Book Jacket Portrait

IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
edited March 26, 2011 in People
An author needed a portrait for a book jacket. I'm satisfied with this, but not thrilled. I can't reshoot, so is there anything I might do in post to make me happier? With the photo I mean . . . not life in general. I'm pretty good there:D.

1227553705_Zg7jD-XL.jpg
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
«1

Comments

  • lilmommalilmomma Registered Users Posts: 1,060 Major grins
    edited March 24, 2011
    I think the portrait is nice for it's purpose... However the whites of the eyes are brightened a little too much.
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 24, 2011
    lilmomma wrote: »
    I think the portrait is nice for it's purpose... However the whites of the eyes are brightened a little too much.
    Thank you. Spot on there. I'll dial them back a tad.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • mayassamayassa Registered Users Posts: 90 Big grins
    edited March 24, 2011
    Darken the lips and remove the two lines over her nose and by her eye, then get rid of the stray hairs. What did you sample for the white balance?
    You can use my Smug Mug coupon a0rrvSicVVqE2

    Rick-Matassa.smugmug.com/
  • sweet carolinesweet caroline Registered Users Posts: 1,589 Major grins
    edited March 24, 2011
    Eyes are overdone. Skin tones seem off. The light looks good, though, and she has a nice expression.
  • mayassamayassa Registered Users Posts: 90 Big grins
    edited March 24, 2011
    That's why I asked about sampling the WB from the tone seems off
    You can use my Smug Mug coupon a0rrvSicVVqE2

    Rick-Matassa.smugmug.com/
  • Bryce WilsonBryce Wilson Registered Users Posts: 1,586 Major grins
    edited March 24, 2011
    What Bothers Me
    Nice portrait lighting overall, but call it the Mr. Monk in me, the color difference in the eyes bother me.

    There seems to be two catch lights in the eye on the left and one on the right. The higher intensity of light in the left side eye causes more gold to come out and it really draws my attention to it.
  • reyvee61reyvee61 Registered Users Posts: 1,877 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Just curious, have you considered a conversion?
    I have a feeling this will look pretty cool in B&W.
    Yo soy Reynaldo
  • heatherfeatherheatherfeather Registered Users Posts: 2,738 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Well, I actually opened it up in PS and I think that your mid-tone levels are too dark. Just pull them to the left a bit and it is a whole lot better. It still has a nice bit of contrast too.

    Also, I would clone out the corner of the wall or curtain... whatever that dark vertical line is could be easily gotten rid of to give it a much more polished look.
    Heather
    my website
    facebook
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    mayassa wrote: »
    Darken the lips and remove the two lines over her nose and by her eye, then get rid of the stray hairs. What did you sample for the white balance?

    I'm not going to post the image before I cleaned up her skin. If I did more skin work, it just wouldn't look like her. I'll work on the hair. I shot a custom WB with a Photovision Digital Calibration Target before shooting the session, then shot an image of the target at the end for a check. The WB in this shot is spot on.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    sweet caroline wrote: »
    Eyes are overdone. Skin tones seem off. The light looks good, though, and she has a nice expression.
    Thank you.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Bryce Wilson wrote: »
    Nice portrait lighting overall, but call it the Mr. Monk in me, the color difference in the eyes bother me.

    There seems to be two catch lights in the eye on the left and one on the right. The higher intensity of light in the left side eye causes more gold to come out and it really draws my attention to it.

    Thanks. I see what you mean about the difference in the eyes. Actually, her left (camera right) eye is quite a bit smaller than her right. It's one of the first things I noticed when I met her for the session. I'm trying to decide whether to enlarge it. That gets into a whole new realm of veracity though. For instance, I will clean up a zit or skin tag without thinking about it, but moles stay, unless the person requests treatment.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    reyvee61 wrote: »
    Just curious, have you considered a conversion?
    I have a feeling this will look pretty cool in B&W.

