magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

Here's a side-by-side, original and final result, on one of my recent portrait efforts. The pp was not overly complicated or difficult although, like most of my edits, I would have got there quicker if I'd known where I was going!
The shot was set-up by a tutor on a group shoot. He suggested a very wide aperture to get the fade from crisp eyes to blurry hair and blurred gauges in the background. Its shot at f1.2 (a lens I find quite difficult to make good use of).
Processing does involve some frequency separation as an exercise - a quicker method may have been simple negative Clarity and/or Dehaze applied selectively in Lightroom - and several Brightness/Contrast adjustment layers applied selectively to the hair (in preference to applying Dodge & Burn to such a tangle). Other layers include attention to the eyes for colour and brightness, and some corrective cloning here and there.
I hope you find the pp of interest and that you'll leave me your thoughts on the result.

Attached file:
(Download)

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

See, there was your mistake--only 18 layers. You shulda used, say, 63. 😊 Great job on smoothing and color symphony. I also liked the "small" detail of her hair serving as a unifying element with the lights in the background rather than the duller grays.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Your edit is a vivid and flattering improvement. My feelings are that the face needs a touch more contrast, and if the shadows were the reason why you reduced the tonal range you should work on those shadows selectively. The model is obviously not in the bloom of youth any more - which isn't necessarily a bad thing - and the shadowy look of the original aggravates that impression, but I suspect the shadows needed alleviating rather than almost total removal.

Her lack of youth could be presented in a way that accentuates character and avoids an unflattering look. My guess is that to avoid an unflattering look you just need to make the shadows softer and also soften the skin texture slightly. The original skin texture isn't bad - just not optimal.

I'd say you handled the hair well, and the eyes are fine as long as you aren't familiar with the subject since they are noticeably different from the original.

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

63 would not be an unusual number for me Bob - unfortunately not due to cleverness, just that my editing wanders about rather! Lots of little, separate, adjustments seems to be my method.
Thanks for taking a look and for your comments, always appreciated,

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

I know exactly what you mean RG, I did struggle with which look I was going for. I know a little about the lady in as much as she’s a showgirl, burlesque performer, comic, a producer and a photographer. What I wanted to avoid was upsetting her in any way but couldn’t decide whether she would prefer her character and age to show, or whether she sees herself differently. I guess either is possible and her reaction to my shots will tell. She is likely to comment as we post to a common forum. My wife’s view is that ladies usually like to think of themselves in a ‘slightly improved’ way!

Another thing that bothers me about her is her tattoos - not apparent in this one but she has many, and they just ‘ain’t my thing’. I’ve removed them in some shots but, again, wonder how she sees them. She is the hardest working model I’ve photographed and I have a lot of respect for the effort she puts into every scene.
I’ll revisit those shadows and see if I can make the improvements you suggest - many thanks for your contribution, always helpful.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I really like what you did with the hair. The skin looks just a tad too smooth to me. A beautiful mature woman.

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

I think it depends what the end use of the portrait is, as to how far to go Jack. In this case it was just an arbitrary guess at what would look good - personal taste, if you like. The skin has not actually been smoothed - that’s the point of using frequency separation, the texture remains, it’s the mottled colours of the skin tones lying below the texture that get blended, giving the allusion of ‘smoothing’ whilst retaining some reality. At least, that’s the theory! Of course some minor adjustment to texture in order to remove any pimples or unwanted blemishes is permissible. If you enlarge the image you can see the effect more easily. Doesn’t mean you have to like though, it is down to the viewer to decide.
She certainly is lovely, whether frequency separated or not!
Many thanks for your thoughts on it, much appreciated.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

In terms of the extent of retouching and aesthetics in general, it is best to thoroughly discuss with each portrait client as to the expectation of correction. This avoids any disappointment and helps bm determine my approach to lighting, diffusion, and the extent of retouching. Oftentimes the client will leave these matters up to me and I thereby assume they prefer a flattering image.

As y'all will realize by just reading the equipment issues on this forum, many photographers are preoccupied with extreme sharpness. Aside from sharper lenses, digital images, especially nowadays, are dramatically sharper than what was generally made with film in the past. I mention this because, after over 50 years in the portraiture business, I have not encountered too many folks, especially the ladies, who were interested in seeing their pores in a portrait. Nor do I find many folks who would be satisfied with a "plastic" skin texture. So...unless you or your subject or yourself are into soft focus, therefore more ethereal imagery, if you are starting off with a sharp realistic image, retouching is going to play in important part in the aesthetics of the final image.

In this image, I found the lighting was a bit flat in terms of sculpting the face, so in retouching, I enhanced the shadows. I tried to find a skin texture that de-emphasized signs of aging skin yet while retaining some texture and vibrancy in the highlights. Not knowing the subject or having any discussions, I generally opt for a warmer skin tone. The attached "after" image is a retouching example of what we produce at the studio in terms of the extent of correction in a female subject. Of course each photographer has his or her own color palette the prefer to work in and of course, much depends on the actual skin tone of the subject. Some theatrical or "character studies may differ and in some cases are not retouched at all.

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

Many thanks for going to these lengths for me Ed, I do appreciate the effort you have put into it.
You have addressed the pp from the ‘pro studio’ point of view and produced a stunning result. It’s not what I would aim for and, for me, represents the ‘over the top’ improvement that simply isn’t my thing. However your treatment of the shadow areas is definitely something I aspire to (and it probably represents what RG was suggesting in an earlier response).
I take your point, and RG’s, regarding definition of skin pores too. It’s that texture that gives the reality of the image, but hitting the right level of sharpness is, I find, difficult - but critical to what you’re saying.
There was no question here as to what the model wanted - she was paid to do her job and probably would not worry too much what was done with her image. If she likes it however, she will say so as she too is a photographer.
So, the set-up was largely out of my control as it was a group shoot in a very confined space. I asked her to look straight into the lens and not to laugh. What she did was perfect for me and as photographers stepped-up to the only position one could get the shot from, she did her best to comply with their requests. I think there was some natural high-level light supplemented by a single led stand to her front left (camera right).
Taking the advice and comment you and RG have provided, I shall revisit the shadows and skin texture elements prior to submitting into our monthly group pro-critique/competition - and let you know in due course what remarks I received.

Thanks again for all your help.