"School of Portraiture" - Lesson 08 - Taking it to the next level ("The Reunion")

[Colin Southern]

Hi Akrozia,

Some thoughts ...

This will be my first print and I'm not sure what size will be optimal for this image.

It kinda depends on the size of the space on the wall where it'll be hanging Generally the bigger canvases are printed, the better they look. Also, it's normal to wrap the image around the sides of the frame - so for a given frame thickness, the less of the image you lose when you print bigger (eg if you print a small canvas, both chins will wrap around the frame which isn't ideal -- with a large print the chins will be close to the edge, but may not go around it) (having just said that, the image above may have been a heavy crop, and you may be able to crop it to give yourself more "wiggle room" (it pays to leave more "wiggle room" with shots that are going to be printed on canvas).

1. I think that the face of my daughter (the child in the picture) should be more sharp

By all means sharpen it some more, but on a canvas print it won't make much difference either way - people will look at the image as a whole from a distance, where they won't appreciate sharpening so much in what is a soft-look shot. Try something like 40% @ 4 pixels on the original shot and you should be close.

2. I'm not sure about the lava lamp... is it too bright...?

A little - I've brought it back about 1/2 a stop - I've also revealed more shadow detail to increase the amount of light on the (very contrasty) faces. This is an area where you have more wiggle room than you probably realise - what we're trying to do is show a couple of faces illuminated by a lava lamp; but unfortunately, what the camera sees is incident light from the lava lamp and reflected light from the faces - and there is understandably a big difference between them. It's OK to tweak these; all we need to remember is not to tweak them past a point where it doeesn't look natural anymore - and you'd probably be surprised as to just how far you can push things before that occurs.

Maybe it will be better if i decrease the saturation over the faces... they will become in more natural color... but I'll loose the warmth in the picture.

I would do it 1 of 2 ways - either leave it as it is (folks don't expect natural skin colours in situations like this - same with candle light), or (2) desaturate it completely - it would also look nice as a greyscale image.

I'd be happy to post-process and retouch the original image for you so that it's ready for printing if this helps?

[IMG][/IMG]

[Akrozia]

Thank you very Much Colin!

I really appreciate your support! Here is the original image and will be very happy if you retouch it for me. The small picture from my previous post is rotated about -3.2 degrees to make the lava lamp upright. The only thing I'm not sure in your edit is the sharpness on the kids cheek. It looks very sharp, but I'm sure you know what you are doing. Anyway, I'll use your advices to practice over the photo.

Thank you once again!

[Colin Southern]

Thank you very Much Colin!

I really appreciate your support! Here is the original image and will be very happy if you retouch it for me. The small picture from my previous post is rotated about -3.2 degrees to make the lava lamp upright. The only thing I'm not sure in your edit is the sharpness on the kids cheek. It looks very sharp, but I'm sure you know what you are doing. Anyway, I'll use your advices to practice over the photo.

Thank you once again!

Hi Akrozia,

You're welcome

I've prepared a couple of different versions for you - if you like them, I'll send you a link to the full resolution versions ...

[Akrozia]

Colin,
I like the both versions very much. They are absolutely awesome! If I have to choose one of them I'll choose the colored one. They both can be great decoration, but the colored one will fit better in the living room.

Would be great if you share the techniques and steps you take for this post-processing, if here is something different from the advice you share in your previous post.

Please, tell me what I can do for you to thank you! I appreciate your support and would like to return the favor.

Thank you very much!

[Colin Southern]

Hi Azrozia,

Nothing particularly special in the processing - just dimmed the lamp - brightened to two folks - sharpened - and rotated the lamp a little (as opposed to rotating the image, which takes away some of the valuable space below the chin).

Glad you like

[Akrozia]

Thank you!

In Monday I'll go to print it. How do you think, is the size 70 cm x 47 cm (gimp says 69.991 cm x 46.672 cm) will be okay.

I'll keep you updated with the final result.

[Valerie]

Here is my contribution to Portraiture. Please advise how to tweak this. Ready to improve.
Valerie

[M Aella]

I hope I'm not intruding? I've read all of the School of Portraiture lessons and have seen how welcoming this "class" is to newbies, so I'm hoping I'm not too late. That being said, I'm torn between liking the contrast between a soft image and my daughter's facial expression and thinking it needs sharpening. I only got my first ever DSLR the 7th of February, but I'm learning so much through reading the critiques of other photographs I just couldn't resist throwing one of my own to the chopping block. Thanks-in-advance!

[Ricco]

Jen - I don't think you are intruding at all! Welcome aboard.

I think you have got a great expression and captured it in good light - however I think you missed your focus. It looks a little soft to me and I'm guessing a little too far gone for sharpening. Perhaps also a subtle vignette would draw some more attention to the face.

