Hello. I am writing via Google translator, so the text may be incorrect. I apologize in advance. These frames were taken on canon 6d m2, 70-200mm lens 4 light sources were used. The retouching was long and tedious for one photo gone 2 days)) wanted to share the source and the result with you.
I'm sorry to say that I think you've overdone it. She looks unreal, like CGI, not a human being. Restraint is often very important in post-processing. I'm not a portraitist, but have a broad interest in photography.
perhaps you `re right. I calmly accept criticism. when you sit for hours on one photo you get used to the eyes)) thank you for your opinion
Sorry! Meant in the best spirit. :-) Why don't you repost if you redo it?
I'll think about it. thank you .. and in general was the idea to make art processing. and this style implies that something unreal, something that we do not see in real life, the effect of oil painting, but at the same time preserving the natural structure of the skin ..
Now I understand, Evelina! It is such an appealing, slightly tender portrait of a very beautiful woman, that it is hard not to see it as a "glamour" image, such as one might see in a magazine, and hence the flattering processing gives an impression of overdone tidying-up, rather than a deliberately unreal effect.
Perhaps some props, different (e.g. more dramatic) lighting, or more dramatic make-up, might change the atmosphere from commercial glamour or flattering portrait to fine art. More difficult if you're not after a dramatic effect, though.
I think that there is just so much of the commercial glamour style imagery about, that it's hard (for me) not to put this image in that category, no matter how hard I try, and judge it by those standards.