promo shots part deux

sineadw

Following on from lessons (hopefully) learned from the kid portraits.. Some C&C please?

We were going for a natural Audrey Hepburn/Natalie Portman look. Not sure we achieved that, but how does the PP look? I did quite a lot of cosmetic work but wanted to keep it as natural as possible. Is it obvious? Also would appreciate some feedback on the lighting, and any other things I might have missed completely. Thanks. I really have to say the last 2 C&C sessions I've had here have brought me on a lot with this I think, so I'm very grateful for all comments

Oh and I couldn't believe the HUGE difference it made having someone who's used to being in front of the camera. These are the tip of the iceberg of shots I can use Lots more to be posted on pixie. I'll be in Photoshop for a week :eek:

Fajitas!

What lens did you use?

The most striking thing is that it looks like it's too wide - And I think there's a wee bit of distortion in there too.

magicbastarder

i'd brighten them a little - the histogram of the first shows there's wiggle room there:

smelltheglove

I like the softness of them and she is beautiful but I think you may have done the cosmetic work around the briidge of the nose and either side??? I may be wrong but its just that part seems a lot softer.

They are lovely shots and she's a lovely model.

sineadw

Fajitas! wrote: »

What lens did you use?

The most striking thing is that it looks like it's too wide - And I think there's a wee bit of distortion in there too.

The 50 on the 5D. I was in pretty close. Was thinking they might be a bit barrelled. Is that something I can fix in Photoshop or do they need a reshoot?

sineadw

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd brighten them a little - the histogram of the first shows there's wiggle room there:

Jesus I need to get my monitor calibrated. The look overly bright to me already. I might mess about with them later alright and have a look on a few screens. Thanks I find it hard to read the hist when there's so much black in the background..

sineadw

smelltheglove wrote: »

I like the softness of them and she is beautiful but I think you may have done the cosmetic work around the briidge of the nose and either side??? I may be wrong but its just that part seems a lot softer.

They are lovely shots and she's a lovely model.

Under the eyes, dodged the eyes and teeth, overall skin tones, the (very) odd blemish and yep, bridge of the nose. Would you have been able to tell straight away if I hadn't said though do you think?

Fajitas!

Right, the 50 1.4 has some very bad distortion, now, you can correct it in PS, but in future, don't use it for headshots, use your 24-70 at 70mm!

It can also be a bit of an awkward focal length for headshots. Notice in yours, you're keeping the eyes dead central in the image. This is akin to have your hotizon dead centre - Now, I suspect you were doing this get the best out of the 5D's sometimes uninspiring autofocus, but just remember to focus then recompose, or set up your directional pad to the focusing, so you can select where you're AFing without useing the wheel etc.

Now, looking at the histogram, and being someplace with better light than where I first posted, not only can you brighten them, you can introduce a lot of black in too - I can clearly see the noisey blacks in the background, which you want to get rid of.

By getting your histogram in order, you should get some nice vibrant results. From here, work with curves on adjustment layers to get some more localised contrast. You can sharpen her eyes up a bit more - Remember, with 4.5 more MP than your 350D, you've got more megabytes to sharpen too.

smelltheglove

It looks like you have smoothed it out a bit there and not anywhere else, you've lost some freckles which is causing a little inconsistency, nothing major, I prob would have noticed it but maybe not commented on it if you hadnt mentioned.

I use painst shop, still trying to get photoshop in the brain:) but paint shop has a great function called skin smoothing so if someone has good skin with a little falw it works great. I was always blessed with good skin but at 27 it aint looking as good as it used to so I smooth my own skin out in all photos, cheeky I know, but it works.

ThOnda

Brilliant. The Audrey look in the first picture is obvious.
The lighting is nicely soft with white reflection in her eyes, exactly what I like.
From technical point of view, they look a little distorted, like from shorter lens, nifty maybe? Especially with her chin up - it feels a little unnatural.
I shouldn't comment make up, but a little darker lipstick would make her face look a little more eye-catching.
And processing? They look nice, but a little "too natural" for a promo shots. A little styling eve of the processing would please my eye
I know, a lot of criticism, but they are less than 2% of my impressions. I like all of them. Even the last one.

Fajitas!

Sinead, would you mind if I processed one of them and stuck it beside your version, just to show you the difference?

sineadw

Fajitas! wrote: »

Sinead, would you mind if I processed one of them and stuck it beside your version, just to show you the difference?

By all means! I'm trying to work on them here...

Fajitas!

Right, here ye go.



Processing went as:

Introduce black space to top of image.
Levels, increased blacks and brightened all over. (Left eye is ott)
Curves, brighten eyes
Curves, darken hair and lips, get rid of some foreground detail (Little bit burnt)
High Pass sharpening, applied just to eyes.

It took less than 2 minutes, for what it's worth.

AnimalRights

Compared to the other posters S I am but a novice but to a novice the 1st thing I noticed was lack of vibrancy.
Very interesting and absorbing reading their C n C.

/edit
Just seen Fajitas and his def sorted the vibrancy in that 2 minutes!

/edit edit
why does there have to be so much plain colour above a portrait out of curiosity Fajitas?
Noticed this in a few other peoples portraits.
I'd like a wee bit less but guess this is one of these critic type perfect things?

Fajitas!

Well, there dosn't HAVE to be, but there's a few reasons, especially for promo use.

