how to get that white creamy skin...?

VayCayMom · May 8, 2009

I am seeing a lot of baby and children photography where the skin is just so light, almost white. I want to do that, what is the shooting technique? :scratch Also some PP involved I am guessing some of the time. It seems most of what I see is in natural daylight. There is a gal in chicago that gets this look with no flash and sooc. :bow
This seems to me at least to be the basis for the popular ( at least in my area) dreamy quaint effect, old fashioned look.
I am a newB, so please explain in simple terms....I have a Nikon d300, and a 85 1.4 as well as 18 - 200 lenses, and a sb 800 flash :rolleyes
I tend to shoot and get vivid colors, skin tones included. Can you get the vivid colors AND the creamy white skintones? :scratch

Qarik · May 12, 2009

could you link to photo please for example?

cj99si · May 12, 2009

Without an example....... I can only assume a proper exposure, and a brightness contrast adjustment followed by a Gaussian blur/clarity adjustment in PP.

VayCayMom · May 13, 2009

ohhh I was wondering why no one had answered doh me !!

http://www.audreywoulardblog.com/index.cfm?catID=17

4th photo from top, little boy in chair

Qarik · May 13, 2009

VayCayMom wrote:

ohhh I was wondering why no one had answered doh me !!

http://www.audreywoulardblog.com/index.cfm?catID=17

4th photo from top, little boy in chair

I don't know if there is anything special that was done to get that look. The boy seems to have fair complexion to begin with and kids naturally have smooth skin as well.

My tips would be:

1) make sure the child is very well lit using a large even light source (soft box, large umbrella, window light)
2) over expose a tad in PP
3) desaturate a tad in PP

Tosser · May 14, 2009

White skin
The shot looks over exposed. Notice how the hair is totally blown.

pathfinder · May 14, 2009

Qarik wrote:

I don't know if there is anything special that was done to get that look. The boy seems to have fair complexion to begin with and kids naturally have smooth skin as well.

My tips would be:

1) make sure the child is very well lit using a large even light source (soft box, large umbrella, window light)
2) over expose a tad in PP
3) desaturate a tad in PP

That photo is too small, but a ringflash or a beauty dish might do this also, I think. I agree with a flash or reflector that is on the camera axis.

Qarik · May 14, 2009

Tosser wrote:

The shot looks over exposed. Notice how the hair is totally blown.

While I agree the hair is blown out..artistically I think it still works.

Tosser · May 15, 2009

Qarik wrote:

While I agree the hair is blown out..artistically I think it still works.

I don't disagree. I was just suggesting that the result may be due to the fact that the shot was overexposed, as evidenced by the hair.

Purest Light Photography · May 17, 2009

VayCayMom wrote:

I am seeing a lot of baby and children photography where the skin is just so light, almost white. I want to do that, what is the shooting technique? Also some PP involved I am guessing some of the time. It seems most of what I see is in natural daylight. There is a gal in chicago that gets this look with no flash and sooc.
This seems to me at least to be the basis for the popular ( at least in my area) dreamy quaint effect, old fashioned look.
I am a newB, so please explain in simple terms....I have a Nikon d300, and a 85 1.4 as well as 18 - 200 lenses, and a sb 800 flash
I tend to shoot and get vivid colors, skin tones included. Can you get the vivid colors AND the creamy white skintones?

I use only natural light on babies and children and I use Colrel Paint Shop Pro. It is easy to use and not as expensive as Photoshot. I use the "skin smoothing" tool and it makes them look almost porcelain. If you want the almost old fashioned/faded look just move the slider for saturation to the left. This will take away some of the color and I think it looks pretty neat. I attached a pic. to show you what my work looks like. Hope this helps a little.

VayCayMom · May 17, 2009

Purest Light Photography wrote:

I use only natural light on babies and children and I use Colrel Paint Shop Pro. It is easy to use and not as expensive as Photoshot. I use the "skin smoothing" tool and it makes them look almost porcelain. If you want the almost old fashioned/faded look just move the slider for saturation to the left. This will take away some of the color and I think it looks pretty neat. I attached a pic. to show you what my work looks like. Hope this helps a little.

