It's difficult to compare the best post work on images that are different in position, lighting and resolution. The first is lit better, so any post work has the potential to "look" better, in spite of the resolution issues.
The first. But if the second was not so warm there would be little in it. Dare I say? Both are good in some ways and deficient in other ways. When a face has had a lot of "airbrushing' and there are other body parts, hands or chest etc., included in the image which have been overlooked in the editing the edited face will look over done. So the hand is unedited and the face looks over done. However, the other shot looks like the face has been even more over done. Very pretty girl, very nicely shot but the retouching is not quite right. Having said that I could not do better but I know my strengths lie elsewhere, so that means nothing. Still I have the visual acuity to know a good edit for a less good edit. These have merit but fall short, but not by too much. Good work need a little improvement and it would be wonderful work.
I would go for 1st here, just because it's less overdone. Eyes on second one are bit "glowing" - it's because of fact they were in shadow. Modifying such shadow usually might end up with problems like this. Even if you light shadow under eyes area, get back some overall darker tones to compensate the change so it will look more realistic. Hope it helps, Cheers,
Both images have too much global dodge and burning, and the color has gone orange in the shadows, particularly around her nose. Whites of the eyes are too bright. They've lost reality.
I really like the first image. I think it is far better than the bottom.
I mean the retouch, not the image bro, the first retouch is like "pixelated" in the skin, while the other isn't.
first one
It's difficult to compare the best post work on images that are different in position, lighting and resolution. The first is lit better, so any post work has the potential to "look" better, in spite of the resolution issues.
The first. But if the second was not so warm there would be little in it. Dare I say? Both are good in some ways and deficient in other ways. When a face has had a lot of "airbrushing' and there are other body parts, hands or chest etc., included in the image which have been overlooked in the editing the edited face will look over done. So the hand is unedited and the face looks over done. However, the other shot looks like the face has been even more over done. Very pretty girl, very nicely shot but the retouching is not quite right. Having said that I could not do better but I know my strengths lie elsewhere, so that means nothing. Still I have the visual acuity to know a good edit for a less good edit. These have merit but fall short, but not by too much. Good work need a little improvement and it would be wonderful work.
Yeah, im playing about the face retouching, so try different methods, to see which looks best
I would go for 1st here, just because it's less overdone. Eyes on second one are bit "glowing" - it's because of fact they were in shadow. Modifying such shadow usually might end up with problems like this. Even if you light shadow under eyes area, get back some overall darker tones to compensate the change so it will look more realistic. Hope it helps, Cheers,
Thanks for you advice, will try out!
But where are her pores?!?!!?!!?
Magic bro haha
Both images have too much global dodge and burning, and the color has gone orange in the shadows, particularly around her nose. Whites of the eyes are too bright. They've lost reality.