too many times.

BTW, Kelly, in your original post you raised a question about PNG: this is one of the three image formats commonly supported by web browsers (the other two being GIF and JPEG/JPG). It stands for Portable Network Graphics and was introduced in the 1990s as an alternative to the GIF, which technically requires licensing. It is pronounced "ping" or "p-n-g" and offers many of the benefits of both GIF and JPG. Like GIF, it is a lossless compression format, so no data is lost when the file is saved, but like JPG, it supports millions of colors (GIF only supports 256 colors). However, GIF supports animation, which neither PNG nor JPG do, and the alternate format MNG has not caught on. For that matter, PNG is still the odd man out, far less common on the web than JPG or GIF. The main advantage of JPG over PNG is size: an otherwise equal image in PNG format would be about 10x the size of a JPG file. Also, PNG does not support the Exif data from digital cameras, whereas JPG and TIFF do (thus, digital cameras typically save in JPG, TIFF and/or RAW formats).

I'm sure you wanted to know all that.........

[MrsKellyPierce]

I've always wanted to touch this pic up it's horrible

[MrsKellyPierce]

Not bad, kukm4, but I think a little too heavy-handed (of course, the customer is always right). Also, I always work with a separate layer and feather the selection as well. Feathering helps make a smooth, seamless boundary with the areas which have not been blurred or otherwise filtered, and by using a separate layer (as someone suggested above), you can apply different filters to different layers and merge with varying opacity, etc. One trick, for instance, for pixelation around the border is to use the clone tool (depending upon the resolution of the pic, set at perhaps 3 pixels, aligned, single layer, at maybe 30%--play with it--opacity) to select the bottom layer (original pic, no visible) to apply that data over the feathered area on the top layer.

Lots and lots of tricks are available. But Tranny 411 is right about GIGO, which is why I hate to work with small, low res photos: there's little data to manipulate, plus these images are typically very noisy (sort of digital's version of film grain, this is extraneous visible artifacts, like splotchy color pixelation on skin), have high chromatic aberration, and, since jpeg/jpg is a lossy format (data is lost each time the algorithm runs when you save the image), have often been saved too many times.

BTW, Kelly, in your original post you raised a question about PNG: this is one of the three image formats commonly supported by web browsers (the other two being GIF and JPEG/JPG). It stands for Portable Network Graphics and was introduced in the 1990s as an alternative to the GIF, which technically requires licensing. It is pronounced "ping" or "p-n-g" and offers many of the benefits of both GIF and JPG. Like GIF, it is a lossless compression format, so no data is lost when the file is saved, but like JPG, it supports millions of colors (GIF only supports 256 colors). However, GIF supports animation, which neither PNG nor JPG do, and the alternate format MNG has not caught on. For that matter, PNG is still the odd man out, far less common on the web than JPG or GIF. The main advantage of JPG over PNG is size: an otherwise equal image in PNG format would be about 10x the size of a JPG file. Also, PNG does not support the Exif data from digital cameras, whereas JPG and TIFF do (thus, digital cameras typically save in JPG, TIFF and/or RAW formats).

I'm sure you wanted to know all that......... lol cool ecstatic I just want to look plastic in my pics i don't know why lol

[muhmuh]

hm ecstatic got me thinking is there any way to edit pics in a yuv colour space in photoshop? im mean theres gotta be for pics that are saved in that format (jpeg)
plus i get the feel a lot of cam noise is chroma noise

[MrsKellyPierce]

lol This is my photoshop skills I SUCK

[MrsKellyPierce]

My friend just did this one she freaking rocks
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u49/KellyShore82/kellly.png

[Ecstatic]

hm ecstatic got me thinking is there any way to edit pics in a yuv colour space in photoshop? im mean theres gotta be for pics that are saved in that format (jpeg)
plus i get the feel a lot of cam noise is chroma noise
Interesting. YUV is based on one luma, two chroma and is similar to (but not the same as) YCbCr. It is used for encoding the color space in PAL video. The Y value is the brightness of the pixel and the U/V are color data; it derives from the 1950s when one of the three channels had to used to deliver black and white information to be backwards compatible with black and white tv (and this gets way out of my depth). For reference, RGB is an additive color model used for light-emitting devices (computer CRTs) where all colors are combinations of Red, Green and Blue; CMYK is a subtractive color model used for printing, which is reflective, and the four channels provide Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black data which, intermixed, create the colors. YUV/YCbCr are Luminance-Chrominance color models, which correspond to brightness and color.

