Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | People Photography | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2014 · Sheri

U-taker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Sheri

Ok... Tried my hand at 2 point lighting, and some retouching. I'm posting this in the people forum because I think I'd get much better feedback here than in the critique or lighting forums.

The lighting... Small softbox, camera right and high, as key. Another small softbox camera left, level with Sheri, for fill. I believe the lighting was 1:3 ratio. My intent was to try and create loop lighting. I think, in this image, I may have a muddied loop/Rembrandt light? I'm trying to figure it out... I do have the "loop" by her nose but I'm not sure because it merges with the lighter shadow created by her philtrum (indent on upper lip). At the same time, I also see the tell tail triangle on her cheek that is characteristic of Rembrandt. Slightly

by this...

The retouch... I brought the image into PS6 and after a few layers, masks and hours, this is what I came up with. I watched a tutorial on frequency separation. I tried frequency separation because I wanted to keep the texture of the skin for a more "real" looking retouch. Also, sheri doesn't have perfect skin nor even pigment (because of a childhood bicycle accident) and I felt this technique would help even out the pigment differences.

I'm posting the o.o.c. image, the processed image, 100% crop of her cheek to show the attempt at keeping the texture and a screenshot of my layers and masks (I know the screen shot doesn't show my layer opacities and all the "painting" I did but I hope it will better help those that view this post to see my process).

Was I successful? Or, what was I successful in?

Thank you,

Ryan

Feb 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Herb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Sheri

You could get the same thing in 5 minutes with portrait professional. Sorry, but my time is precious and if I can buy something rather than trying to figure out myself, I will buy it.

The real question is, what does she think? Customers pay the freight and if she likes it great! If she doesn't like it, bad. No referrals!

Feb 18, 2014 at 02:50 PM

U-taker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Sheri

Hey Herb. Thanks for the comment. I have tried Port. Pro. in the past and didn't care for it too much but I may not have seen it's potential either. I have Imagenomic so might play around and see what that can do. I just wanted to see what I could do in PS.

As far as Sheri liking it, she does, but she was just sitting in so I could figure out lighting. I would like to potentially offer something like this to people but I first want to make sure I can do it and do it consistently.

Feb 18, 2014 at 04:35 PM

jefferies1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Sheri

I really don't care for the retouched version. Way to fake looking and the color is off. As for Portrait Professional if it does what it shows in the pop up ads I would stay far away from it. That would not be what I consider retouching. I hate to tear apart work of someone who is learning without giving advice on how to improve. Hard to describe retouching so I am going to PM you a link to a sample video I made for clients. It shows a fast and easy way to retouch while keeping everything natural looking.

Feb 18, 2014 at 09:00 PM

Vince Muehe
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Sheri

I think part of the problem with the retouched version is that the magenta is too high. There also seems to be a little too much flattening, but part of that is due to the original lighting.

I don't think it's all bad and I appreciate seeing the history of changes! Not often done. We all learn things differently, have different ways of doing things, and learn at different rates. I sure wouldn't say I'm perfect at post processing - so there's always something to be learned.

Thanks for your contribution!

Feb 18, 2014 at 09:12 PM

IsleofGough
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Sheri

.

Edited on Apr 22, 2014 at 08:20 PM · View previous versions

Feb 18, 2014 at 09:46 PM

CW100
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Sheri

Herb wrote:
The real question is, what does she think? Customers pay the freight and if she likes it great! If she doesn't like it, bad. No referrals!

true, it may look over-processed but the customer is (usually) right

Feb 19, 2014 at 08:10 AM

dragon_eye
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Sheri

+1 on favoring the OOC version. As for retouched version, I would dial it down the opacity, at least 50%, and correct the skin tone (too much magenta).

As far as the lighting goes, I wonder if you can lower the main so to give a better catch light (I am a sucker for that. Probably why I only use octas).

Feb 19, 2014 at 11:23 AM

kensglamour
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Sheri

Just use Imagenomic Potraiture. It takes seconds to apply once you set up for the first photo. Lots of adjustments and results are very realistic.

Feb 19, 2014 at 01:22 PM

dragon_eye
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Sheri

kensglamour wrote:
Just use Imagenomic Potraiture. It takes seconds to apply once you set up for the first photo. Lots of adjustments and results are very realistic.

Agreed. I actually built it into an action - using it becomes effortless.

Feb 19, 2014 at 03:28 PM

U-taker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Sheri

Thank you everyone for the comments. Yes, to me it does look over processed too.

