Processing Help

Candid Arts · March 23, 2010

Well, I'm just asking people's opinions on the editing of the photos. I am posting the original, as well as the edits. I recently purchased Scott Kelby's book, "The Adobe Photoshop CS3 Book for Digital Photographers". I have been trying some of the portrait editing techniques that he shows in the book and these are some of the results.

Opinions and criticisms are all welcomed. Thank you!

#1 - Orig.

#1 - Edit

#2 - Orig.

#2 - Edit

#3 - Orig.

#3 - Edit

#4 - Orig.

#4 - Edit

#5 - Orig.

#5 - Edit

- Bryce - OneTwoFiftieth Photography - www.facebook.com/onetwofiftieth

morgan20 · March 23, 2010

the skin color is the most obvious change but I can't see what else you did. The person in the first photo looks like she is going to explode. How did you reduce the reflected light on their faces? Or did you use a flash diffuser on the camera and reshoot?

Wil Davis · March 23, 2010

Man, very nice job!

Only one thing (which has absolutely nothing to do with processing or PhotoShop…), and that is:

Please oh please oh please…

…remember to get the subject to thoroughly clean their spectacles before the session starts…

(it's really difficult cleaning them using PS or whatever… )

Thank you!

- Wil

Surfdog · March 23, 2010

My $.02 would be that they may be a bit overdone to the point that the skin begins to look plastic. Also, on the first 2 photos, it may help to lightly clone some skin color over the shiny spots on the faces so they don't look so oily.

Qarik · March 23, 2010

in every instance except for the last edit, imo the skin is over smoothed and the eyes and teeth over whitened to varying degrees. The last one does not suffer from the above issues but could use a bit more contrast.

goldilocksandmy3bears · March 23, 2010

Can you share your eye pp on number 3

?? I love the way her blue eyes not only pop but are really glassy looking.
Court

zoomer · March 23, 2010

1 and 2 are way over done, 3 not quite so overdone , 4 is marginally ok, the last one looks the best except the glasses look a little foggy.

kidzmom · March 24, 2010

The only one that is blatantly overdone is #2...the others are verging on it, but look pretty good! IMHO #4 is the best of the bunch!

Candid Arts · March 24, 2010

Ok, this is weird. Some of you say that they are way over done, some of you say that they are great with minor touch ups on overdoness...

I don't get the varying results...

For the people that say they are overdone, how do people get that smooth look to models faces with like no wrinkles but it still looks natural? I make it too smooth, and it looks too smooth, I take it away, and it still shows all the wrinkles and texture...

As far as the teeth and eyes, I thought 1, 2, 3 and 5 were good for eyes, with 4 being a bit too bright, and 2 and 3 were the only ones showing teeth, 2 might be a tad over done, but not horrible...at least on my monitor, with 3 being pretty good.

zoomer · March 24, 2010

Frame of reference, one persons good is another persons not good.
Peoples standards are different, and people like different looks.

I feel your pain, I was right where you are 4 years ago, I thought my stuff looked good and could not figure out why I was getting hammered in criques.

It is a process, your eye will gradually evolve to where you can see the difference between what looks right and what does not look right.
To get there you need to look at a lot of photos that are "right".
There are several places on the web where you can see the best work done by the best photographers....use those for your standard.

In order to find "right" you will need to first go through the process of learning what is not "right" through the process of trial and error....kind of like playing a game of hot and cold.

Leave the teeth and eyes alone, you may be able to get away with Very Little changes to the whitening, but really...just don't do it....that is the fastest way to make a portrait look weird.
I never whiten teeth or eyes. It is good to add just a bit of extra sharpening to the eyes, particularly the color portion to make them pop a bit more.

For these examples:
1 and 2 are not even close
3 is heading in the right direction
4 is very close
somewhere inbetween 4 and 5 would be ideal processing wise.

Less is more when it comes to face processing.

Keep posting examples...you will get there before you know it.

Surfdog · March 24, 2010

One way to soften the wrinkles, etc in Photoshop ( I use Elements) without turning the skin plastic is to create a duplicate layer, then apply gaussian blur filter at about 30 radius, then set the opacity of that layer at about 20-25%. That will soften the entire photo and smooth the skin, but not make it look fake. Then, using the eraser tool at 50%, erase the blurred layer off the eyes, jewelry, and any other areas that you want to be sharp, so that they show through the blurred layer. This gives skin in portraits a nice smooth look but keeps the areas sharp that you really want to have pop.

Candid Arts · March 24, 2010

zoomer wrote:

Frame of reference, one persons good is another persons not good.
Peoples standards are different, and people like different looks.

