NON Square Cropped Portraits - (nSCP's) - Archive

[Dave Humphries]

[Admin Note: This is an archive of the original thread]

Nice shot Antonio,

Again, a simple idea (brilliantly) well executed.

I can't really see anything to improve, it ticks all the boxes.

Well done,

[Antonio Correia]

Nice shot Antonio, Again, a simple idea (brilliantly) well executed. I can't really see anything to improve, it ticks all the boxes. Well done,

Show us one of yours please...

[Alis]

If SCP's have a change why not the same opportunity for the others ?

There are only a few guide lines I kindly ask you to follow when you post your images:
1. The portraits must not be square (obviously)
2. One portrait by entry only. (this will allow us to comment. However, on commenting you can post more portraits to demonstrate what and how you do, why, etc.)
3. The author can - should - add comments to his/her own picture.

Antonio, as always, you did a great job.

However, I have a fundamental question about this thread: why would you call the above picture a portrait? It is not vertical, there is really no face in it, the guy is busy with some action (is concentrating on something else instead of posing for example), etc...

Thanks.

[Antonio Correia]

Antonio, as always, you did a great job.
However, I have a fundamental question about this thread: why would you call the above picture a portrait? It is not vertical, there is really no face in it, the guy is buys with some action (is concentrating on something instead of posing for example), etc...
Thanks.

Huuummm... maybe you are right.
However, my idea of portrait is a picture where the main target/object/interest is a person or an animal.

I do accept that it is my problem. I am probably wrong.

But for example a picture of a landscape must always be a picture of the countryside ? And if it is a picture underwater cropped horizontally or vertically ?
There are pictures of landscapes vertically oriented...
OK You perhaps call this one a seascape.

"A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person..." from the Wikipidia.

Well, I don't know. I would call this portrait because the most important part of the picture is the young man working.

There is something else which may also have lead me to confusion:
portrait is "retrato" in Portuguese which has not a meaning of crop orientation but a question of subject in the picture. Yes. My confusion must come from there. Sorry.

[Dave Humphries]

Show us one of yours please...

I don't shoot portraits
Maybe one day I'll get some confidence to try

I'm happy enough snapping away at other things

EDIT, actually I've just thought of a shot I took recently of a busker, would that do?

[Colin Southern]

II've just thought of a shot I took recently of a busker, would that do?

Yes

... The longest journey begins with the first step!

[Antonio Correia]

Yes ... The longest journey begins with the first step!

Agree !

[Dave Humphries]

Guess what, it came out square, so it'll have to go in the other thread!

[Alis]

Huuummm... maybe you are right.
However, my idea of portrait is a picture where the main target/object/interest is a person or an animal.

So this one should count then...

I do accept that it is my problem. I am probably wrong.


There are pictures of landscapes vertically oriented...
OK You perhaps call this one a seascape.

Well, I do not see any sea this picture, so I still call this one a landscape

There is something else which may also have lead me to confusion:
portrait is "retrato" in Portuguese which has not a meaning of crop orientation but a question of subject in the picture. Yes. My confusion must come from there. Sorry.

I just wanted to know what the rules are

But seriously, whatever I do, your pictures are always so smooth and "creamy" and "velvety! What do you to them in PP? Do you selectively change the temperature or saturation on the periphery of the pictures? Or it is something else?

[Dave Humphries]

Good pic Ali,

Posed, or natural exhaustion?

I like the pattern match between the ball and the shirt.

Cheers,

[Antonio Correia]

... But seriously, whatever I do, your pictures are always so smooth and "creamy" and "velvety! What do you to them in PP? Do you selectively change the temperature or saturation on the periphery of the pictures? Or it is something else?

"But seriously", haven't you been serious all the time ? Have you been paying ?

As I think I have told before, I use LR and what I do is nothing special. I got some practice and the commands I use are mostly the same all the times I work on a picture.
I just use the commands the way they are in sequence, - more or less - and export with a droplet to CS4.
I shoot raw with Canon equipment. I use Mac. Nice and good monitor.
My arm is going carpel tunnel and I bought yesterday a Wacom Cintiq 12" which is , not yet, installed.


Your image is great Sedali. Great. Dave is asking if it was posed or natural. It is not very important but it is curious to know.
If it has been posed then congratulations for the idea, if has not congratulations for the capture.
Excuse me: try a canvas and a shadow and you will see how better it looks.

[Colin Southern]

But seriously, whatever I do, your pictures are always so smooth and "creamy" and "velvety! What do you to them in PP? Do you selectively change the temperature or saturation on the periphery of the pictures? Or it is something else?

Generally with portraiture - unless you want to make a lot of work for yourself - there's a trade-off to be made with capture sharpening and other high-frequency sharpening (ie sharpening for fine detail).

"Normal" capture sharpening (eg UnSharp Mask of around 300% / 0.3 pixel / 0 Threshold) (assuming ISO 100 or 200) is great for the likes of hair / eyelashes etc, but it can be "dangerous" on skin, especially if it has even a hint of noise (I can notice a difference on my shots if I even increase the ISO from 100 to 200).

In a nutshell, skin (and especially noisy skin) really needs a slightly different sharpening treatment. I don't use lightroom, but from conversations with a collegue, it's my understanding that the default ("capture") sharpening has lower amounts and higher radiuses, which would fare better with skin.

So just a guess, since Antonio uses LR, the default sharpening (or even lack of it) is probably kinder to skin, (which may explain the softness you're seeing), but at the expense of the high-frequency components like hair.

