Processing (headshot)

divamum · May 28, 2009

Just working on these still - she asked to see this one edited.

What's your initial reaction - does it look too processed? I've been using a number of techniques, but mostly have just done it the hard way with sheer layered cloning in different blends, different layers of blur and high pass sharpening all adjusted until I thought it looked ok. It needed some other salvage work too, but I won't say what I did - I want to see if it's noticeable enough to spot (if you guys don't notice, then NOBODY will

)

But my eyes are now bugging out and I'm not sure if I'm really seeing it properly any more - would love some fresh input. Thanks!

Swartzy · May 28, 2009

Hey Diva...it's not there yet (IMHO). Needs better fill light and pop. If you want me to do a Swartzy version, just let me know for comparisons/demonstration

. I know how after looking at something too long goes....have to walk away for a bit.

divamum · May 28, 2009

Ha - I actually added contrast with a soft light layer and reduced fill/brightness because it seemed washed out and/or I was getting hotspots on her right cheeck; I can easily adjust those back in (I think...

)

Where do you want more pop - overall, eyes...?

And can you "see the joins", as it were? I did some MAJOR restructuring on this shot... I'm guessing since you didn't comment that it didn't jump out at you, so that's one good thing!!

I'll have another crack at it first because I want to see what I can do before seeing someobdy else's version (that's too easy, and I'm a glutton for punishment I guess

), but VERY helpful to know what's not working so I can try to fix it. I may come back to you for the Swartzy version when my forehead is bloodied from beating against the brick wall...

Thanks for the feedback - hugely appreciated!

divamum · May 28, 2009

A tad lighter and higher contrast.

Tim Kamppinen · May 28, 2009

The biggest problem I see is the large area just above the nose where it looks like you used the patch tool but grabbed the skin from somewhere with an un-forheady texture. Is that about right? The patch tool is great a lot of times but you need to sample from an area with texture that is close to the area you're patching or else it looks weird. Another trick is to patch, then go to Edit-Fade to reduce the opacity of the patch you just did. I often find that when a patch looks too obvious, it will look just right at about 70-80%. Of course you need to do it on a case by case basis though.

It looks like this might have happened on the nose, too... some odd textures there. From what I can see at this size it looks like you did a great job with the eyes though. I'd probably get rid of that slightly lit strand of hair on her left shoulder too, as it's just hanging out in the darkness by itself.

I'm usually a contrast freak, but for this shot I actually like the first version better... the second looks a little harsh by comparision to me.

Hope this helps!

divamum · May 28, 2009

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

The biggest problem I see is the large area just above the nose where it looks like you used the patch tool but grabbed the skin from somewhere with an un-forheady texture. Is that about right?

Nope - did very little there at all

(this is great - nobody's spotted the things I DID do, so I'm on the right track!

)

It looks like this might have happened on the nose, too... some odd textures there.

Hmm... will look at that again. May have picked up some stray clone marks as I worked on it.

I'm usually a contrast freak, but for this shot I actually like the first version better... the second looks a little harsh by comparision to me.

That's my feeling too, but just playing around with it. Maybe we do need the Swartzy Version for a comparison (especially if you'll tell us what you do with it, S!

)

Hope this helps!

Most assuredly - thanks!

Swartzy · May 28, 2009

Sorry..just couldn't wait..

Please forgive me but here's my version:

This is the 3rd try at typing.....anyway. Patch tool removing blemishes and unwanted areas that are not cohesive to adjacent areas (forehead). Curves layer set to luminocity to 50%, brushing in light on dark areas of forehead/cheeks. Portraiture plug-in set to normal selecting mid tones of facial.....also, correcting color balance using a curves layer, RGB. Setting black & white points gives the image pop then correcting the color balance (all achieved using the one curves layer). Since this file was a small Jpeg, there was a limited amount that could be done. I did import in LR first and adjusted fill light, blacks, exposure, etc. Once in PS, the other edits took place. I use a two fold sharpening method, luminocity and high pass. Each has it's own layer and adjusted accordingly. Since the whites of the eyes were fine, I did create a hue/sat layer and boosted the iris. I could go on and on about eyes only and direct you to several tutorials of such...but for this example, it isn't necessary. This was a fairly quick edit.

Tim Kamppinen · May 29, 2009

I would like to revise my previous critique:

There appears to be an area of skin above her nose that you missed.

Really though, it just looks weird to me... I honestly thought it was patch tool gone awry. I'd definitely do something about it.

divamum · May 29, 2009

Thanks Swartz! You did a more to the skin than I would, but I love the fill/painted-on light you added. Will go back and address that. (And to clarify, I LIKE what you did with the skin - it's gorgeous - but it may be a little more than she's comfortable with even though it's top notch glamour/magazine-style retouching - beautiful). What's great is I now look at mine and see where it's falling over, so thank you for taking the time!