What are your thoughts? After your reading, what would you have done differently?

[Dave Humphries]

Here is my contribution to Portraiture. Please advise how to tweak this. Ready to improve.
Valerie

Hi Valerie,

Welcome to the CiC forums from me.

I'm sure Colin will be along sometime to render a more professional view than I can, but I'll make a start ....

Great, happy, expressions you have captured there, pretty good exposure too.
The biggest problem is that everything is about the same amount of sharpness, not enough separation of subjects from background, caused by too high a shooting angle and (I'm guessing) rising ground behind them.

What can you tweak now?
I'd suggest a crop to lose some off the left hand edge to slightly improve a good composition.
Also applying some selective sharpening and blurring to help the kids and 'demote' the background.
I suspect Colin will suggest a vignette too.

Hope that helps until 'the headmaster' turns up

Cheers,

[M Aella]

Thank-you, Ricco I would definately have been ready with the focus, having the room to pull my daughter further from the background would have helped add more depth, and I need to practice some pp work. Some of the pictures in this "set" I lost some detail on the left of my subjects (kids) faces. I just used light from a window and a reflector, so now I'm excited to throw a diffuser into the mix. I tried it again and hope I followed your suggestions correctly. Lesson learned: no amount of sharpening I apply can compensate for lack of focus. lol




This is the one I wish I'd had the knowledge/foresight to try *some* kind of diffuser:



Thank you so much for the critique(s), feedback is essential for growth and family/friends/coworkers are notoriously either too kind or too easily impressed. LOL

[Valerie]

Hi Valerie,

Welcome to the CiC forums from me.

I'm sure Colin will be along sometime to render a more professional view than I can, but I'll make a start ....

Great, happy, expressions you have captured there, pretty good exposure too.
The biggest problem is that everything is about the same amount of sharpness, not enough separation of subjects from background, caused by too high a shooting angle and (I'm guessing) rising ground behind them.

What can you tweak now?
I'd suggest a crop to lose some off the left hand edge to slightly improve a good composition.
Also applying some selective sharpening and blurring to help the kids and 'demote' the background.
I suspect Colin will suggest a vignette too.

Hope that helps until 'the headmaster' turns up

Cheers,

Thanks, Dave, I thought I'd got lost in the shuffle(ha ha) I appreciate your reply. If anyone has time I'd like to see an edit as you suggested. I love a vignette. How strong do you suggest? I will try your suggestions. I am pretty new to Photo Shop Elements so I am not quite sure how to blur the background in pp. Should I have just used a more shallow DOF in the original? Thanks so much for the comments.

Valerie

[Ricco]

Thank you so much for the critique(s), feedback is essential for growth and family/friends/coworkers are notoriously either too kind or too easily impressed. LOL

Jen - I'm certainly no expert but have learnt a lot through here. The best thing I have learnt is to try, analyse and try again. Probably one of the better skills I've learnt is to self critique my own photos (and I'm still learning on that). I think you have picked up a few good points through your reading and I'm looking forward to see you put them into action.

[Ricco]

I love a vignette. How strong do you suggest? I will try your suggestions. I am pretty new to Photo Shop Elements so I am not quite sure how to blur the background in pp. Should I have just used a more shallow DOF in the original? Thanks so much for the comments.

Valerie

Valerie - a couple of bits that I'll throw into the mix....
- with the vignette, it is probably personal taste. In some instances a subtle vignette probably is all that is needed when in others a really strong vignette adds to the photo. Try it out and see what you like.
- with the background and blur - I am not that great in pp and have the philosophy to try and get it right in the camera. I have read elsewhere that the subject should be twice the distance to the background that it is from the camera (although it is possible I've got this wrong - bear in mind this is a rule of thumb only).
- Following on from the above, the depth of field needed varies depending on what you are chasing. If I am trying to take a portrait of the kids that is sharp front to back, I'm usually somewhere from f/7 - f/11. Conversely there are times when I am either trying to maximise light or deliberately going for shallow depth of field and hence am much lower.


Hope this helps.

[Dave Humphries]

I am pretty new to Photo Shop Elements so I am not quite sure how to blur the background in pp. Should I have just used a more shallow DOF in the original? Thanks so much for the comments.

Hi Valerie,

Possibly a wider aperture would help, but at f/9, you are slap in the middle of what Peter (Ricco) uses anyway.
Shooting from a lower angle may have put more distance between subject and background.

Regarding doing it now in PP, there are many, many ways to achieve it and I know what I do isn't 'best practice', but it works for me on birds and squirrels; have a look at that link to see how I did the sharpening on just the squirrel. In your case, you also want to blur the background though.