I feel your pain, I was right where you are 4 years ago, I thought my stuff looked good and could not figure out why I was getting hammered in criques.

It is a process, your eye will gradually evolve to where you can see the difference between what looks right and what does not look right.
To get there you need to look at a lot of photos that are "right".
There are several places on the web where you can see the best work done by the best photographers....use those for your standard.

In order to find "right" you will need to first go through the process of learning what is not "right" through the process of trial and error....kind of like playing a game of hot and cold.

Leave the teeth and eyes alone, you may be able to get away with Very Little changes to the whitening, but really...just don't do it....that is the fastest way to make a portrait look weird.
I never whiten teeth or eyes. It is good to add just a bit of extra sharpening to the eyes, particularly the color portion to make them pop a bit more.

For these examples:
1 and 2 are not even close
3 is heading in the right direction
4 is very close
somewhere inbetween 4 and 5 would be ideal processing wise.

Less is more when it comes to face processing.

Keep posting examples...you will get there before you know it.

Thanks Zoomer. I plan on keeping at it, I've got a lot of work to do I know...

Candid Arts · March 24, 2010

Surfdog wrote:

One way to soften the wrinkles, etc in Photoshop ( I use Elements) without turning the skin plastic is to create a duplicate layer, then apply gaussian blur filter at about 30 radius, then set the opacity of that layer at about 20-25%. That will soften the entire photo and smooth the skin, but not make it look fake. Then, using the eraser tool at 50%, erase the blurred layer off the eyes, jewelry, and any other areas that you want to be sharp, so that they show through the blurred layer. This gives skin in portraits a nice smooth look but keeps the areas sharp that you really want to have pop.

Danny,

This is kind of actually a simplified version of what I'm doing already. Only thing different is I'm applying a layer mask over the gaussian blur (which I set at 25 radius), and then painting the blur back in on the skin only, versus erasing it from hair, eyes, lips, teeth, etc...

zoomer · March 24, 2010

Surfdog I am just curious...if you had 30 portraits to do how long would it take to do them following the process you have detailed, best guess.

Originally Posted by Surfdog
One way to soften the wrinkles, etc in Photoshop ( I use Elements) without turning the skin plastic is to create a duplicate layer, then apply gaussian blur filter at about 30 radius, then set the opacity of that layer at about 20-25%. That will soften the entire photo and smooth the skin, but not make it look fake. Then, using the eraser tool at 50%, erase the blurred layer off the eyes, jewelry, and any other areas that you want to be sharp, so that they show through the blurred layer. This gives skin in portraits a nice smooth look but keeps the areas sharp that you really want to have pop.

Surfdog · March 25, 2010

zoomer wrote:

Surfdog I am just curious...if you had 30 portraits to do how long would it take to do them following the process you have detailed, best guess.

Originally Posted by Surfdog
One way to soften the wrinkles, etc in Photoshop ( I use Elements) without turning the skin plastic is to create a duplicate layer, then apply gaussian blur filter at about 30 radius, then set the opacity of that layer at about 20-25%. That will soften the entire photo and smooth the skin, but not make it look fake. Then, using the eraser tool at 50%, erase the blurred layer off the eyes, jewelry, and any other areas that you want to be sharp, so that they show through the blurred layer. This gives skin in portraits a nice smooth look but keeps the areas sharp that you really want to have pop.

Because I do it so often, it doesn't take long. Out of curiousity, I opened about a dozen senior pictures and timed myself. If I just do the above steps, I do about 3 per minute.

zoomer · March 25, 2010

Thanks Surfdog,
I was just curious as I see info like this from time to time and it just seems like it would take so long..I guess like most things...with repetition it can get really fast.
I have never used layers for anything so it probably just sounds way more complicated than it really is.

Candid Arts · March 26, 2010

zoomer wrote:

Thanks Surfdog,
I was just curious as I see info like this from time to time and it just seems like it would take so long..I guess like most things...with repetition it can get really fast.
I have never used layers for anything so it probably just sounds way more complicated than it really is.

The photographer that I've been working with, up and coming high fashion photographer, has had published photos, won awards, shot celebs... Spends up to 3-4 hours on a single photo at times, with file sizes up to 1GB per photo. Uses layers for every edit he does. Layers are amazing.

Just saying.

Surfdog · March 26, 2010

Candid Arts wrote:

The photographer that I've been working with, up and coming high fashion photographer, has had published photos, won awards, shot celebs... Spends up to 3-4 hours on a single photo at times, with file sizes up to 1GB per photo. Uses layers for every edit he does. Layers are amazing.