    The intent for this one from the get-go was to render in color and b&w. Good instinct Rey.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    heatherfeather wrote: »
    Well, I actually opened it up in PS and I think that your mid-tone levels are too dark. Just pull them to the left a bit and it is a whole lot better. It still has a nice bit of contrast too.

    Also, I would clone out the corner of the wall or curtain... whatever that dark vertical line is could be easily gotten rid of to give it a much more polished look.

    Damn, Heather. You just cost me a couple thousand dollars. I really have to buy a new monitor for my main (editing) computer. I have to keep my existing monitor dark to match prints, and I honestly did not even notice that right margin. That's the black border of the collapsible background I used for this shot. I'm viewing now on my laptop and it's obvious, even before you bumped up the levels. Thanks (I guess mwink.gif)

    Oh, I think I like your levels adjustment idea. I'll give that a shot too.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    John, while I take your point about veracity, this isn't a personal or editorial portrait, but a piece of public, promotional material, and therefore a little more retouching isn't necessarily out of order or ethically wrong, IMO. Like it or not, there are expectations out there from years of media manipulation, and this will fall into that category as something which will be in front of the eyes of the photographically uneducated who have those expectations, and thus is a whole different ball o' wax than a portrait one might hang on one's wall, or a character study where those "flaws" might actually be an integral part of it. Just my philosophical 2c.

    Now, granted, I don't know where you started from so can't comment on whether you've gone "too far" or not, but seeing this end result does look like you've done very little. While you don't want to plasticize her (ugh - HATE that look!!), I do think you can remove the red spot on the right (CL) side of her nose, and the one actually on her nose (looks like a spot or a spider vein), reduce (just a bit! Perhaps patch tool at 30-50% opacity) her two forehead (between eyebrows) wrinkles, and lighten her camera left undereye area - there's a marked difference in undereye circles on each side, largely because of the disparity in light (which doesn't look like light because it's soft. Bad English, but hope that make sense - I'll clarify if it doesn't!). The lines around her eyes don't bother me at all and are well worth keeping, IMO - she needs to look her age and look like HER, not a doll! They add to her expression, too.

    I think part of the reason we're noticing these things and feel a bit more skinwork is needed is because the light on her left (CR) is brighter and "burning out" skin flaws on that side, making the ones we can see more prominent. If you can equalize between the two sides - no more than that!! - I think it will help balance it up overall.

    I agree with Heather about the light levels - definitely improves it on this monitor. I think because the beautiful natural light runs diagonally across her face below the nose, enough of her face is in soft shading that lifting it a bit like this really works.

    HTH - I really like the light and airy feel to the shot!
    facebook | photo site |
  • mayassamayassa Registered Users Posts: 90 Big grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Icebear wrote: »
    I'm not going to post the image before I cleaned up her skin. If I did more skin work, it just wouldn't look like her. I'll work on the hair. I shot a custom WB with a Photovision Digital Calibration Target before shooting the session, then shot an image of the target at the end for a check. The WB in this shot is spot on.

    Just my opinion on the WB, looking at the necklace the white pearls? look blown out.
    You can use my Smug Mug coupon a0rrvSicVVqE2

    Rick-Matassa.smugmug.com/
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    mayassa wrote: »
    Just my opinion on the WB, looking at the necklace the white pearls? look blown out.

    Yeah, they read like 99.7 across the RGB board, so I'd call them blown. But that's got little to do with white balance, no? ne_nau.gif
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • SvennieSvennie Registered Users Posts: 181 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Like heatherfeather said: her face is a little bit too dark. I moved the midpoint of the histrogram a touch to the left. Also cropped it tighter and corrected the color balance, although you probably do this in RAW: WB is off.
    But in general: very nice portrait thumb.gif and I would not photoshop her face!
    www.warris.nl
    www.warris.nl/blog
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    divamum wrote: »
    John, while I take your point about veracity, this isn't a personal or editorial portrait, but a piece of public, promotional material, and therefore a little more retouching isn't necessarily out of order or ethically wrong, IMO. Like it or not, there are expectations out there from years of media manipulation, and this will fall into that category as something which will be in front of the eyes of the photographically uneducated who have those expectations, and thus is a whole different ball o' wax than a portrait one might hang on one's wall, or a character study where those "flaws" might actually be an integral part of it. Just my philosophical 2c.

