Still Looking for that Pro Look on Portraits :(

[vladimir]

...if you send me the original, I'll retouch it for you and send you back a "pro look" portrait...

Wow! What a deal! Thank you very much! I'll send the original your way later today.

1. The brightness control is set too high, and it's washed out a lot of skin detail

I think it was me playing with blending modes. Not brightness per se. But overall result being too bright must be true. Mr. Paul (PRSearls) had the same comment in the thread where I originally posted this.

2. There's too much black space around the outside, which takes away the impact of the shot

Well... Again, Paul (PRSearls) said this too, BUT there was plenty of people (about 50%) at the original thread, who would prefer EVEN MORE black space. What do we say to them? To me - the idea of "less space" seems more attractive than "more space". The real question is, though, are these just opinions, or are there Rules? Didn't find the Rules yet... but I already whined enough about that.

3. It needs a border & better presentation

YES! I should work on my borders...

4. Dirty sleeve needs fixing

How do you fix dirty sleeve? This is beyond my Photoshop skills, I am afraid.

5. Lighting is too flat

The lighting is from my garden umbrella + table underneaths, of which I was so proud. I need "a little" more than that to achieve what we see in Ashley's photo there, eh? I seriously think that my next photo toy will be a reflector. There is no way around it, I guess.

And BTW: When I will be able to produce a photo like Ashley's - that's when I'll say "I found That Pro Look!"... maybe.

6. The mix of colours is distracting - especially the read

Yep. That, I think, I'd know how to fix, if I had thought of that.

Thanks again, Colin!

[rpcrowe]

Brian...
What a lovely young lady! You had better shoots lots of images of her now because pretty soon you will not get close enough to her due to the crowd of admiring boys surrounding her!

[vladimir]

Hi Colin,
The file is here:
VZ_2011_12_26_29.dng - 15.0 MB

The original, as you've asked.
Thanks a lot!

[Colin Southern]

Hi Vladimir,

One "Pro-look Portrait" coming up ... (Click on image for bigger version) (Just imagine this on your wall - on canvas - measuring 20" x 20")

[vladimir]

Hi Vladimir,

One "Pro-look Portrait" coming up ... (Click on image for bigger version) (Just imagine this on your wall - on canvas - measuring 20" x 20")

Hi Colin,
This is great! I don't know about my wall, but when this guy turns 20 (or maybe a little sooner) I may just give him (or his parents) this on canvas measuring 20x20. I bet they'll like that!

The good news - apparently I can take a picture, which with proper care can have a Pro Look!

The not so good news - I can guess, but I can't know - what exactly you've done. And for 20x20 - I kinda need to know that - to try to get the result close to yours. If you could please give a brief description of the post processing steps - it would be a great help. (In Russian they say, "Give him a finger - he'll bite the whole arm". That's what I am trying to do here - bite your arm )

And not news at all (just stating the obvious) - this still does not come close to The Pro Look we see in Ashley's portrait. I am guessing (but almost sure - I am guessing correctly) that it has to do with lighting. I'll see what I can do about that, and I'll start with reflectors.

Again, sir - I very much appreciate and respect all the time and effort you put into this!

[Colin Southern]

Hi Vladimir,

You're welcome (I must remember to send the finished file back to you too).

To be honest, it IS pretty much all about the lighting (have you looked through my School of Portraiture series by the way?). As a rule (and it's a good rule), "the better the lighting, the less agressive one has to get in Photoshop". On that occasion I was going easy on Ash - and only used about $10,000 worth of lighting (and I'm being serious) - for that shot I had a 120cm x 80cm softbox shining up through a 10mm acryllic sheet on my light table (designed for photographing young babies, but it gives a nice under-lighting effect with adults) - and 1.2m Octabox to her right - and a gridded kicker light behind her and to her left to give the accent lighting that you can see (you need that when photographing black clothing/hair against a black background). And of course I had a model posing specifically for the shot - and we took about 60 shots in the set to get just this one. So as you can imagine, post-processing was pretty straight-forward ...

... on the other hand - if the lighting isn't ideal then we get a situation like we have with your shot (sorry, not trying to offend - just being brutally honest) - so we have to get far more agressive in pushing things around. I could go through what I did to process your shot, but I'm not sure how much it would help because that amount of processing isn't what's normally needed (case-in-point, I increased the overal exposure about 1/2 a stop, but put a GND filter from bottom left (camera left) across the face that knocked it back about 2.5 stops (which is a LOT) (but was needed to put a psudo-direction across the face and to kill the detail on his right sleeve). I also masked the red stripes on his shirt and changed them to match the blue - and knocked back the white patch on his left shoulder so it didn't compete for the eyes attention quite so much (although still far from ideal)).

I'd love to help you with your portraiture - but the point I'm trying to make is that it'll be a far better use of our time if we can work on getting things right in-camera first, so that we don't need to get so agressive in post-processing. Be a superior photographer and use your superior skills with the camera to avoid having to use your superior skills in Photoshop!

Have a read through my portraiture series if you haven't already - and then we can work through some of the basics with you to try and get the pro-look straight out of the camera. Let me give you an example from a commercial shoot I did during the week ...