Just saying.

If I shot celebs, I could see spending many hours on a portrait of Angelina Jolie...

Candid Arts · March 26, 2010

Surfdog wrote:

If I shot celebs, I could see spending many hours on a portrait of Angelina Jolie...

Haha, well no Angelina... But some great work.

You can check him out at www.quavondo.com

ChatKat · March 26, 2010

Technique starts in the Camera
Hi Candid Arts,

Please take this with a grain of salt. You must remember that the photograph starts in the camera. You can't take a photograph that's not so good and make it great. PS is a tool but the camera is the first tool you need to work with.

While I don't know the circumstances of the first image, her expression is just not pleasing. You shot this on an agnle and her eyes are distorted. One is bigger than the other. the light is hot on her forehead and shiny. You were very close with a flash - probably on camera.

The processing you used should have toned down the shine and over exposure and then the healing brush on the harsh shadows on the undereye bags would have worked well.

Lightly on the others, I like to whiten eyes - but you overdid the others; The image of the woman in the grocery has a fun component, but if you want women to love their images, do not shoot into their neck! Never shoot a woman with a bit of weight on her from under the chin. Shooting from just about eyebrow level hides the area where double chins show.

The last one in my opinion is the best of the bunch. I think the glasses look dirtier than they are because some prescrptions that are bifocal change in color when they have the light hit them at an angle.

dogwood · March 26, 2010

Candid Arts wrote:

The photographer that I've been working with, up and coming high fashion photographer, has had published photos, won awards, shot celebs... Spends up to 3-4 hours on a single photo at times, with file sizes up to 1GB per photo. Uses layers for every edit he does. Layers are amazing.

Just saying.

Hmmm... I'm in PDX too -- who is the up and coming high fashion photog you're working with? Just my two-cents, but anyone who relies on that much time in post-production (3-4 hours per photo?) is doing something dramatically wrong when shooting.

Anyway, I'd recommend you take a look at portfolios for people responding to this thread to get a sense of their skill levels and take their advice with a grain of salt. If you like what you see and you don't mind spending 3-4 hours retouching per photo, well, never mind. But that time adds up and if you're like most photogs, you'd rather be shooting than sitting behind a computer.

Here are some tips to avoid hours of post-production:

First thing I'd say about your photos, get your lighting right and you won't have to do nearly as much post-production.

Again, if you're learning from a photog who spends 3-4 hours fixing a single photo, you're not learning photography, you're learning how to fix problems in PS that should have been dealt with when shooting the photos.

So try shooting with natural light instead of strobes. Early morning and evening light can be awesome (yeah, photography 101 but still worth trying). Use window light and and a reflector or two. Shoot at higher ISO's. If shooting with strobes, know when to diffuse them to soften their light. Octaboxes are awesome for this (bigger the surface areas of a modifier usually creates more diffusion). Or just use reflectors and learn the difference between white and silver and when each will look the best. This takes practice but it's worth learning in the long run.

Again, just my two-cents but your photos look over-processed and the skin looks absolutely fake. Forget gaustian blur-- it essentially blurs skin and who has blurry skin? You can get natural looking skin by shooting with good techniques and forgetting all about fixing it in photoshop.

I generally run over my images with a quick application of healing brush to remove obvious blemishes and often that's it. Sometimes I don't even do that. Here's a photo shot three days ago with absolutely no retouching. None at all. Shot with a softbox as key and the sun as a rim light:

Here's one using window light and white foam core on each side of the model. Again, ZERO retouching:

Window light and foam core reflector in the shot below. No retouching.

Early morning light, no retouching on the shots below (shot on Tuesday of this week). Reflector used on the one on the left, natural light on the one on the right:

You get the idea. I could go on and on. But my point is that spending 3-4 hours per photo in PS is a waste of your time. Get it right in camera in the first place. It will give you more time to do what you want-- which is hopefully shooting great photos!

Swartzy · March 26, 2010

As I was reading this thread last night it was my intent to write up my ideas. Instead, Pete articulated many of those thoughts so well and probably much better than I.

The getting it right in camera aspect IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. Candid, I understand where you want to take this shot processing wise. As you know, much of my model work gets specific treatment for a particular "look" I'm after. Many times less is more. It all depends on the model/setting/mood and look. In your particular case here, this could use some "good" touch up but certainly doesn't need a few hours to complete. Should you want me to have a go with it, let me know.

Great advice Pete and wonderful examples.