Also, how did you correct the color cast? I seem to wind up with this one either too red or too green. This is something I am SO BAD at - I try everything that I've heard of to do, and never seem to get it right in curves. All suggestions (links to tutes etc) gratefully received!

For the record, the things I did:

- some serious liquifying of jawline (I thought I did a horribly clumsy job, but I guess it doesn't show as bad as I thought, so YAY!

- adding to the hair at the top from another shot in the series, to give me extra room to tilt and find a workable crop (I don't like this shot terribly, but she wanted to see it so am trying to do my best with it)

Tim, I've been sittting here staring at this and can't figure out where you mean on her forehead. Do you mean the pores in the triangle immediately above her nose between the brows? Straight up from the corner of her right eye (cam left) pretty much where those two forehead creases are she has a scar which I toned down - is it around that, or further down? Thanks - let me know what you're seeing so I can fix it!

Tim Kamppinen · May 29, 2009

It's the area right between the eyebrows and above the nose... I don't know, to me it just looks like the wrong skin texture for that part of the face. Maybe it would look normal if I saw if full res though. I will admit that it didn't jump right out at me, I only saw it after I started looking for your edits.

Nikolai · May 29, 2009

divamum wrote:

What's your initial reaction - does it look too processed?

Yes

divamum · May 29, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

Yes

Any specifics? I can easily do it again, but I need to know what to address to make changes - is it the skin itself or...? Thanks!

Tim, thanks for the details - I think I see what you mean now. The funny part is that's natural, so I didn't really "see" it if you know what I mean! Oy - my eye still needs SO much developing to translate the reality of what I saw at the time into something on screen. Getting there, but boy is it daunting sometimes.....!!!

Nikolai · May 29, 2009

divamum wrote:

Any specifics? I can easily do it again, but I need to know what to address to make changes - is it the skin itself or...? Thanks!

Skin looks blotchy...

Plus that general feeling...

divamum · May 29, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

Skin looks blotchy... Plus that general feeling...

Excellent, because that's what I saw too (and one of the reasons I posted it to find out what others saw). Thanks for the feedback

D'Buggs · May 29, 2009

Diva;

I remember when you 1st presented this pic to us - I liked it then and I still do now. I also recall you saying that she was insecure with herself... I *think* that if you were able to get the skin nailed like that of what Swartsy did, she'd wanna move in with you. :oogle

After all, she asked for editing... I get the feeling she's hunting for some transformation. Her skin here needs some TLC but it's a very pleasing pose, I can understand her wanting it. Just my 2 cents.

Swartzy · May 29, 2009

Allow me to simply say....I have NEVER had a client say, gee, you smoothed my skin too much or removed blemishes or freckles. Remember, the client has no idea what it looked like in camera before post work. We need to make them look fabulous....that's why they aren't using a p&s in the mirror

divamum · May 29, 2009

Swartzy wrote:

Allow me to simply say....I have NEVER had a client say, gee, you smoothed my skin too much or removed blemishes or freckles. Remember, the client has no idea what it looked like in camera before post work. We need to make them look fabulous....that's why they aren't using a p&s in the mirror

Actually, *I* have said that to a photographer who did too much on an image of mine, hence why I'm reeeealllly sensitive to it! Two headshots ago (of my own) somebody did a horribly over-processsed airbrush retouching job on a print; it looked very "pretty", but not like ME and I absolutely hatedI it Finding the right balance between glamour and "natural" is hard!

Btw, she had the unretouched proofs, so she has seen the original......

All that said, I'm learning how I need to adjust my perceptions and approaches as a photographer rather than a subject; this is MY learning curve at the moment. And I probably do need to go further towards what you did (again, I think you did a gorgeous job - that's quality work, man!)

I also need to figure out how to present initial proofs of a shoot. In theatrical circles t is customary to offer - and people WANT to see - all the shots .... or at least all the potentially useable ones. I do of course cull the total dross, blurs, misfires, scary-bad pose/lighting/mistake of mine, but I can say that next time I do a shoot I may cull a little more drastically among the "almost" shots to save myself work in the long run...

Anyway, this is all GREAT GREAT info and really helpful. Thanks all! I'm actually in the middle of redoing it from scratch, so I'll post another version later if I think I'm any closer.

You guys are the best!

dogwood · May 29, 2009

If you want "real" headshots, try using a reflector outdoors in the shade. The light is more forgiving and you'll get really nice catchlights. And you won't have nearly as much post-production work. There's a reason so many actors use images shot like this in their ports-- they tend to be very flattering yet simple.

Also, I'd suggest you may be putting too much effort into post-production. Almost everything you're trying to achieve can be accomplished with good lighting and shooting technique-- even in a studio. I shoot beauty shots all the time and they look super polished straight out of the camera-- but that's because I take the time to light and shoot them properly. My go-to techique involves five lights and a reflector. Yes, it takes more time initially but it requires much, much less time in post-production.