To be honest, it's probably a better approach than what I do (too much time spent sharpening landscape and not enough on portraiture!)

[Antonio Correia]

Nothing particular to say about this image.
I ask the boy and he accepted to be photographed.
I applied the usual work on the picture... I was careful as to get some detail from the white areas on the wall. The pose was natural.
You can see some spots on his red cover. It's the light coming through the trees at my left.

[Alis]

Good pic Ali,

Posed, or natural exhaustion?

I like the pattern match between the ball and the shirt.

Cheers,

Thanks, Dave and Antonio. It was not posed. He was actually exhausted from playing but was just pretending to be sleep. Also everything else in the picture is unintentional.

Ali

[Alis]

I just use the commands the way they are in sequence, - more or less - and export with a droplet to CS4.

I see. I think the sequence is what I am not sure about and makes my adjustments always totally random. Basically what bothers me is that I feel like I can get the same look with different approaches, and at the same time I feel there should be some real meaning to each one of those sliders.

My arm is going carpel tunnel and I bought yesterday a Wacom Cintiq 12" which is , not yet, installed.

I started having problems with my index finger a while back and bought one of those and have had no problem since. It helps me basically not to click at all. So it was very good for the index finger which shows some actual bony damage. I am sure it will relieve some of the pressure from your wrist too. So go for it and install it if you use the computer a lot.

Your image is great Sedali. Great. Dave is asking if it was posed or natural. It is not very important but it is curious to know.
If it has been posed then congratulations for the idea, if has not congratulations for the capture.

Thanks a lot. As I mentioned in reply to Dave, it was not posed but he was pretending he is sleep at some point. I have some with his eyes open looking at me.

Excuse me: try a canvas and a shadow and you will see how better it looks.

I will definitely do that. I am sure it will look better that way.

[Alis]

"Normal" capture sharpening (eg UnSharp Mask of around 300% / 0.3 pixel / 0 Threshold) (assuming ISO 100 or 200) is great for the likes of hair / eyelashes etc, but it can be "dangerous" on skin, especially if it has even a hint of noise (I can notice a difference on my shots if I even increase the ISO from 100 to 200).

Thanks, Colin, for the detail. I will ask you a lot more questions on this. I will have to learn alot about this processing.

One quick thing though: I have noticed that when I try your receipe for sharpenning, there is a huge difference between 0.3 and 0.2 or 0.1 in PS in terms of sharpness. It is negligible below 0.3. Any significance to this observation? Or it is just random? I have seen at least when sharpening portraits.

Thanks.

[Antonio Correia]

I see. I think the sequence is what I am not sure about and makes my adjustments always totally random. Basically what bothers me is that I feel like I can get the same look with different approaches, and at the same time I feel there should be some real meaning to each one of those sliders...

Listen: The sequence doesn't matter at all. I bought two books, one Portuguese and another from an American.
I also bought some video tutorials.
As you practice you will get used to the program. I also follow quite some blogs. Some are useless and I erase them. Others make us learn.

At the present moment I don't have my G9 with me but I could and I will - if I don't forget what I think that will not happen - make a video of the work I do in a picture.

I don't sell LR
I read and I am sure that Aperture is a sgood as Lightroom if not better. It's a Mac product.

[Antonio Correia]

Some LR forums I follow with RSS
http://www.image-space.com/wp-blog/wp-blog.php/?p=146
http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/2...summer-haze-2/ = too many presets !
http://lightroom-blog.com/
http://lightroom-news.com/2009/05/16...duated-filter/
http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/news/ - UK guy. Wonderful. Recommend this one.

[Colin Southern]

I have noticed that when I try your receipe for sharpenning, there is a huge difference between 0.3 and 0.2 or 0.1 in PS in terms of sharpness. It is negligible below 0.3. Any significance to this observation? Or it is just random? I have seen at least when sharpening portraits.

Hi Ali,

First up, remember that capture sharpening needs to be done at 100% magnification if you want to be able to see the result. Second up, these only apply to RAW shots at full resolution

- I've never seen any change with 0.1 pixels

- Usually there's no change to be seen with 0.2 pixels, although I do get frosting on a small number of images in high-frequency areas at 0.3 pixels, and often applying 0.2 pixels twice does a better job.

- 0.3 pixels is the usual for me (especially for landscape)

- 0.4 pixelsto 1 pixels (sometimes higher) can also be used at times to counter the evil effects of small camera shakes or focusing issues (at a price).

Often content sharpening starts at around 40% / 4 pixels (viewed at far less magnifications).

Ironically, the 300 / 0.3 / 0 USM often works well on JPEGS that have been down-sampled for display in forums like this.

Does that help?

[Alis]

Hi Ali,

First up, remember that capture sharpening needs to be done at 100% magnification if you want to be able to see the result. Second up, these only apply to RAW shots at full resolution

- I've never seen any change with 0.1%

- Usually there's no change to be seen with 0.2%, although I do get frosting on a small number of images in high-frequency areas at 0.3%, and often applying 0.2% twice does a better job.

- 0.3% is the usual for me (especially for landscape)

- 0.4 to 1% (sometimes higher) can also be used at times to counter the evil effects of small camera shakes or focusing issues (at a price).

Often content sharpening starts at around 40% / 4 pixels (viewed at far less magnifications).

Ironically, the 300 / 0.3 / 0 USM often works well on JPEGS that have been down-sampled for display in forums like this.

Does that help?

Thanks a lot, Colin. But I am not sure if I was clear. I was talking about the radius of 0.3 and I am not sure if you were talking about the same thing as you used % after these numbers.