JPEG actually converts RGB data to YCbCr (Luminance - Blue/Yellow - Red/Green), which is very similar to YUV. Extensive tests have shown the the HVS (Human Visual System) relies more on brightness than on color data, hence the emphasis is on luminance. Read more here: http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-color-space.html.

I think the short answer to your question is to work in L.a.b. mode: Lab is comprised of Lightness and two color channels (a, b), similar to YCbCr/YUV (all three systems derive from the 1931 work of the Commission Internationale d'Eclairage (CIE) to define a color model that displays every color perceived by the human eye; this system was updated in 1976 and is device independent, so that colors remain consistent regardless of output device). YCbCr is superior for compression of color data, however.

And I quite agree with you: especially in low-end or mid-range digital cameras, a lot of the noise is chroma aberration. This is one reason that a pro or prosumer level camera, like the Nikon D70, at 6 mp gives superior results to a cheaper consumer camera that offers 8 mp: yes, you get more image data, but it's of poorer quality (in a nutshell).

[MrsKellyPierce]

hm ecstatic got me thinking is there any way to edit pics in a yuv colour space in photoshop? im mean theres gotta be for pics that are saved in that format (jpeg)
plus i get the feel a lot of cam noise is chroma noise
Interesting. YUV is based on one luma, two chroma and is similar to (but not the same as) YCbCr. It is used for encoding the color space in PAL video. The Y value is the brightness of the pixel and the U/V are color data; it derives from the 1950s when one of the three channels had to used to deliver black and white information to be backwards compatible with black and white tv (and this gets way out of my depth). For reference, RGB is an additive color model used for light-emitting devices (computer CRTs) where all colors are combinations of Red, Green and Blue; CMYK is a subtractive color model used for printing, which is reflective, and the four channels provide Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black data which, intermixed, create the colors. YUV/YCbCr are Luminance-Chrominance color models, which correspond to brightness and color.

JPEG actually converts RGB data to YCbCr (Luminance - Blue/Yellow - Red/Green), which is very similar to YUV. Extensive tests have shown the the HVS (Human Visual System) relies more on brightness than on color data, hence the emphasis is on luminance. Read more here: http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-color-space.html.

I think the short answer to your question is to work in L.a.b. mode: Lab is comprised of Lightness and two color channels (a, b), similar to YCbCr/YUV (all three systems derive from the 1931 work of the Commission Internationale d'Eclairage (CIE) to define a color model that displays every color perceived by the human eye; this system was updated in 1976 and is device independent, so that colors remain consistent regardless of output device). YCbCr is superior for compression of color data, however.

And I quite agree with you: especially in low-end or mid-range digital cameras, a lot of the noise is chroma aberration. This is one reason that a pro or prosumer level camera, like the Nikon D70, at 6 mp gives superior results to a cheaper consumer camera that offers 8 mp: yes, you get more image data, but it's of poorer quality (in a nutshell). Ecstatic I don't understand all that technical talk lol

[muhmuh]

I think the short answer to your question is to work in L.a.b. mode

found that one out already
and on the rest ... you really didnt tell me anything new there... and yuv is sort of short for any luma/chroma colourspace to me
after all they all work the same just with a little rotation in this or that direction

edit:
this thread makes me want to buy a wacom

[Lance.Trebor]

