How can I acheive that "POP" in Portrait/Glamour Photography?

bebestylee · May 4, 2011

Hey guys,

I've been working my way around the camera for a while...but I mainly have been doing Nightlife Photography and some Outdoor stuff. I'm looking to venture indoors and do some studio work...I'm trying to achieve that POP that a lot of photographers seem get while doing this type of work. If you could please take a look at the work and let me know what i'm doing wrong...some suggestions...maybe even Kit/Lens suggestions!?!

I'm pretty handy with Photoshop and Lightroom...but i'm trying to achieve this after the Shutter Closes!

I used a Canon 5D with a 50mm f/2.8 and a 28mm - 135mm f/3.5 - 5.6

**My shot is on the left....Another photog on the right**

Nikolai · May 4, 2011

bebestylee wrote: »

I'm pretty handy with Photoshop and Lightroom...but i'm trying to achieve this after the Shutter Closes!

Short answer - you can't. You have to learn studio lighting. It's somewhat complicated and expensive, but there is no other way.

zoomer · May 4, 2011

See the overall contrast difference. Your photo looks foggy. Increase your black point.
The other photo has a darker exposure which naturally increases color.
Basics.
Levels adjustment to make your blacks black and your whites white. Make sure the midtones are right. Use your histogram to help you. Adjust contrast to taste. This is where pop comes from assuming good light.

Take the photo correctly. Good light with contrasting subject and background.
See how flat the lighting is in your photo, no shadows to add depth and contrast.

It isn't because your model is not hot, so at least having good taste in models is not going to be a problem

.

mercphoto · May 4, 2011

Nikolai wrote: »

Short answer - you can't. You have to learn studio lighting. It's somewhat complicated and expensive, but there is no other way.

My first thought as well. The lighting is all wrong on the initial capture and no amount of post-processing is going to fix that.

bebestylee · May 4, 2011

Thank you so much for the responses...much appreciated!

So we've concluded that it's basically User error...Correct?

So what should I be looking to do? Again i'm used to nightlife photography...which is very easy it seems! lol

I had a 3 light set up for this shoot. I had 2 hot lights on the background...and a Strobe that sat about 6 Ft in front of the model off center to the left. I was shooting the images from about 7.5ft back.

Nikolai · May 4, 2011

bebestylee wrote: »

Thank you so much for the responses...much appreciated!

So we've concluded that it's basically User error...Correct?

So what should I be looking to do? Again i'm used to nightlife photography...which is very easy it seems! lol

I had a 3 light set up for this shoot. I had 2 hot lights on the background...and a Strobe that sat about 6 Ft in front of the model off center to the left. I was shooting the images from about 7.5ft back.

When having model so close to the bg in a semi-HK scenario you're doomed to have a rather flat image. The "pop" on the target image is achieved by using two lights in a diagonal "cross-fire" pattern, a bg that is 5-6 ft away and at least one (if not two) separate bg light. So, technically, if you have 3 lights you can get close to what you want, you just need to meter it all right.

kdog · May 4, 2011

All that being said, raising the black point on this image does wonders.

rdalland · May 4, 2011

I don't know if you have seen this thread, you might find it helpful:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=186875&highlight=pull+backs

ziggy53 · May 4, 2011

Do you mind if I make an attempt in some changes to your image?

bebestylee · May 4, 2011

Ziggy...you have the Green Light! Let's see what you can do!

So you think the model is too close to the BG?

I feel like I don't have enough light at times....What set up do you guys use?

Nikolai · May 4, 2011

kdog wrote: »

All that being said, raising the black point on this image does wonders.

hehe, tru dat..

That said, studio shooting has three main concerns: lighting, lightining, lighting...

Nikolai · May 4, 2011

bebestylee wrote: »

So you think the model is too close to the BG?

I feel like I don't have enough light at times....What set up do you guys use?

Depends on what you what to do. Sometimes you want shadow...

As for the number and power of lights - it's an endless game.
I own 11, and use any number between 1 and 7 on a regular basis (in case you wonder what I do with 7: 1 main/fill, 1 kicker, 1 hair, 2 rims, 2 bg). If the frame includes nice props it gets much more complex fast.

ziggy53 · May 4, 2011

Hopefully an improvement on the original:

This is after:

Convert to 16 bit, Duplicate layer and Multiply blend. Flatten.
Reduce Contrast (a lot)
Color balance the white, black and flesh tones using iCorrect Portrait.
Levels to set white and black levels as well as adjust mid-tones a bit.
Luko sharpen.
Duplicate layer and then noise reduction using Neat Image on the top layer.
Blend with bottom layer to mostly process with noise reduction on skin and middle tones.
Flatten image.
Create 2 new duplicate layers.
Select using color and target the areas of blown skin tones. Feather and delete the selection on the top layer.
Move the middle layer to position some more correct skin tones to show through the deleted ares from above.
Use Levels and transparency to adjust the middle layer so that the visible new skin tones closely match the surrounding areas of normally exposed skin.
Flatten the image and revert to 8 bits.
Save as a new JPG

Nikolai · May 4, 2011

Good stuff, Ziggy!

