Processing purgatory ;)

divamum · October 27, 2011

I despair sometimes - I really think that the "don't give a sh**" edits I do on a first pass are better than when I actually try to nail it :rolleyes I would luuurrrve some feedback on these since I think I'm going blind

I've been working on these for two days and either my eyes don't work very well any more or I'm just not feeling the love, because I can't seem to get this quite right. They seem too pink/hot/contrasty/blah blah blah.

These also have a fine line to tread on retouching - her actual request was "I'd love it if you could knock about 10 years off me" (she's actually in her mid-60s). I can't tell if I've gone too far or not far enough. Interestingly, unlike most of my portraits, I found Portrait Professional extremely helpful for these, where a lot more needed doing than usual. However, I'm not sure if I've overcooked the skinwork goose or not.....

I accept, in advance, that maybe this all comes down to visual exhaustion on my part, but I'd sure love some feedback. Ta ever so!

1 Original

1a

1bw BW

2 Original

2a I did this version with heavier retouching, but it looked too fake to me so I added a layer of the original, unretouched photo to get 2b - I've saved that one as layers, so I can just dial it up and down as needed!)

2b My preferred level of retouching, but not convinced by contrast/expos. Not bright enough, or just right? :dunno

2bbw BW This looks too hot to me, but with brightness/expo dialled back, it looked muddy :scratch

zoomer · October 27, 2011

They look a bit blurry, but patchy blurry.
Is it possible to post an original so we can see where you started from.
At first glance it looks like your base portraits are pretty close and should be a few minutes work to fine tune.
Exposures:
1 is hot
2 ok
3 is dull
4 is ok

divamum · October 27, 2011

They're completely sharp in originals. I've noticed recently that some shots (other people's) linked to dgrin from SM have been showing blurry on my monitor - anybody else having that issue?

As for the rest

1. Thank you for the feedback - appreciated.
2. :bash

PS Will edit originals into original post. Watch this space....

briandelion · October 27, 2011

I've been there. Don't despair, these are so close! #'s 2 & 4 look just about right.

 Here’s what I do in PS and please tell me to shut up if this is something you already know.:smack
Make an empty Layer, select the healing brush (make sure "current layer and below" option is selected on Option Bar). Obliterate all the wrinkles! Now all you have to do is gradually dial them back in to your taste (or the clients) with that layers opacity slider. If you change your mind later just go back in again and adjust the slider up or down.
For skin lightening make an Adjustment Layer above your image layer (Levels, Curves it doesn’t matter). Don’t make any changes, just change the Layers blending mode to “screen.” Ignore everything else and just observe the skin tone as you adjust the opacity slider. Use the Layer Mask on the Adjustment Layer you just made and mask out the areas where you don’t want the lightening to show. Again, as long as you keep the layers you always have the option to tweak it any time you like.

jiro · October 27, 2011

I'm not a professional retoucher divamum but I think the edit is a bit bright for her skin. If this is my shot, I would apply an averaging on her skin tone specially on the facial area and do a very small amount of softening and that's it. I like what you did with the 2b edit. The intensity of her gold jewelry seems to be over-powering and it is taking away my attention to focus on her eyes. The b&w conversion on the last one is good, but still a bit bright on the highlights. Very nice catchlights, btw. First time I've seen those kind of catchlights before.

zoomer · October 27, 2011

Just say the word and I will delete...just trying to help out.
I ran it through PP. Brightened the eyes and sharpened them, light skin fix.
In Elements did a levels adjust and crop. Clone brightened only the deep wrinkles. Sharpened...extra on the mouth and nose that looked blurry.
After levels darkened it just a smidge which improved the skin color.

Not trying to say this edit is better just showing you a different take since you said you were stuck.
Did you shoot this with a 1.4 lens from up close...I think the short depth of field is what is causing the blur I am seeing.

Original

Quick edit

divamum · October 27, 2011

Tx Zoomer

Appreciate the input guys - it really is a case of I just can't "see" any more (partly because I'm working under time pressure - why, why, WHY do clients always choose their final edits the week I'm crazy busy doing other things and editing is hard to squeeze in?!)

I'm still amazed she chose this one - it is, IMO, one of hte weakest of this part of the session,b ut hey - people never choose the ones I like (or rarely!) I think what you don't like is the 28mm... I don't like it either

HEre's another crack at it, done "by hand" (this, THIS is why I usually just do it myself to begin with - clearly me and PP just don't play nice together

. I went back to clone/lighten + healing brush, took some of the reds out of her nose, reduced brightness but upped contrast on her face a bit to recover some detail on the left hand side of her nose, ran the TRA skin-softening action as my final step in PS, and then brightened up the whole image once I took it back into lightroom. Might still need a little more brightness, but I feel like this is closer to the spirit of the original, which I really liked! (So much for "won't need much work - I can get these done and delivered in an afternoon, easily" Yeah. Right

)

shatch · October 27, 2011

Divamum, I think your last one looks good. Definitely helps to get up and walk away from the computer after pushing the mouse for a few hours. Most of the time when I do that, when I come back I ask myself, "What were you thinking?" Oh ya, and the pressure of a time commitment...

divamum · October 28, 2011

Tx everybody - I got it done in the end. You're right shatch - sometimes just WALKING AWAY fixes a bunch of things, if only be restoring our vision

It's weird how sometimes processing just goes like a dream and others, like yesterday, it's just such HARD WORK!!!!!