The simplest is, you've got to consider room for text, whether it be a headline, titles, etc.

Check out different 'rules' such as the golden rule and the rule of thirds.

You don't have to follow them, but be aware of them. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

In the one I edited above, the fabric at the bottom was uninteresting, and potentially taking away from the image. I also thought that the amount of empty space above her head needed more work, esp. if it's for promo work, and text/title needed to be dropped in.

0utpost31

Both eyes are a bit OTT in the processed version but other than that it looks much better. I don't have a clue how to use photoshop I must learn soon! I know a bit of ms paint.

AnimalRights

Yeah "rules" is what I was trying to say.
Anyway that cleared that up!

smelltheglove

I do like the added brightness, possibly a bit of sharpening there too???

The thing that struck me is how much better it is losing some of the material at the bottom. I wouldnt usually like so much blankness at the top but I see where fajitas is coming from. The added brightness draws me a little more to the almost triangle of pp'd complexion though so I would love to see the original with the skin smoothed and the this pp.

Fajitas!

Yep, but then again, I'm working off a low res jpeg

Give me a 13/14Mb Raw and I'll get down to business.

MagicMarker

Fajitas! wrote: »

Right, here ye go.

<snip>

Processing went as:

Introduce black space to top of image.
Levels, increased blacks and brightened all over. (Left eye is ott)
Curves, brighten eyes
Curves, darken hair and lips, get rid of some foreground detail (Little bit burnt)
High Pass sharpening, applied just to eyes.

It took less than 2 minutes, for what it's worth.

This just shows how important PP is in photography!!

Good stuff.

sineadw

Jaysus there's a difference! Thanks Al! I'm scuttling off to Photoshop now - will post results...

As for the freckles or lack thereof, that's actually a natural skin pattern would you believe. I was almost tempted to clone some freckles *in*...

ThOnda

I love the freckles! Keep 'em there, please. They are cute. Always.
Well, that is neither the correct thread nor forum to discuss what I like...

smelltheglove

I see where they kinda fade towards the bottom of the nose but its the softer look around the bridge of the nose. Maybe it's just me being a girl noticing the skin texture more but its just that little softness putting me off because the eyes are so striking if ya get me. Like I said though nothing major and prob nothing a man would notice(hehe) or anyone who doesnt do pp.

Fajitas!

Hope you don't mind, but I grabbed another one, just to give a slightly different style of processing. Resolution isn't great at all because of the crop.



Same contrast adjustments as the previous image, except increased blacks to get rid of the blue t-shirt - In future, I'd go for a shirt or the top you have in the other one - Or at least a string top, so it's not just the circle of the t-shirt top... That could just be personal preference though....

Copy of background layer with simple B&W conversion, with Soft Light blending method and reducing the opacity to about 75%.

Bobs your uncle.

sineadw

Al do you mind if I send her that second PP - see if she likes the style of it?

Borderfox

I put it in Portrait Pro and used the dramatic (female) setting. Can be a bit over the top but work well for the Brides!!

smelltheglove

Although it has a glamour effect from borderfox I like it! A lot like the glamour filter on paint shop. The skin texture is now even but unfortunately freckles are lost.

Fajitas!

Go for it sinead.

Keith, I'd be even more limiting with the effects of PPM

Sometimes, I'd even export it and paste it back onto the photo in photoshop to have even more control, it really can annihilate skin!

AnimalRights

It's getting confusing now, but I prefer Sineads 2nd pic over Fajitas as it's more natural and Fajitas is cropped too much, only thing is it still lacks vibrancy...and Borderfox we want freckles!!

Borderfox

I hear ya Janer

magicbastarder

Borderfox wrote: »

I put it in Portrait Pro and used the dramatic (female) setting. Can be a bit over the top but work well for the Brides!!

indeed it can be over the top - it's removed most of the character from her face.

sineadw

That portrait Pro does some job doesn't it? Is it expensive?

Aaaaannnywayyyy... 2 hours later (God my laptop needs to be thrown out the window). I haven't done much to the crop, and I'm not as Brave as Faj with the PP, (and they still look overprocessed to me - I'm such a PS wuss) but the new batch is up. Opinions, and thanks to all! I'm off to bed for a week - feckin chest infection...

smelltheglove

I do like the natural look, its hard to decide isnt it. Only thing I would say is you have cut part of the hat off in the first but other than that they are still great shots.

ThOnda

I am impressed! They don't look processed at all! (= lovely natural look). Great job.

AnimalRights

Far better this time, cept as Glove said you chopped the hat!

Interesting model, get some stuff for her chapped lips and she'd really own. :P

Covey

Personally would't worry about chopping things, thats generally not important/enhancing.

Definite preference for the natural look also, though that may very well be wrong from a commercial aspect. The other may work better from that aspect.

I'm definitely not qualified to comment on this type of shot in any practical sense, but my one overriding comment would be regarding the choice of lens in some cases.

With such a lens and shooting very close, there can sometimes be a tendency to get trhe shot envisaged and render the head in a manner semi-detached from the body which can be sometimes not flattering.

T.

thebaz

even though , I'm learning ps , again , i think subtly and minimal ps is best - i like the original set -- modifying the image too much looses her unique character - i think she looks great and unique in first set , but now its becoming more of a fashion clone -- uniqueness is good in my book , i'm no expert on photographing women -- but i know what i like

nice work sinead