Of course, with the proper lighting one can get something like this without any PS hassles:

#1: Fatal Attraction

This post was made with the assistance of Star*Explorer

bebestylee · May 5, 2011

Thanks a lot fellas...

Ziggy...yes that def is a bit of an improvement...I think i'm starting to understand how to get that 'POP'. I'm going to do a little more research and get my lighting situation corrected!

Nikolai - That image is absolutely beautiful! Great shot!

kdog · May 5, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

Hopefully an improvement on the original:

This is after:
Convert to 16 bit, Duplicate layer and Multiply blend. Flatten.
Reduce Contrast (a lot)
Color balance the white, black and flesh tones using iCorrect Portrait.
Levels to set white and black levels as well as adjust mid-tones a bit.
Luko sharpen.
Duplicate layer and then noise reduction using Neat Image on the top layer.
Blend with bottom layer to mostly process with noise reduction on skin and middle tones.
Flatten image.
Create 2 new duplicate layers.
Select using color and target the areas of blown skin tones. Feather and delete the selection on the top layer.
Move the middle layer to position some more correct skin tones to show through the deleted ares from above.
Use Levels and transparency to adjust the middle layer so that the visible new skin tones closely match the surrounding areas of normally exposed skin.
Flatten the image and revert to 8 bits.
Save as a new JPG

Just by way comparison, here's my very simple "KISS" approach to the original photo.

1) Using the Levels panel, increase just the black point.
2) Used 33% history brush on hair to brush back some of the original reddish highlights.

That's it.

I've presented the above as an alternate approach that took less than a minute to perform, and yet I still think shows improvement over the original.

Here's the original photo for comparison
attachment.php?attachmentid=33513&stc=1&d=1304521599

attachment.php?attachmentid=33513&stc=1&d=1304521599

Nikolai · May 5, 2011

It looks like we are all in agreement: while the LHP image can be improved (as in made more contrasty) in post with more or less efforts, there is no feasible way to make a RHP out of it...

kdog · May 5, 2011

Nikolai wrote: »

It looks like we are all in agreement: while the LHP image can be improved (as in made more contrasty) in post with more or less efforts, there is no feasible way to make a RHP out of it...

No argument from me.

bebestylee · May 6, 2011

Nice...sorry you're going to have to help me out with the Acronyms here...I see LHP and RHP I think Left Handed Pitcher and Right Handed Pitcher. 20 Years of Baseball will do that to you! haha

ziggy53 · May 6, 2011

bebestylee wrote: »

Nice...sorry you're going to have to help me out with the Acronyms here...I see LHP and RHP I think Left Handed Pitcher and Right Handed Pitcher. 20 Years of Baseball will do that to you! haha

I think that you are "very" close to understanding. I believe that Nik is saying,

"It looks like we are all in agreement: while the LHP (left-hand-picture) image can be improved (as in made more contrasty) in post with more or less efforts, there is no feasible way to make a RHP (right-hand-picture) out of it..."

Since the lighting is sooo different in the 2 images that you posted, side-by-side, I would agree.

Nikolai · May 6, 2011

bebestylee wrote: »

Nice...sorry you're going to have to help me out with the Acronyms here...I see LHP and RHP I think Left Handed Pitcher and Right Handed Pitcher. 20 Years of Baseball will do that to you! haha

Left Hand *Pitcha* ;-)
I'm referring to your OP (Original Post) with two pictures, left being yours, right the one you want to achieve...

bebestylee · May 6, 2011

Haha...thanks for clearing that up! I've been looking around the forums and checking out your posts! You guys are no Joke! you know your way around the camera! Fantastic work!

Molotov Everything · May 8, 2011

This is kind of off-topic but I noticed the watermark says "Manny T photography." Manny T immediately makes me think of manatees (aka the sea cow), which doesn't really jive with the idea of sexy women in lingerie. I don't know if that's where anyone else's mind went or if I'm just weird but that's what happened.
I'm just imagining a conversation with a model who mishears you. "I think you'd make a great photo model, I run manatee photography....."
"You calling me fat? JERK!" and the model storms off.

How can I acheive that "POP" in Portrait/Glamour Photography?

Comments