But seriously, if you don't have that much gear, try a reflector or even some white foam core. Use window light or shade and use the reflector to bounce light into the shadows.

D'Buggs · May 29, 2009

divamum wrote:

Btw, she had the unretouched proofs, so she has seen the original......

,,,,,, Then she passed it back and asked for more (editing).

I say put the accelerator to the floor on this one, divamum. IIRC, as per your posts on this sitter, she was also wanting "studio" type shots... GO GIRL!

I'm just goin' on your 'dew-drops' of this person and fully realize that you're the one talking w/ her AND understand how you feel ripped down the middle (me too, to be honest) on what is too far. I just get the feeling that re-touch is what she wants and is being 'nice' in her asking.

I'm certain, though, that the two of you will find common ground and look forward in seeing what ya come up with. From what I can tell, you like pulling rabbits outta hats!

divamum · May 29, 2009

dogwood wrote:

If you want "real" headshots, try using a reflector outdoors in the shade. The light is more forgiving and you'll get really nice catchlights. And you won't have nearly as much post-production work. There's a reason so many actors use images shot like this in their ports-- they tend to be very flattering yet simple.

Also, I'd suggest you may be putting too much effort into post-production. Almost everything you're trying to achieve can be accomplished with good lighting and shooting technique-- even in a studio. I shoot beauty shots all the time and they look super polished straight out of the camera-- but that's because I take the time to light and shoot them properly. My go-to techique involves five lights and a reflector. Yes, it takes more time initially but it requires much, much less time in post-production.

But seriously, if you don't have that much gear, try a reflector or even some white foam core. Use window light or shade and use the reflector to bounce light into the shadows.

Thanks for the response - appreciated! For the record, the shot which prompted this thread was one of my least favorite from the session photographically speaking - I don't like many of the things I did in camera, but she liked the expression so... I'm having a crack at it.

She particularly requested studio shots as well as the natural light ones we did. FOr the record, the shot we're discussing was taken in a well-equipped studio to which I have access, using softbox camera left and large reflector camera right (with hair and background lights as necessary and appropriate). I fully grant that my fledgeling lighting technique may not have done a brilliant job with what I had available and I did indeed opt for a simple setup rather than trying to get too complicated, but the equipment on offer wasn't to blame

There are several in the natural light series we did that I hugely prefer, and which do indeed, as you say, require less work in post because the lighting is so much better! I haven't finished processing the photo below, but it was one of my favorites from the session. Not only is it much more in keeping with current trends in headshots, but is IMO a more flattering and just all-round better shot. However, she asked for the other one, so... I'm working on it! It makes a useful learning experience for me, so it's all good.

divamum · May 29, 2009

D'Buggs wrote:

,,,,,, Then she passed it back and asked for more (editing).

I say put the accelerator to the floor on this one, divamum. IIRC, as per your posts on this sitter, she was also wanting "studio" type shots... GO GIRL!

I'm just goin' on your 'dew-drops' of this person and fully realize that you're the one talking w/ her AND understand how you feel ripped down the middle (me too, to be honest) on what is too far. I just get the feeling that re-touch is what she wants and is being 'nice' in her asking. I'm certain, though, that the two of you will find common ground and look forward in seeing what ya come up with. From what I can tell, you like pulling rabbits outta hats!

Rabbits out of hats

. HA! I guess that's what being self-taught and compulsive does...

You're great for my ego, man!!

More later. I'm reworking it again to see if I can get make Swartzy's excellent example (and helpful tips) my own, but I"m not there yet. I'm getting closer, but that color cast is making me NUTS. When I do post a new version I'll include the SOOC original too; it'll make for interesting discussion, I suspect

You guys are all the best!

D'Buggs · May 29, 2009

divamum wrote:

Rabbits out of hats . HA!

I think you're the master of it.

... If it ain't broke, why try fixing it?

Cheers!

Flyinggina · May 29, 2009

Just some philosophical thoughts.

The issue of touching up photos is a difficult one. But this is the way I look at it.

The camera sees much more than we notice with the naked eye. Every pore, every bump and minor crease shows with the same sharpness as everything else. But when we look at a person, we get an overall impression and often don't even notice a wrinkle here or a splotch there.

So what I tell people is that I only do what I need to do to a photo to make the person look the way I see them. In some cases, that is perhaps a bit of a stretch, but amazingly it is close to the truth most of the time.

As someone else said earlier in this thread, I've never had anyone (except my son) complain that I made them look too good. Most often, people tell me that no one has ever gotten such a good picture of them before.

I never tell them what I have done, btw. I just present the photograph and wait for their response. I am open to their comments, but if they like the photo, no more needs to be said.