@ Jefferies1 - Thanks for the sample video, will certainly check it out and try. Thanks also for not tearing it apart without any good advice

I don't mind the hard criticism, just give me some insight as to how I can do better (just as you did) This is why I'm posting in FM instead of somewhere else, the talent here is awesome.

@ Vince Muehe - Thanks on the magenta point. On the flat light, how can I improve to it to give more depth? Move the key? Use a different light modifier? Greater lighting ratio? I have more concern with learning lighting than I do pp/retouching. I know that the quality of the lighting is paramount and everything else builds off of that base.

@ IsleofGough - Thanks, I have done a Gaussian layer and also a Gaussian mask. It was quick and easy but I didn't care for my results. Maybe it requires a revisit with a little more tlc from me.

@dragon_eye - I agree with the catch lights. Unfortunately, boxes are what I have to work with at the moment. But, I would light to see the catch lights a little closer to her pupils if not in her pupils.

@kensglamour - Yeah, it does have a lot of adjustments and things to play with

I had Imagenomic when I did this image but I was trying to just use PS. I guess maybe it was the man in me saying "you can figure this out in PS". I'll give Imagenomic a go tho and spend some time in there.

Feb 19, 2014 at 05:50 PM

U-taker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Sheri

Ok, a couple of redo versions.

First one was all on my own in PS. I took some magenta out and added a layer of grain to help with texture.

Second was a rework with Imagenomic. (Still getting a handle on it).

Third is a try at Jefferies technique which left most of the original image.

Thoughts?

1 PS rework

2 Imagenomic

3 Jefferies

Feb 19, 2014 at 08:20 PM

cadman342001
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Sheri

People who haven't used Port Pro don't seem to realise that it's totally adjustable just like Portraiture is. I have both and it's way quicker than spending hours in PS.

Just my $0.02

Andy

Feb 20, 2014 at 12:38 AM

U-taker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Sheri

Thanks Andy.

Feb 20, 2014 at 08:04 AM

IsleofGough
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Sheri

.

Edited on Apr 22, 2014 at 08:11 PM · View previous versions

Feb 20, 2014 at 04:50 PM

U-taker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Sheri

I agree, the Imagenomic does look best. The following image is what you had just suggested, IsleofGough. The original image was layered over the top of my original retouch attempt at 36% opacity

Feb 21, 2014 at 05:58 PM

IsleofGough
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Sheri

.

Edited on Apr 22, 2014 at 08:10 PM · View previous versions

Feb 21, 2014 at 08:28 PM

docsmiles17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Sheri

skin softening processing is very subjective and very dependent upon client acceptance so no comments on it from me but my guess would be that she likes one of the versions of softening v not.

The key lighting is a bit too bright. The fill light is perfect but tone down the key light a bit. the reflection on the hair clip distracts my eye.

Otherwise, nice portrait.

Feb 22, 2014 at 01:24 AM

tonyfield
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Sheri

I think you went overboard in the multiple frequency separation processes. And , for some of the processing, it looks as though you used a blur process on the entire skin set in the low frequency layer (or in your smoothing layers). This reduces "light radiance" in the skin - although the high frequency layer displays detail under the overly smoothed low frequency layer. It seems to be better to do the minimal amount of adjustment necessary on the low frequency layer.

On the whole, you should need only one frequency separation set.. All of the skin editing should be done in the high frequency layer. Tonal detail adjustment should be done in the low frequency layer. Additional tonal control can be done in a burn/dodge layer and possibly in a "colour blend mode" layer.. You should result in (from bottom up) the following layers: low freq, high freq, colour adjust, burn/dodge (although I sometimes put the high frequency layer on the top). For the majority of images, this should be all that is necessary. An example of what can be done with just these layers is on: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1259466/0#11990493

On the whole, my experience with frequency separation is to use the minimal blur radius for the separation process. I use don't use "Gaussian Blur".... I find the "Dust and Scratches" with a radius of 9 (more or less) ... IMHO, this is a better blurring process because it handles colour edges in a sane way. The action I created does this automagically.

I also use the mixer brush to "move around" some colour for shadow/highlight control (I have never mastered the fine art of burn/dodge in a proper way

)

Feb 22, 2014 at 02:01 AM

IsleofGough
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Sheri

.

Edited on Apr 22, 2014 at 08:09 PM · View previous versions

Feb 22, 2014 at 02:48 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| People Photography \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.