    Thanks MG. You're the headshot maven (Diva?) here as far as I'm concerned. You have a perspective (consumer & photographer) most of us don't have. SO . . . I'll go ahead and post the cropped "rawish" image, along with the latest, keeping in mind all y'alls' suggestions. One thing I did after cogitating on your philosophy was to slightly enlarge her left (CR) eye.

    1228096273_E6myV-XL.jpg
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Since you asked :).
    I think the light is coming from the wrong side, it should be coming from the part side...as is the light source looks to low also.
    The eyes look a bit unnatural I would like to see her chin raised just a hair, I would soften her skin only just a hair, not much.

    Hard to tell on this crappy monitor but I think the mid tones may need a boost....unless you are hiding something in the background. Maybe crop it a bit tighter, the lower area where her arm is and the shirt are a bit distracting.

    On the plus side it looks like you got a pretty natural smile out of her and she is an attractive woman so you have a lot to work with.

    Having said all that....if you brighten the midpoints just a bit and adjust your black and white points accordingly, this would probably work just fine as is.

    I just saw your before and after shots. Looks pretty darn good....from where you started, you ended up well. To me the whites of her eyes do look a bit to bright, but like I said this monitor sucks.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
    http://500px.com/Shockey
    alloutdoor.smugmug.com
    http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    I think it's a case of "horses for courses" - it would be a bit much for a personal portrait (or PJ, or editorial or {insert more natural style here}, but I think the adjustment is definitely appropriate for promotional use. I hate that we've all become so perfection-ized through advertising/media images, but sadly we have and in this context (IMO, ymmv etc etc) I think it's necessary.

    +1 on the forehead lines - I prefer them softened.

    How did you do her undereye circles? If you did it only through cloning/patching/blur, one alternative which might be worth trying is to see how it looks (if you can stand working on it any more - I know after a while it's like ... I.AM.DONE.!!) using Lee Varis's technique for taking the darkness out without losing texture. Open up a new layer in soft-light mode, with the "fill with grey" box checked. Then dodge/burn on that layer. The texture remains, but the colour of the dark shadows goes buh-bye.... Then you can add a super-light patch to take out just an eensy bit more of the unwanted skin folds and Bob's yer uncle. It sounds complicated but actually only takes few minutes, and I've found it very useful for this kind of skin texture. I usually do each step on a separate layer so that I can dial them up/down to taste (and I'm just waiting for Qarik and Zoomer to tell me this is too much time and work to put into a portrait, but hey - it works for me! rolleyes1.gifthumb.gif)

    I think her eyes are still a tiny bit glow-y and can be dialed back, but the liquify adjustment looks good.

    You really do have great material to work with - lovely expression, pretty lady, and nice light! thumb.gif

    ETA: one other thing which I've found I prefer (again, YMMV) - where you've used blur/softening on her nose, clean it away a little more around the edges of the nostril, bottom of the nose and right where the curve of the nose on either side joins the face - it kind of "outlines" the nose and makes it seem like you did less on her skin thumb.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    zoomer wrote: »
    Since you asked :).
    I think the light is coming from the wrong side, it should be coming from the part side...as is the light source looks to low also.

    Hi Mike. Thanks for wading in here. Funny you should mention the "wrong side" 'cause I think the same thing. My "artistic director" (bossy daughter) faved this one. Since the job resulted from her contact, I have to humor her. I have a couple other shots I like as much if not more than this one where we turned the whole shot around. I'll maybe start a new thread after the wounds heal from this one.