Still have the bw conversions to do, but the colour ones are up there before my deadline (I give myself two weeks from them giving me their selections in my contract, but I like to deliver early whenever possible - given that this next week is batso, I NEEDED to get them done by today for my own peace of mind!)

novicesnapper · October 29, 2011

I thought I was the only one that ended up walking away to clear the mind lol. I'm no pro, but sometimes I come back and look at my work and think, what was I thinking? So easy to get saturated for sure. If I may, I'm not on my other laptop, but ran it thru Gimp real quick for grins. I did a side by side for comparision's sake. I took the brightness down some in Gimp, then brought the saturation up a little to bring the skin tones up. If I was on my other laptop with Lightroom, I might tinker with black levels a little (the beautiful bokeh in the background). Let me know when I can delete, lovely lady by the way.

anonymouscuban · October 30, 2011

My preferences:

1bw

2b

I don't think any of the edits done by others are better, or at least enough to re-edit what you have.

divamum · October 30, 2011

Thanks guys! I got it done and she was thrilled with the results, so it's all good. Still have to do the conversions, but not quite so under the gun timewise for those which means I can do them in my own time :whew

Appreciate all the input - it really did help!

Elaine · October 30, 2011

I think you did a lovely job and I really like your last edit in post #7. In regards to 2a and 2b...I'm wondering if you've found that printing one that looks like 2a on the monitor (brightness/exposure/contrast) ends up looking more like 2b in print because of the difference in backlight/reflective light. I think I tend to edit more like 2a myself, with the idea that prints will end up a tad darker/richer. I don't know if I'm second guessing my calibration by doing this or if my calibration is poor, but I've wondered what others think about this.

divamum · October 30, 2011

Elaine wrote: »

I think you did a lovely job and I really like your last edit in post #7. In regards to 2a and 2b...I'm wondering if you've found that printing one that looks like 2a on the monitor (brightness/exposure/contrast) ends up looking more like 2b in print because of the difference in backlight/reflective light. I think I tend to edit more like 2a myself, with the idea that prints will end up a tad darker/richer. I don't know if I'm second guessing my calibration by doing this or if my calibration is poor, but I've wondered what others think about this.

YES!!! That is always and exactly one of the things that makes me crazy. I only deliver digital images BUT I encourage clients to print a master from Smug to use as reference any time they work with a different printer (eg mass repro for headshots), and I know that I always have to make them seem a bit under-contrasty and overbright so they look right on paper.

Frankly, I just don't do ENOUGH printing ever to feel really confident about it which is one of the reasons I start second-guessing myself even though I know my calibration is pretty good for colour - it's contrast/brightness that I start to doubt. It's also why I'm VERY grateful for the kind folks here at dgrin to act as "extra eyes" with me before I finalize

Elaine · October 30, 2011

divamum wrote: »

YES!!! That is always and exactly one of the things that makes me crazy. I only deliver digital images BUT I encourage clients to print a master from Smug to use as reference any time they work with a different printer (eg mass repro for headshots), and I know that I always have to make them seem a bit under-contrasty and overbright so they look right on paper.

Frankly, I just don't do ENOUGH printing ever to feel really confident about it which is one of the reasons I start second-guessing myself even though I know my calibration is pretty good for colour - it's contrast/brightness that I start to doubt. It's also why I'm VERY grateful for the kind folks here at dgrin to act as "extra eyes" with me before I finalize

If you will pardon the diversion...

I recently had this one printed at 16x24 from Bay Photo on styrene:

To me, this is dark but just right on monitor. There is separation between her hair and the background and I like it. In print, I feel it's too dark, but because her face is the lightest part and stands out, I think it will be OK for its intended purpose. To me, the background is a dark charcoal on monitor, but not black. In print, it's nearly black. I'm like you...don't print often enough to feel confident. I think I need to change that!

BradfordBenn · October 30, 2011

divamum wrote: »

I only deliver digital images BUT I encourage clients to print a master from Smug to use as reference any time they work with a different printer (eg mass repro for headshots), and I know that I always have to make them seem a bit under-contrasty and overbright so they look right on paper.

I am curious why you only deliver digital for something like this, to deliver one 4x6 print as a reference might be a good idea. That way when the image is "wrong" from the client's own printer you can remind them that you provided a sample print that looked great.

Just wondering and thinking.

divamum · October 30, 2011

@BB Headshots are always 8x10's, and clients are responsible for mass reproduction. These days, far more people use the digital copies than hard-copy prints, too. That said, I never thought of including a 4x6 print for reference, which is a really good idea! I might start doing that at some point. Good thinking, Batman

Elaine, one thing I've found helpful is to look at images I intend to print in Picasa (which I use anyway for easy quick catalog reference, and uploading - just easier than LR). Picasa ALWAYS displays things slightly darker than PS/LR and even Firefox. The difference is small, but enough to help me gauge how contrast/brightness may look in a print.

Processing purgatory ;)

Comments