ChatKat · March 26, 2010

Post
Actually, Pete, many of the commercial photographers do spend days and hours working on images that they are making $25,000 for a day's work of shooting. Look at the work of Lee Varis or Steven Lippman.....

Candid Arts · March 26, 2010

ChatKat wrote:

Hi Candid Arts,

Please take this with a grain of salt. You must remember that the photograph starts in the camera. You can't take a photograph that's not so good and make it great. PS is a tool but the camera is the first tool you need to work with.

While I don't know the circumstances of the first image, her expression is just not pleasing. You shot this on an agnle and her eyes are distorted. One is bigger than the other. the light is hot on her forehead and shiny. You were very close with a flash - probably on camera.

The processing you used should have toned down the shine and over exposure and then the healing brush on the harsh shadows on the undereye bags would have worked well.

Lightly on the others, I like to whiten eyes - but you overdid the others; The image of the woman in the grocery has a fun component, but if you want women to love their images, do not shoot into their neck! Never shoot a woman with a bit of weight on her from under the chin. Shooting from just about eyebrow level hides the area where double chins show.

The last one in my opinion is the best of the bunch. I think the glasses look dirtier than they are because some prescrptions that are bifocal change in color when they have the light hit them at an angle.

Chat Kat... First of all, we weren't trying to take the perfect photo. This is a group of head shots that show people, in their true selves. The goal of posting this, was purely to get a response on the editing. As we are just starting to learn how to do portraiture editing in PS.

The flash on the first image was actually not on-camera. It was an Alien Bee 800, in a Large Softbox, about parallel to the camera on the left side. It also had an 800 shooting through a white umbrella behind her on the right side of the camera. I think I actually did tone down the highlights on her for head a little, but apparently I should have done it more. I didn't even notice or think about doing the healing brush under the eyes, however I don't know how to do this, so I'll have to play with it.

I'll take note of where I'm shooting, in regards with the 2nd photo of the lady in the grocery apron.

Thank you for your remarks and opinions though. They are duely noted. I've re-worked some of these, and will go back through them again.

Candid Arts · March 26, 2010

dogwood wrote:

Hmmm... I'm in PDX too -- who is the up and coming high fashion photog you're working with? Just my two-cents, but anyone who relies on that much time in post-production (3-4 hours per photo?) is doing something dramatically wrong when shooting.

Anyway, I'd recommend you take a look at portfolios for people responding to this thread to get a sense of their skill levels and take their advice with a grain of salt. If you like what you see and you don't mind spending 3-4 hours retouching per photo, well, never mind. But that time adds up and if you're like most photogs, you'd rather be shooting than sitting behind a computer.

Here are some tips to avoid hours of post-production:

First thing I'd say about your photos, get your lighting right and you won't have to do nearly as much post-production.

Again, if you're learning from a photog who spends 3-4 hours fixing a single photo, you're not learning photography, you're learning how to fix problems in PS that should have been dealt with when shooting the photos.

So try shooting with natural light instead of strobes. Early morning and evening light can be awesome (yeah, photography 101 but still worth trying). Use window light and and a reflector or two. Shoot at higher ISO's. If shooting with strobes, know when to diffuse them to soften their light. Octaboxes are awesome for this (bigger the surface areas of a modifier usually creates more diffusion). Or just use reflectors and learn the difference between white and silver and when each will look the best. This takes practice but it's worth learning in the long run.

Again, just my two-cents but your photos look over-processed and the skin looks absolutely fake. Forget gaustian blur-- it essentially blurs skin and who has blurry skin? You can get natural looking skin by shooting with good techniques and forgetting all about fixing it in photoshop.

I generally run over my images with a quick application of healing brush to remove obvious blemishes and often that's it. Sometimes I don't even do that. Here's a photo shot three days ago with absolutely no retouching. None at all. Shot with a softbox as key and the sun as a rim light:

Here's one using window light and white foam core on each side of the model. Again, ZERO retouching:

Window light and foam core reflector in the shot below. No retouching.

Early morning light, no retouching on the shots below (shot on Tuesday of this week). Reflector used on the one on the left, natural light on the one on the right:

You get the idea. I could go on and on. But my point is that spending 3-4 hours per photo in PS is a waste of your time. Get it right in camera in the first place. It will give you more time to do what you want-- which is hopefully shooting great photos!

I posted the link to the photog that I've been working with back on the 2nd page. Take a look at his work, and tell me he doesn't take a good photo in camera. I never once said or hinted at he is "fixing" his images by spending 3-4 hours on an image. Also, that's like a max, I'm sure most of his images don't take that long.