    With respect to the light source, I'm not sure what you mean. We were positioned by a huge window. I had a scrim in the window to diffuse the light (which kept changing as the cloud cover thinned and thickened) and used a reflector on the off side. You can see the reflector as a fuzzy catchlight in her eyes. I don't know how I could have raised the light source unless I flagged the lower part of the window. Is that what you meant? headscratch.gif
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    To raise lightsource from a window.... lower the subject :D (Not being funny - it works! Just put them on a lower seat.)
    facebook | photo site |
  • heatherfeatherheatherfeather Registered Users Posts: 2,738 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Listen to Diva, she is a very smart lady (and knows what she is talking about, haha!)

    I think you could take the mid-tones a bit further. I don't know how tan she is naturally, but it still seems too dark for the kind of thing you are going for.
    Also, it will help hide any rough skin texture a lot to push it a bit more.
    Heather
    my website
    facebook
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    divamum wrote: »
    Just put them on a lower seat.)
    Would have had to put her on the floor. That might have been OK, but then I'd have had to get down there with her. Groan. :rutt
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Wish I could take credit for the "lower the subject" idea, but I have to credit Mr Hobby for that (it's so obvious once you think about it, but it never occurred to me before I saw him point it out!)

    'Course, if Icebear was shooting next to French doors, it wouldn't have helped rolleyes1.gif

    +1 on added brightness to smooth skin. OH yeah. The 40-something's best friend (damhik :giggle)

    ETA: Ah, I see you posted while I was writing -got it. Couldn't put her down any lower.
    facebook | photo site |
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    It just occurred to me. Though we were quite close to the very large (scrimmed) window, there was a white painted radiator cover between her and the window. Can you spell "reflector?" (well, of course you can now.) I'm thinking that explains the low source Mike objected to.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • Bryce WilsonBryce Wilson Registered Users Posts: 1,586 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    divamum wrote: »
    using Lee Varis's technique for taking the darkness out without losing texture. Open up a new layer in soft-light mode, with the "fill with grey" box checked. Then dodge/burn on that layer. The texture remains, but the colour of the dark shadows goes buh-bye.... Then you can add a super-light patch to take out just an eensy bit more of the unwanted skin folds and Bob's yer uncle.

    WOW...just WOW...
    Not to hijack your thread Mr. Bear, but I just tried this on a close-up of a child that had some pretty bad dark circles under her eyes due to illness and it works WONDERS.

    Thank-you for posting this Diva. It was so good, I almost feel like I should pay someone for it!:D And the learning process continues...

    Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

    Thanks Mrs. Diva and Mr. Bear.
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Bryce Wilson wrote: »
    WOW...just WOW...

    Thank-you for posting this Diva. It was so good, I almost feel like I should pay someone for it!:D And the learning process continues...

    Lee Varis's book "Skin" is worth the price for that tip alone! I can take no credit for it - I just use it :Dthumb.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    Light is coming from the wrong side, her hair is shading the upper part of her face (including the nose shadow). The lower part of her face is receiving full light from the window. You can see from the highlights in the eye that the light source from the window extends to the lower part of her eye...that light is unblocked by her hair and is shining up into her face, causing the nose shadow to go up.
    The nose shadow should go down, hence my comment about the low light source.

    The dark circles under her eyes could be fixed with a few clicks of the clone tool, soft brush 30 percent opacity set on lighten.
    I have processed multiple thousands of portraits and I have worked very hard to devolve the processing into the fastest most efficient means possible at every stage....no layers ever :).
    Using the dodge tool is a very tricky dance between lightening and loss of contrast/black point.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
    http://500px.com/Shockey
    alloutdoor.smugmug.com
    http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2011
    zoomer wrote: »
    The dark circles under her eyes could be fixed with a few clicks of the clone tool, soft brush 30 percent opacity set on lighten.
    What Mike said!
    And . . . two words. Wacom tablet. We don't need no steenkin' mouse clicks. Pressure sensitive pen tool has changed my editing life.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Sign In or Register to comment.