Project 52 by Frank Miller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letrow

I like your effort Frank and actually in the face it looks quite good. What I notice though is the hands and feet, especially the feet in fact. They look unnatural to me, too pointy or edged I guess. Maybe a bit of smoothing there would have made it more realistic. And the colour of the nails. Now they are in the same colour as the skin.

---

Ah yes Peter, the nemesis of this image. The left hand doesn't look as bad but both the right hand and the feet still have traces of shiny reflections that I was afraid to modify further for fear of making them look worse with my limited skills. To me it makes them look like they are harsh and resemble the texture of plastic.

I'm not sure how to proceed and didn't find any tutorials on how to make it look more like skin. Does anyone have any ideas?

I always have ideas, whether or not they are any good... that's up for debate...

Original for comparison:

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...ic/2nqcmf5.jpg

In this one I took selected the hands and feet with the lasso tool, selected replace color, capturing most of the lighter areas, used the color picker for the middle right side of the cheek. Grabbed the dodge and burn tool to give a bit more definition between the toes, fingers, and around the cuticles.
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...FranksDoll.jpg

I took it a step further to mute the warm feeling from the background, colored around the eyes with soft light:

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...ranksDollF.jpg

It was an initial thought....

Ryo

I think we are moving in the right direction Ryo. Thank you for the suggestions and examples.

It looks to me like we still need to address the reflections a bit more that give the hands and feet a shiny 'plastic' look.

I'm now also thinking that I should have chosen a camera angle that would have her looking directly at the camera but at the time I was trying to shoot for a pleasing background to complement the subject so I was avoiding the painted fireplace hearth as much as I could.

Hi Frank,

Great picture, the piercing eyes really help with achieving that sense of realism. The vivid colours are really nice too.

I like that we can see a 'before' and 'after' as well. I have often wondered whether to do this to show how little or much I have done to a picture.

Thanks, Rebecca

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMi

I think we are moving in the right direction Ryo. Thank you for the suggestions and examples.

It looks to me like we still need to address the reflections a bit more that give the hands and feet a shiny 'plastic' look.

---

Might I suggest a missed step, it would seem to capture your point the edit needs a step to diffuse the light like a real hand would. perhaps a Gaussian or surface blur to give the look and then finely add back in the details on the hand and foot via layer mask.

Ryo

Hi Frank,

This is an interesting challenge you set yourself!

I like what you did here, but think (not exactly unprompted by the above posts), that you missed the necessary final step of "painting in" the details like finger and toe nails, etc. The eyes have obviously had some time spent on them, but I'm not sure the whites are bright enough.

I also wonder, at the expense of more time and effort, whether some texture could be masked in to address the 'smooth edges' look that Peter was touching upon.

btw, I never said, but I thought the slot machines were very well done - you have a knack when it comes to selecting a reapeating pattern that some how makes it look natural and yet isn't overly long (not sure if I'm making sense) - I guess I mean you can't "see the join" in the loop.

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beckyhumphries

I like that we can see a 'before' and 'after' as well. I have often wondered whether to do this to show how little or much I have done to a picture.

---

Thank you Becky!

I have found that when I show the before and after, I really open myself up for C&C as folks can better grasp what I am trying to accomplish and the methods I am using. It also seems to prompt more detailed feedback and sometimes examples as well.

I have gotten some great help when folks have something besides the final result to think about.

Now I just need a quiet time to practice what I have been taught and either post the results or ask clarifying questions. http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...eed_coffee.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryogenetic

Might I suggest a missed step, it would seem to capture your point the edit needs a step to diffuse the light like a real hand would. perhaps a Gaussian or surface blur to give the look and then finely add back in the details on the hand and foot via layer mask.

Ryo

---

I'll give that a try, it can't be all that hard can it? Can it? LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

This is an interesting challenge you set yourself!

---

Wouldn't be much fun without a challenge, would it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

I like what you did here, but think (not exactly unprompted by the above posts), that you missed the necessary final step of "painting in" the details like finger and toe nails, etc. The eyes have obviously had some time spent on them, but I'm not sure the whites are bright enough.

I also wonder, at the expense of more time and effort, whether some texture could be masked in to address the 'smooth edges' look that Peter was touching upon.