I used CS5, but the method is just as do-able in Elements.

Or follow one of the other ideas there for achieving it.

Sorry, must dash, ask again if you get stuck.

[M Aella]

I tried my own diy lighting setup.
First thing I learned is I need to spend more time making "real" diy lighting accessories. lol.

Second would be to either learn how to use different forms of light (halogen and such) OR stick to one kind. The slightest change in the angle from which I shot resulted in either a very blue or very red cast. Ricco, I really tried to pay attention to keeping ready on that focus! It seemed to get easier the more I clicked.

Third thing I learned is that it takes waaaaay more pictures than I thought it would to get some "good ones".

Oh! and fourth (hang on.. let me recount) Yes, fourth thing that I learned is to raise my main lighting. I imporvised a larger softbox with some worklights and a white sheet. Nice lighting, but too low. Catchlights ended up around 8 o'clock... give or take a half hour or so. Here is one from that "shoot":



This next one, should I have swung my attempted rim-light around further on subject left? (if I'm saying that right). And that would have lessened the harder shadow on her cheek? Or is it her pose I should have adjusted? That wasn't in my control as she's 3 years old, but it would be a good consideration for future attempts. And the focus is off. It was hard to focus when she moved so much, BUT I noticed I had to have my iso up to about 800 (baaaaad) in order to get any kind of shutter speed. So more/brighter lights are needed? Hey! I'm now up to more than 5 new things learned, lol, yay me! Any other C&C would be gratefully appreciated! Thanks-in-advance!!

[Valerie]

Valerie - a couple of bits that I'll throw into the mix....
- with the vignette, it is probably personal taste. In some instances a subtle vignette probably is all that is needed when in others a really strong vignette adds to the photo. Try it out and see what you like.
- with the background and blur - I am not that great in pp and have the philosophy to try and get it right in the camera. I have read elsewhere that the subject should be twice the distance to the background that it is from the camera (although it is possible I've got this wrong - bear in mind this is a rule of thumb only).
- Following on from the above, the depth of field needed varies depending on what you are chasing. If I am trying to take a portrait of the kids that is sharp front to back, I'm usually somewhere from f/7 - f/11. Conversely there are times when I am either trying to maximise light or deliberately going for shallow depth of field and hence am much lower.


Hope this helps.

Thanks Ricco for your advice, I have been experimenting in PShop, trying to blur the background. I managed to do so, although not perfected by any means. I haven't tried it on the above picture yet but I will . Hope to hear from you again. Valerie

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jen,

Welcome to the CiC forums from me, great to have new interest in this thread.

~ BUT I noticed I had to have my iso up to about 800 (baaaaad) in order to get any kind of shutter speed. So more/brighter lights are needed?

I think you will need brighter lights, but you're rapidly approaching what is going to be uncomfortable for your subjects (in brightness, let alone heat, if tungsten), which is why flash is used 9/10 for professional and serious amateur studio protrait photography.

I mean the studio variety with modelling lamps, so you can see the relative intensities for the different positionings.

I'll pipe down on this and let someone take over that actually has some experience.

By way of C&C on the pics, the second looks a little over exposed on the face to me, but they're both delightful pictures.

Cheers,

[M Aella]

Hi Jen,

Welcome to the CiC forums from me, great to have new interest in this thread.

Thank-you!

I think you will need brighter lights, but you're rapidly approaching what is going to be uncomfortable for your subjects (in brightness, let alone heat, if tungsten), which is why flash is used 9/10 for professional and serious amateur studio protrait photography.

I mean the studio variety with modelling lamps, so you can see the relative intensities for the different positionings.

I'll pipe down on this and let someone take over that actually has some experience.

By way of C&C on the pics, the second looks a little over exposed on the face to me, but they're both delightful pictures.

Cheers,

Yes, yes and yes.. it was quite. Errrrr.... "warm" in that room. lol. Oh, boy! I see I missed a few things reading the lighting tutorials. Flash and studio lights! *facepalm* I can't believe I missed that and the fact that my daughter's face was sooo over-exposed. Oops. I hope this fixes it, however I had to reduce exposure on her arm as well or it would have been brighter than her face. However, to me, it now apears a little grey? A huge thanks for the C&C, I've learned so many things so far I'm almost obsessively excited (my poor family) But that's... uhhhh... a perfectly normal progression right? lol "Interest" to "All-consuming-obsession"???

[M Aella]

"I mean the studio variety with modelling lamps, so you can see the relative intensities for the different positionings."

I Googled this... lol. I now feel the door open a hairline more to being "in-the-know" Thanks, again! This is exactly the kind of constructive critique/information I'm looking for.