A good program for improving the way skin looks in a picture is Neat image
http://www.neatimage.com/
Its used for removing the noise you get on digital camera pictures
a byproduct is that is also softens the appearance of skin
used with a bit of photoshopping you can improve most pictures

[MrsKellyPierce]

A good program for improving the way skin looks in a picture is Neat image
http://www.neatimage.com/
Its used for removing the noise you get on digital camera pictures
a byproduct is that is also softens the appearance of skin
used with a bit of photoshopping you can improve most pictures thats's awesome thank you sweety :)

[MrsKellyPierce]

A good program for improving the way skin looks in a picture is Neat image
http://www.neatimage.com/
Its used for removing the noise you get on digital camera pictures
a byproduct is that is also softens the appearance of skin
used with a bit of photoshopping you can improve most pictures thats's awesome thank you sweety :)

[blackmagic]

do you have an example? Hold on give me a second Something like this I love the way it looks

lol keep editing and you end up........... looking like a 3D character

[qeuqheeg222]

too many around here look like video game bitches..can you touch them..get real with what you can touch blemishes,pimples bad sil and alll....

[MrsKellyPierce]

do you have an example? Hold on give me a second Something like this I love the way it looks

lol keep editing and you end up........... looking like a 3D character I like that look to be honest and Lance is awesome he made that one look so natural

[muhmuh]

lance made it look like a mask... a cell shaded one at that

[blackmagic]

do you have an example? Hold on give me a second Something like this I love the way it looks

lol keep editing and you end up........... looking like a 3D character I like that look to be honest and Lance is awesome he made that one look so natural

lol suit it yourself, we all have our own style and make for editing images, lol but whatever floats ur boat im kewl with ....

[sharky]

Kelly I have Adobe photoshop CS2 and a 3 DVD set that teaches you how to use it if you would like to learn

[Vala_TS]

Interesting thread. Does anyone else think Kelly looks a bit like Carrie Underwood in that pic she's currently using for her avatar?

Vala,

[Ecstatic]

Ecstatic I don't understand all that technical talk lol

Neither do I, lol! (kidding, but it does quickly go beyond my expertise)



I think the short answer to your question is to work in L.a.b. mode

found that one out already
and on the rest ... you really didnt tell me anything new there... and yuv is sort of short for any luma/chroma colourspace to me
after all they all work the same just with a little rotation in this or that direction

edit:
this thread makes me want to buy a wacom
There are differences between the various luma/chroma color models, but yes they are similar in terms of the ratios of lightness (luminance) to color (chroma) values. YCbCr is better suited as a catch-all for photos and YUV for video, but all that theory gets beyond me. I'm concerned with the application in Photoshop, rather than the theory behind it.

[kukm4]

Not bad, kukm4, but I think a little too heavy-handed (of course, the customer is always right). Also, I always work with a separate layer and feather the selection as well. Feathering helps make a smooth, seamless boundary with the areas which have not been blurred or otherwise filtered, and by using a separate layer (as someone suggested above), you can apply different filters to different layers and merge with varying opacity, etc. One trick, for instance, for pixelation around the border is to use the clone tool (depending upon the resolution of the pic, set at perhaps 3 pixels, aligned, single layer, at maybe 30%--play with it--opacity) to select the bottom layer (original pic, no visible) to apply that data over the feathered area on the top layer.


Thanks for tips. Yeah I prob. could have done better. 1st time using Paint.net. I wanted to see if it was even possible to get the effect Kelly was looking for. Since she had mentioned, she did not have photoshop. I wanted to make sure you could even do this, with that program. Not bad for a free program. I soon found my self looking for options, only photoshop had. :D

[FREEFALLL666]

Those sorts of effects are great for Magazine covers or Sig pics but when you look at a girl/guy believe it or not it is the imperfections which add to the allure.
For full photosets to look like this the skin ends up looking like plastic and the end result is akin to those RealDolls.

You look stunning and I dont see why you would want to alter what is pretty flawless skin anyway.