---

Thanks for the observation on the eye whites Dave. Sometimes I miss the obvious! To err is human but it is best to not become 'super-human'. LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

btw, I never said, but I thought the slot machines were very well done - you have a knack when it comes to selecting a reapeating pattern that some how makes it look natural and yet isn't overly long (not sure if I'm making sense) - I guess I mean you can't "see the join" in the loop.

---

I'm finding that a simple 8-step loop works best and keeps the file size down. Glad you noticed. It just didn't feel right without some 'action'.

Some images I find are harder to get right than others. When I shoot wildlife it seems that there is so little that is under my control and it really makes me appreciate the fantastic images that those that concentrate on this kind of photography produce.

Other than a small amount of blown highlight recovery in ACR, this image has had a bit of DeNoise and the typical capture sharpening using InFocus. A small amount of content sharpening just on the bee, cropping, and output sharpening was also done. The background was very busy and contrasty despite the bokeh applied so I toned it down a bit as well.

If nothing else, it was a pleasant walk in the woods before the temperatures went over 100° F and forced me to be confined to the house.

http://i48.tinypic.com/rku41w.jpg

This week I am trying to capture the iridescent sheen I can see, but not quite capture, in a peacock feather. In person, the peacock feather has a golden sheen that sparkles all around the edge of the eye pattern and where there is mostly dark blue it should be a shimmering indigo (or brilliant blue, depending upon the viewing angle).

A lot seems to depend on not only the whiteness of the light and its direction but also the viewing angle. Even when I think I have them all lined up, the magic eludes me for some reason.

http://i45.tinypic.com/qoulnr.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMi

Even when I think I have them all lined up, the magic eludes me for some reason.

---

Maybe. But it's still a lovely thing to look at.

It would be interesting if some of the scientists came in and engaged in a discussion about whether it might be impossible for a camera to capture some things that we can see with our eyes. Or is it a case of that magic that you refer to only being present for a fleeting moment (even though we might think it is there for longer) and us needing to be able to 'capture the moment'.

I looked at the image without reading the text and I immediately thought peacock feather. So, for me that means you have captured and conveyed in the image the essence of a peacock feather. That to me says a lot about the image.

Cheers for now

Gary

Thank you for the feedback Donald and Gary.

I suspect that it is a lot like butterfly wings that shimmer when seen at a particular angle with just the right light.

Here is another effort where I wasn't concerned about composition but just wanted to see if I could capture the iridescence. Funny thing is that the lighting and subject are identical but the colours look different as I played with the camera angle to try to get the camera in the same position as my eyes were.

Now there's a thought. What if I were able to take a stereo image and display it with 3D glasses? I'll have to play with looking at the feather with one eye closed to see if it makes a difference.

http://i49.tinypic.com/5znv50.jpg

Hi Frank,

I think the second one does convey the irridesence better, although the first is good - both need to be viewed with the browser full screen (toggle F11 on a PC keyboard for those that don't know) in the Lytebox and at 100% (use "F" key when viewing in Lytebox) for the full effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMi

Now there's a thought. What if I were able to take a stereo image and display it with 3D glasses? I'll have to play with looking at the feather with one eye closed to see if it makes a difference.

---

I was initially wondering if a sparkle effect could be added along the lines of the Bandits shot for the irridesence, but as you say, it comes with altered viewing angle in real life, so 3D probably is the answer. However, on a colourful subject like this, I fear the simple 'red/green specs' version might not be good enough - it may require the polarising technology of 3D TV, which won't be possible here :(

Harry Potter, or more correctly; JK Rowling, has a lot to answer for with her animated, holographic 3D photographs in the Hogwarts newspapers, visible without glasses of any kind! Still, I think even they were only B&W ;)

Cheers,

Hi Dave! You have presented some very interesting points! My guess is that the best we'll be able to come up with is an approximation of what we see.

I've been wondering if the shimmering iridescence isn't a result of how our brain works to process an image? It takes in all views that we see, near and far focus, viewing angles, all the different DoF from adjusting our eyes to brightness levels, the depth perception from using two eyes, the visual effect of motion, etc. and combines all of this into an image in our brain that is far more complex than any instant in time that our eyes or a camera see.

Could it be that the iridescence is the result of a continually shifting image in our brain?

Perhaps this is simply another shortcoming of any static image? We try to capture what our eyes (composite image in the brain really) see but in reality, we can never come that close with an image that is fixed at a single combination of camera settings.