Thank you, that really does help! The photo I posted is by a photographer that uses no flash, like you just natural light.

Elaine · May 17, 2009

Audrey Woulard takes awesome photos, doesn't she? It may sound very cliche, but in my opinion, her technique is all about the light and exposure. She seems to have a terrific loft for shooting indoors and she knows her area well and how to find the best light to fill up those faces and eyes. She also seems to shoot with bright exposures, bordering on overexposed in some cases, but as long as the eyes and face are lit up, that's what's important. I know she shoots Nikon, jpeg and uses the vivid setting. And I read that her favorite lenses are primes, namely the 85 1.4.

picturegirl · May 18, 2009

Elaine wrote:

Audrey Woulard takes awesome photos, doesn't she? It may sound very cliche, but in my opinion, her technique is all about the light and exposure. She seems to have a terrific loft for shooting indoors and she knows her area well and how to find the best light to fill up those faces and eyes. She also seems to shoot with bright exposures, bordering on overexposed in some cases, but as long as the eyes and face are lit up, that's what's important. I know she shoots Nikon, jpeg and uses the vivid setting. And I read that her favorite lenses are primes, namely the 85 1.4.

Wow she is wonderful!! I wish I knew how they got their photos to look that way, I actually tried some natural light photos last night and tried to process them to look that way, just couldn't do it

I have really nice equipment I shoot with too, but I am obviously missing something!!! Here is another link you all may like, very similar style to what we are talking about.
http://www.soulprintsphotography.com/index2.php

Do you think these photographers are using full frame camera's, Wide aperature lenses, spot metering, reflectors, lot's of photoshop techniques????

Elaine · May 18, 2009

picturegirl wrote:

Wow she is wonderful!! I wish I knew how they got their photos to look that way, I actually tried some natural light photos last night and tried to process them to look that way, just couldn't do it I have really nice equipment I shoot with too, but I am obviously missing something!!! Here is another link you all may like, very similar style to what we are talking about.
http://www.soulprintsphotography.com/index2.php

Do you think these photographers are using full frame camera's, Wide aperature lenses, spot metering, reflectors, lot's of photoshop techniques????

I know Audrey Woulard does not rely on photoshop techniques. I "know" someone (through the blog-o-sphere) who attended one of her workshops, and she said that she nails the exposure in camera, and because she shoots jpeg and with the vivid setting on her camera, she doesn't do much in post. She also does not use reflectors or flash. Wide aperture lenses are a must, and she probably does use full frame, but that isn't absolutely necessary. The key is really to get a great shot SOOC...in other words, relying on photoshop to get you there isn't the long term solution. Shoot and shoot and observe the light and shoot some more!

(I say, as if I have it all figured out. Hah!)

picturegirl · May 18, 2009

Elaine wrote:

I know Audrey Woulard does not rely on photoshop techniques. I "know" someone (through the blog-o-sphere) who attended one of her workshops, and she said that she nails the exposure in camera, and because she shoots jpeg and with the vivid setting on her camera, she doesn't do much in post. She also does not use reflectors or flash. Wide aperture lenses are a must, and she probably does use full frame, but that isn't absolutely necessary. The key is really to get a great shot SOOC...in other words, relying on photoshop to get you there isn't the long term solution. Shoot and shoot and observe the light and shoot some more! (I say, as if I have it all figured out. Hah!)

I just love that style of photography, I will be practicing more to try and acheive this look!! Maybe also investing in another lens?!?! There is another photog who post here sometimes that does weddings, he kind of shoots the same way, I noticed he uses a Nikon and so does Audrey, hmmmm

WingsOfLovePhoto · May 18, 2009

is this what you mean by almost white? This is an process I learned called elegance......

VayCayMom · May 20, 2009

WingsOfLovePhoto wrote:

is this what you mean by almost white? This is an process I learned called elegance......

It is not the exact look I was talking about, but I love it. care to share any tips?