So, even if your model has seen the proofs, I would just give her your best effort and let her respond.

Scott Kelby tells a wonderfully poignant story of a beautiful woman whose picture he touched up. He was thrilled with the result, and so was she, until, in his excitement as a photographer, he started telling her exactly what he had done. Her face fell, she decided she didn't like the picture after all and she didn't order any prints.

I think you are doing an excellent job and your subject is very lucky indeed to have you as her photographer. I am 100% sure she is going to be happy with the results.

Virginia

divamum · May 29, 2009

Thanks Virginia - good thoughts all (and I very much appreciate your kind words and support)

It's still nowhere near the skill and quality of Swartzy's (color.balancing.makes.me.crazy. :bash), but is this any better overall? (Hmmm... perhaps still a little more contrast for pop? Not sure - I've been looking at it too long again this evening to tell any more

) For comparison's sake, I've also included the SOOC shot.

Version B

SOOC

Nikolai · May 29, 2009

divamum wrote:

Thanks Virginia - good thoughts all (and I very much appreciate your kind words and support)

It's still nowhere near the skill and quality of Swartzy's (color.balancing.makes.me.crazy. :bash), but is this any better overall? (Hmmm... perhaps still a little more contrast for pop? Not sure - I've been looking at it too long again this evening to tell any more ) For comparison's sake, I've also included the SOOC shot.
Version B
SOOC

Better:-)

If you think you're into portraits, get yourself a copy of Portrait Professional (it has trial, too). *Really* helps to make quick fixes to faces/skin easy. Yes, it's off-the-mill-quality, and you can get - in theory - better results in PS, but it will take you *much* longer...

D'Buggs · May 30, 2009

I see a wabbit emerging....

divamum · May 30, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

Better:-)
If you think you're into portraits, get yourself a copy of Portrait Professional (it has trial, too). *Really* helps to make quick fixes to faces/skin easy. Yes, it's off-the-mill-quality, and you can get - in theory - better results in PS, but it will take you *much* longer...

Yeah.... I've been looking into it. Haven't got the money right now so stuck doing it the hard way in PS (as you can see!) but I guess it's probably better to start that way, kind of like learning to drive with a stick shift

It's on my list of goodies to get as soon as I can!

Is the basic edition sufficient, or will I need the high-end one? I notice that only the full edition offers the ability to work on raw files.

Nikolai · May 30, 2009

divamum wrote:

Yeah.... I've been looking into it. Haven't got the money right now so stuck doing it the hard way in PS (as you can see!) but I guess it's probably better to start that way, kind of like learning to drive with a stick shift It's on my list of goodies to get as soon as I can!

Is the basic edition sufficient, or will I need the high-end one? I notice that only the full edition offers the ability to work on raw files.

I agree that learning PS is a more noble goal than producing a nice looking portrait in a hurry. But down the road it can save you a few hours here and there. My software-purchasing rules are extremely strict, yet I found this one OK to pay for.
I myself using the standard edition. It doesn't operate on RAWs, only on jpegs. My rationale: RAW formats come out often enough, there are no standards (even though MS and Adobe are trying hards to keep them in check), hence PP team may have a hard time to keep up with all of them. JPEGs, OTOH, are not going anywhere any time soon.

Tim Kamppinen · May 30, 2009

I dunno, I played around with the trial version of Portrait Professional and absolutely hated it. There are tons of sliders for different things and it seemed like the only way to get my subject to not come out looking like a bug-eyed alien person was to leave them all turned off except for two or three, and what those ones did didn't look as good as the results I could get in PS where I have more control and can make intelligent decisions about what to "fix" and what not to.

The facial restructuring tools in particular I found to produce very bizzare results, as well as the eye sliders. People ended up looking like Heath Ledger's "Joker" character plus strangely round bulging eyes. But, by all means, play with the trial version. You might be able to figure it out better than I did.

divamum · May 31, 2009

Thanks for your impressions, Tim. I haven't d'l'd the trial yet, but I will at some point (since I can't afford to buy the package right now, it's kind of a dead end anyway).

I don't find doing this in PS "hard", just time consuming as I learn *what* I need to do. Fortunately, with each photo I learn another technique and it gets quicker and quicker so maybe in time I'll have it down (that stickshift thing again

)

I will say this: the better the makeup job, the less work required in post. Yes, good lighting too, but a decent makeup job that evens out skintone makes things sooo much easier! The picture that prompted this thread was one of the last of the session when she was getting tired, her face was going shiny, and her hair was starting to flop - compared to shots earlier in the session, I had to do WAY more to these, even after she'd done touchups. If I ever wind up doing more of this, I would loooovvveee to have a MUA available throughout the shoot... and I now understand why so many photogs INSIST that headshot clients use their MUA and pay for the full session!!!!

Processing (headshot)

Comments