A friend has pointed me to a link that explains why the peacock feather is iridescent and seems to shimmer. It also explains why this kind of object is so difficult to photograph.

Ordinary white light is really made up of a spectrum of colors that run from red to violet. In optics, a color is called a "wavelength". When a white light striking a shiny surface (like a mirror), various colors -- such as red, green and blue "wavelengths," reflect off the surface because white light is made up of a spectrum of colours.

When you look at a peacock feather the light wavelengths are reflected in a way that makes the colours change, flicker and pulse. This ‘iridescence’ is caused by something called interference.

Interference happens to light when it falls on a thin semi-transparent layer on the surface of the feather. Whenever light falls on a thin semi-transparent film -- like an oil slick on a water puddle, some light is reflected off the top of the layer, and some is reflected off the surface below.

Thinking of just the red wavelengths of light for the moment, some of the red light bounces off the top of the semi-transparent layer and the rest travels through it and bounces off the solid layer of the feather. The two reflected wavelengths now travel back together to meet your eye. If the two wavelengths are in sync, this intensifies the red light you see as if you were looking at a brilliant double reflection of the red. The same is true for the other colour wavelengths but at different angles of reflection as the length of each colour wavelength is different.

Wavelengths of light have crests and troughs like ocean waves. When the crests on one wavelength match up exactly (in sync) with those on the other, then the light from the two combine and becomes more intense. When the crest of wavelength from the surface reflection matches the trough of the same wavelength reflected by the solid layer they cancel each other out and that colour doesn’t appear at all. The blue wavelengths can be in sync while the red are not giving a brilliant blue at one viewing angle but a brilliant red (or green) at another viewing angle. Because the wavelengths are so short and it is impossible to hold the feather perfectly still, the reflected colours appear to shimmer.

What determines whether the rays will be in sync? Think of a ball thrown at you that bounces on the ground before getting to you. The angle at which the ball first hits the ground will determine the angle at which the ball then bounces off to reach you. In iridescence, the angle at which the original light rays hit the feather (called angle of incidence) determines the best angle from which you might see the reflected light (called angle of observation). Together, the two angles have a big effect on whether two reflected light rays bouncing off the feather will be in sync when they meet your eye.

For more background, please see the following link: http://reviews.ebay.com/Why-Carnival...00000003634302

Although you can get the iridescent colour shift by changing the camera angle you can’t get the 'shimmer’ with a single image.

It might be possible for the shimmering look to be simulated, as Dave suggests, in an animated GIF image as in Bandits (post 211, image 3 above). By taking multiple almost identical images of the feather with slightly different viewing angles and combining them in an animated GIF, we could potentially see the iridescent ‘shimmer’ effect.

It would need to be far more subtle than the effect used in Bandits, but I suspect that with enough trial and error we might be successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMi

It might be possible for the shimmering look to be simulated, as Dave suggests, in an animated GIF image as in Bandits (post 211, image 3 above). By taking multiple almost identical images of the feather with slightly different viewing angles and combining them in an animated GIF, we could potentially see the iridescent ‘shimmer’ effect.

It would need to be far more subtle than the effect used in Bandits, but I suspect that with enough trial and error we might be successful.

---

If anyone can, you can Frank :D

Probably need the camera on a tripod and the feather stationary on a surface, or in a clamp affair, so the angle of one or other can be moved a small amount, or perhaps it is easier to move the light source (e.g. a halogen desk lamp)?

BTW; a CFL or LED light source probably is not a good idea as their spectrums may be 'spiky' - e.g. omitting certain wavelengths of light and hence lessening the opportunities for seeing colours.

Good luck,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

BTW; a CFL or LED light source probably is not a good idea as their spectrums may be 'spiky' - e.g. omitting certain wavelengths of light and hence lessening the opportunities for seeing colours.

---

Thanks for the tip! I was using a pair of focused LED lamps.

Although an animated GIF might be possible, the more I looked into it the more I realized that alignment would be an issue and I may be going down the path of diminishing returns so I think I'll let the 'shimmer' aspect of this image pass for the time being and stick to the more typical static image.

I also wasn't able to locate a suitable halogen desk lamp with enough flexibility so I wasn't able to reshoot the way I wanted to.

MiniChris pointed out that my white and black points were off so I reset them, picked up of the saturation just a tad for personal taste, and went for a slightly different crop.

http://i47.tinypic.com/n5pwjp.jpg