As far as the lighting goes, we litterally just got our lighting equipment last week. So we are still learning. That is the point of these photos, for us to learn, and so we can give the model (in this case friends and family) and good, hopefully, quality portrait to have. Hence why I'm asking for help... With the photog that I've been learning from, I actually haven't learned PS from him. It's all been on site shooting. Take a look at his work, come back and respond about that part again. He does amazing work. (just in case, his website is www.quavondo.com).

As for our lighting equipment, we just got three AB800's, 1 large softbox, we've got 2 umbrellas, white with a black removeable backing, then obviously a few light stands. The issue though with a couple of these photos, is that the room that we are shooting in, is pretty small. So we've had to turn the lights down a bit.

How do you take a photo of someone with less then "perfect" skin and make it look, well...not perfect but close, just in camera? I don't see how that is possible.

I think that about covers everything in your post.

Thank you for the ideas. One thing I need to get is a large reflector, haven't got that one yet. Eventually...(kinda poor right now). If you ever need an assistant, or just someone to hang around and help so I can learn other techniques than what I have learned. Let me know, I'd love to hold a reflector, or whatever else...

Candid Arts · March 26, 2010

Swartzy wrote:

As I was reading this thread last night it was my intent to write up my ideas. Instead, Pete articulated many of those thoughts so well and probably much better than I.

The getting it right in camera aspect IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. Candid, I understand where you want to take this shot processing wise. As you know, much of my model work gets specific treatment for a particular "look" I'm after. Many times less is more. It all depends on the model/setting/mood and look. In your particular case here, this could use some "good" touch up but certainly doesn't need a few hours to complete. Should you want me to have a go with it, let me know.

Great advice Pete and wonderful examples.

Swartzy, I would love you to have a go with them. You have the originals, unless you'd like the full size originals, as these are small files (500x750 @ 72ppi). I'll email you ones of your choosing if you want. :-).

Thank you!

Candid Arts · March 26, 2010

ChatKat wrote:

Actually, Pete, many of the commercial photographers do spend days and hours working on images that they are making $25,000 for a day's work of shooting. Look at the work of Lee Varis or Steven Lippman.....

Exactly. I don't believe he's making near that much for a day's work of shooting, however he does spend a good deal of time editing, retouching... NOT fixing...

Candid Arts · March 26, 2010

Here are a few samples of some of these photos re-worked, as well as a couple new ones that I've also re-worked that I haven't posted on here yet. These results do not take into account the last few posts that I have just replied to however, those will be later. These are just showing a progress on the editing. I toned down the eyes and teeth on some (where applicable), reduced some of the skin smoothing...

How are these?

#6

#7

#8

#9

dogwood · March 26, 2010

ChatKat wrote:

Actually, Pete, many of the commercial photographers do spend days and hours working on images that they are making $25,000 for a day's work of shooting. Look at the work of Lee Varis or Steven Lippman.....

Actually-- most top commercial photogs hire someone else to retouch their photos. And some magazines, like Nylon, actually prefer to publish unretouched photos.

dogwood · March 26, 2010

Candid Arts wrote:

I posted the link to the photog that I've been working with back on the 2nd page. Take a look at his work, and tell me he doesn't take a good photo in camera. I never once said or hinted at he is "fixing" his images by spending 3-4 hours on an image. Also, that's like a max, I'm sure most of his images don't take that long.

He does amazing work. (just in case, his website is www.quavondo.com).

So ironically enough, I've heard from several local MUA's and hair stylists that this photographer doesn't get finished photos to them in a timely manner. Just what I've heard through the grapevine anyway. I have no idea if this is because his retouching load is heavy or what, just telling you what I've heard.

My point is that less retouching means getting photos to clients faster. Just speaking for myself, but I have my share of clients who want photos the day after a shoot and there's no way I have time to spend hours on each image doing retouching.

Candid Arts · March 26, 2010

dogwood wrote:

So ironically enough, I've heard from several local MUA's and hair stylists that this photographer doesn't get finished photos to them in a timely manner. Just what I've heard through the grapevine anyway. I have no idea if this is because his retouching load is heavy or what, just telling you what I've heard.

My point is that less retouching means getting photos to clients faster. Just speaking for myself, but I have my share of clients who want photos the day after a shoot and there's no way I have time to spend hours on each image doing retouching.

he does take some time. But great things come to those who wait. Might as well just shoot jpeg and hand the client the memory card if you can do everything you want to do in camera. This is what makes
him him, and his work...his work.

Processing Help

Comments