VayCayMom · May 20, 2009

Elaine wrote:

I know Audrey Woulard does not rely on photoshop techniques. I "know" someone (through the blog-o-sphere) who attended one of her workshops, and she said that she nails the exposure in camera, and because she shoots jpeg and with the vivid setting on her camera, she doesn't do much in post. She also does not use reflectors or flash. Wide aperture lenses are a must, and she probably does use full frame, but that isn't absolutely necessary. The key is really to get a great shot SOOC...in other words, relying on photoshop to get you there isn't the long term solution. Shoot and shoot and observe the light and shoot some more! (I say, as if I have it all figured out. Hah!)

I am soo glad we are discussing this !!

I also set my camera to vivid, I use RAW but I don't think using jpeg adds anything special to her sooc, but hey I could be wrong! Her colors are so clean, and her whites are soo white, how does she do that? We can't replicate what she does in her studio, but we can try for outdoors. She stated she does not use a reflector, I assume she refers to a light reflector like the round fabric type shields. I want to know how her color is so crisp and clean and the skin so light !! I end up with vivid colors and warm red skin.

VayCayMom · May 20, 2009

picturegirl wrote:

Wow she is wonderful!! I wish I knew how they got their photos to look that way, I actually tried some natural light photos last night and tried to process them to look that way, just couldn't do it I have really nice equipment I shoot with too, but I am obviously missing something!!! Here is another link you all may like, very similar style to what we are talking about.
http://www.soulprintsphotography.com/index2.php

Do you think these photographers are using full frame camera's, Wide aperature lenses, spot metering, reflectors, lot's of photoshop techniques????

AMAZING color on that website. What does full frame mean?

WingsOfLovePhoto · May 20, 2009

Is this more what you are looking for? This is pretty much sooc.....

picturegirl · May 20, 2009

VayCayMom wrote:

AMAZING color on that website. What does full frame mean?

I don't totally understand the benefits of a full frame or exactley what it means. It has something to do with the crop of frame on the camera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
I do know that most of my favorite photographers are using full frame cameras. They are much more expensive than your standard DSLR cameras.

Elaine · May 20, 2009

Most DSLRs are a "crop body," with a factor of 1.6x or so. I believe this means they have a sensor that is 1.6x smaller than the standard 35mm (like film cameras). This means when you stick a lens on, say a 50mm, it "sees" like it's at 80mm (50 x 1.6 = 80). A full frame camera doesn't have this effect, and a 50mm lens is actually a 50mm lens. For some people, this provides a slightly different look/style to the photos.

In the Canon line-up, the full-frame cameras are the 5D, 5DMkII, and the 1Ds series (I think). In the Nikon line-up the full-frame cameras are the D3 and the D700 (I think). There are tons more people on DGrin that know tons more about this than I do.

Back to our previous discussion...I shoot raw as well. I think the fact that Audrey Woulard shoots jpeg does affect her shots and process, simply because she's choosing certain things for the camera to do (some SOOC processing, in other words) and then she doesn't mess with it as much afterwards. Since she's figured out what works for her in camera, both with her settings and her own technique, I would imagine this streamlines her process and provides a consistent look. Perhaps she sets a custom WB as well? I've read of others being a bit frustrated with vivid skin tones as well. Not sure what the answer is there.

Mike Curtis · June 4, 2009

Elaine wrote:

I know Audrey Woulard does not rely on photoshop techniques. I "know" someone (through the blog-o-sphere) who attended one of her workshops, and she said that she nails the exposure in camera, and because she shoots jpeg and with the vivid setting on her camera, she doesn't do much in post. She also does not use reflectors or flash. Wide aperture lenses are a must, and she probably does use full frame, but that isn't absolutely necessary. The key is really to get a great shot SOOC...in other words, relying on photoshop to get you there isn't the long term solution. Shoot and shoot and observe the light and shoot some more! (I say, as if I have it all figured out. Hah!)

Go to http://www.audreywoulardblog.com/ and look at some of those shots. Several are taken in mid-day sun with the sun directly overhead (as evidenced by the shadow on the ground directly below the kid), yet there are absolutely no raccoon eyes or harsh shadows on the face. She's shooting the Nikon D700 with 85/1.4 lens at f/1.6 on most of these shots. I'm sorry, but I do not buy that these shots come out of the camera looking like that if she doesn't use a flash. You go stand a kid out in the sun at 12:00 noon, with the sun directly overhead, and you're going to find extremely harsh shadows on the face. I have a real hard time believing these shots were taken without the use of any fill flash, and I have an even harder time believing there is minimal processing. If minimal processing means clicking an action button in photoshop, then I might buy that, but I don't buy these shots coming out of the camera looking like that.

Elaine · June 5, 2009

Mike Curtis wrote:

Go to http://www.audreywoulardblog.com/ and look at some of those shots. Several are taken in mid-day sun with the sun directly overhead (as evidenced by the shadow on the ground directly below the kid), yet there are absolutely no raccoon eyes or harsh shadows on the face. She's shooting the Nikon D700 with 85/1.4 lens at f/1.6 on most of these shots. I'm sorry, but I do not buy that these shots come out of the camera looking like that if she doesn't use a flash. You go stand a kid out in the sun at 12:00 noon, with the sun directly overhead, and you're going to find extremely harsh shadows on the face. I have a real hard time believing these shots were taken without the use of any fill flash, and I have an even harder time believing there is minimal processing. If minimal processing means clicking an action button in photoshop, then I might buy that, but I don't buy these shots coming out of the camera looking like that.

Yep, I've been checking out her blog for a couple years now. In addition to her blog, she has stated in at least a few major publications/books (such as Rangefinder, Professional Children's Portrait Photography, Professional Photographer Magazine) that she uses exclusively natural light without reflectors or flash and she works without an assistant. Now, she does say she uses white walls and sidewalks or even wears a white shirt to assist with bouncing light. So, she's finding and using natural reflectors. Apparently, she used to lug around lights, but then made the switch to all existing light a number of years ago. I read that she uses a soft light layer for saturation and a bit of sharpening, but not much else. After one of her workshops, a number of the attendees commented on her blog that they were witnesses to her simplified and successful techniques. I hear what you're saying about the racoon eyes, but I don't know why she would lie about her techniques, or why others would lie for her.

I think it would be interesting to see more of the location from some of her shots, because I think she's probably got a really good handle on her area and locations and what works at what time of day. A long time ago, she actually left a comment here on DGrin. I wish she'd stop in and tell us more!

Mike Curtis · June 5, 2009

Elaine wrote:

A long time ago, she actually left a comment here on DGrin. I wish she'd stop in and tell us more!

Well, considering she rarely, if ever, even responds to folks' comments on her blog, I don't see that happening. Maybe she's just too busy. I guess it's possible if the sun is very slightly behind the subject, so that their whole face falls into shadow. She uses spot metering according to her EXIF data, so if the entire face is in shade, she could spot meter the face, and overexpose a tad. Since she says on her site (found it after posting), that she uses only natural light, without reflectors or flash, I guess I gotta believe it since it would be awkward for folks to show up for a session after reading it, and see her lugging around huge California Sunbounces and whatnot.

VayCayMom · June 5, 2009

Elaine wrote:

Most DSLRs are a "crop body," with a factor of 1.6x or so. I believe this means they have a sensor that is 1.6x smaller than the standard 35mm (like film cameras). This means when you stick a lens on, say a 50mm, it "sees" like it's at 80mm (50 x 1.6 = 80). A full frame camera doesn't have this effect, and a 50mm lens is actually a 50mm lens. For some people, this provides a slightly different look/style to the photos.

In the Canon line-up, the full-frame cameras are the 5D, 5DMkII, and the 1Ds series (I think). In the Nikon line-up the full-frame cameras are the D3 and the D700 (I think). There are tons more people on DGrin that know tons more about this than I do.

Back to our previous discussion...I shoot raw as well. I think the fact that Audrey Woulard shoots jpeg does affect her shots and process, simply because she's choosing certain things for the camera to do (some SOOC processing, in other words) and then she doesn't mess with it as much afterwards. Since she's figured out what works for her in camera, both with her settings and her own technique, I would imagine this streamlines her process and provides a consistent look. Perhaps she sets a custom WB as well? I've read of others being a bit frustrated with vivid skin tones as well. Not sure what the answer is there.

Great discussion on this!! I am still not convinced Jpeg adds much, however I did read somewhere that while shooting in Raw & Jpeg ( to make viewing a thumbnail easier ) that the Jpeg can look a bit better at first because the software ( in camera I think.. ? ) is making a judgement call. And I assume RAW would not have had that applied. But she might be onto something that works for her.
I also read she works mostly on location, so new places all the time. She ALSO does some commercial stuff, like Pottery Barn for Kids! so I feel she is entirely truthful about her methods.

I made my own discovery lately, by accident.

I was trying to figure out the secrets of lighting, like Audrey's. I took a friend of mine out to do some practice, I wanted to use an orange grove, we ended up in a empty lot in a custom home area that used to be a grove. We found an empty lot that was all pale tan dirt in the center, with trees lining just the outer edges. It was about 9 AM in AZ, and we tried 3 sides of the lot, all facing inward and in the shade of one tree. In some of the pictures the entire LOT, plus me, the sky and the other side of the lot are reflected in her eyes, and when she faced the sun the photo looks uplighted. My discovery was that is was not the tree and sun etc that made this great photo but the combo of all plus the pale tan dirt in the lot, which was behind me in every position. Here are a few examples..

1. after some PP, brightened a bit. facing away from overhead sun, and into dirt lot

2. sooc facing into sun, into dirt lot

3. SOOC facing away from sun, into dirt lot

Elaine · June 5, 2009

For the record, I have no doubt Audrey is being truthful about her techniques.

I just saw your shots posted in another thread - good job! I noticed Andi recommended Natural Light Portrait Photography by Douglas Allen Box. I also bought this book on her recommendation about a year ago, and it does have really helpful diagrams in it. The photos are somewhat old fashioned, but good lighting is good lighting, and the diagrams help you see what to look for. The edge of a tree line or shadow line where there is a lot of light in front of the subject does bounce nice light back into the face, just as you found.

Some of my own examples...

VayCayMom · June 5, 2009

Elaine wrote:

For the record, I have no doubt Audrey is being truthful about her techniques.

I just saw your shots posted in another thread - good job! I noticed Andi recommended Natural Light Portrait Photography by Douglas Allen Box. I also bought this book on her recommendation about a year ago, and it does have really helpful diagrams in it. The photos are somewhat old fashioned, but good lighting is good lighting, and the diagrams help you see what to look for. The edge of a tree line or shadow line where there is a lot of light in front of the subject does bounce nice light back into the face, just as you found.

Some of my own examples...

OH ELAINE this is too funny, I feel we share a kindred spirit..... let me explain, I found this forum while googling " eye pop" or something of that nature...I came across a post by you responding to Audrey, WOW I LOVED THIS SITE, I joined the forum, and then discovered SMUGMUG!!! ( you can check me out @ cottage Ink) ....LATER I looked at her website, amazing! Now for another coincidence, that book you mentioned in thew other post to me did not ring a bell till you mentioned it here, referring to it being a bit old fashioned, DING! I already have that book, lol, but it did not really click for me until I saw in my own photos the difference the "open sky" makes, I really did not know what he meant. Now that I get it, I will go back again to his book with a better understanding.

Elaine you have unintentionally lead me to a wealth of information on this site, which have opened new doors for me!! THANKS!!

Elaine · June 5, 2009

VayCayMom wrote:

Elaine you have unintentionally lead me to a wealth of information on this site, which have opened new doors for me!! THANKS!!

Heehee...well, I'm glad for that!

This place is a wealth of information, that's for sure. Enjoy looking at Mr. Box's book again, now with new vision.

dablan · June 29, 2009

Hi all -
shooting natural light is not as complex as you might think, and getting that look your after simply requires a little vision of where you're going - that is, envisioning what your final shot will look like.

Many photographers today cleverly market "natural light" as if it's some great and crazy magical thing. In reality, harnessing proper studio lighting is more of a challenge. But, in any case, I shoot RAW both in studio and out. These two shots here show what can be done with a little Photoshop, and a RAW file. The raw image allows me to bring the exposure up in post - so, I balanced one copy of the image for the windows, and another copy for the bride's face. Blend them together in Photoshop - pop the eyes, soften the skin and the shot it done. Natural light, no reflectors.

photorelive · April 20, 2010

photoshop cream , in the stores now

how to get that white creamy skin...?

Comments