This shot is as close to being "straight out of the camera" as it's possible to get. It's been white-balanced and colour-corrected using a custom camera colour profile. Apart from being down-sampled - cropped - and my boarder applied, nothing else has been done. No levels adjustments - no sharpening ...

[vladimir]

Yes, sir, of course I read your "School of Portraiture"! I read it before I even joined the forum. But now I went back, and realized that the very first assignment on lighting was "get a reflector". That re-confirmed my intentions.
For $10000 on lighting to get an easy going - I really hope it's not a requirement!
There must be a way to get "That Look" it for less.
We'll see what those reflectors do for me...
About being "brutally" honest - that is exactly what I need. I feel like I am being held back by the niceness of my critics / models / their parents, etc... I really appreciate brutal honesty.

And here is something fascinating I found in your post.
You said - you applied GND filter across the face, which knocked back the exposure by 2.5 stops.
You mean - you knew that the exposure needs to go down by 2.5 stops, and then you created a filter to get there? But how???
Or - did you first apply the filter so it looks "right", and then you saw that exposure went down by 2.5 steps? But how can you even see (or measure) that? This is "a little" above my head...

[Colin Southern]

Hi Vladimir,

Continuing the theme of "brutal honesty" ...

In a studio (or in the ones I like to work in), ambient light is a curse - I really don't want it entering my exposures - so if there's no ambient light, then I have to assume full responsibility for all the light. Not that it's not hard (read "expensive") to come up with lighting that will allow good shots to be taken in that situation, but often (read "usually") it's not "good shots" (as in "just any old good shots") -- what we want is the ability to take the shots WE WANT - and not just be limited to the shots we CAN take (if you see the difference). So - in a dark studio - and to have everything that might be needed - one has to have things like lots of lights (I have 5) - soft boxes (in all shapes and sizes) - reflectors - snoots - grids - barn doors - beauty dishes - and that IS expensive. And that's just for starters.

If you had a studio where you were working ambient light - supplimented with studio lights - or portable flashes - or reflectors - then that is a LOT cheaper (but the ambient light can be a blessing or a curse -- personally, I don't like it in a studio setting).

Outdoors of course, you're pretty much "stuck" with ambient light.

Hope that answers that question

Portraiture is no different to anything else in life in that what you get out is proportional to the effort you put in -- some examples -- a couple of minutes getting the subject to change into dark clothes with out distracting colours will immediately give you a better result over the clothing your son was wearing (assuming a more formal/posed portrait, and not a candid shot). Having 1 or 2 assistants ("mum" etc) to hold and intelligently adjust reflectors will give you a better result than trying to get them in the right position by other means. Shooting on an overcast day with directional diffused lighting will give you a better result that trying to shoot someone in full harsh sunlight. So the more you think about what will help the shot and what wwill harm it - and start thinking and planning ahead - the better the results will be. If we get this bit right we're already streets ahead in getting a professional result - and we haven't even started Photoshop

In terms of the GND filter - all I can see is the need for a filter - sure, I can tell it's going to need to be a heavy adjustment, but I really don't care what the actual number is. So I'll put the filter in first, and then adjust it later (for a 1-off like that). In other situations where I might be applying several at the one time, I'll pre-set it to what I want (usualy 0.5 to 1.0 stops).

So what lighting equipment do you have to work with?

[speedneeder]

Vladimir,
Yes the criticism on this site is often pretty soft, but I appreciate that because it's not discouraging to n00bs like me and when you do get criticism, it's usually good advice as opposed to 'flaming' you might get elsewhere.
Equipment - no you don't need $10k worth of stuff, though honestly it doesn't hurt!
You can achieve a lot of different looks with 3 flashes, which if you aren't terrified of cheap Chinese stuff, you can do pretty cheaply! That's where I started with flashes. While there are still times a full manual flash will work for me, I prefer to use the Canon flashes that I purchased more recently. Especially for taking people pics, the added features of an expensive flash make a big difference! (most people have a very short attention span, which usually doesn't work well with full manual flashes)
This may not qualify as brutal honesty, but hopefully gives you some insight into my journey over the last year or so.
As far as your photo goes - personally I would have added another light so that he had some highlights at the edge of his head. This way his head would have some shape
As far as post processing goes, I like Colin prefer to get it as close to good in the camera as I can.
I do this because I really don't enjoy 'touching up' people. It's not bad at all, there are just other things I would rather be doing. That said, you DO need to have PP skills, or at least someone to do it for you. Well, I say need if you want that PRO look

[vladimir]

<....>
So what lighting equipment do you have to work with?

Hi Colin,
There is a lot of good information in this post to digest!
About the studio lighting and studio in general my situation is pretty simple - I don't have a studio, and so I don't have any studio lighting problems to solve.
"Ability to take the shots WE WANT", on the other hand, sounds like a very attractive proposition! Yes, I'd like one of that, please. The question is, of course, how to obtain that ability without a studio and without spending $10000? Hoping to get closer to that objective with your (and others) help!

My latest achievement is lighting setup is shown in this picture:



My "model" would normally sit in a chair on the right (different distances from the table obviously matter a lot, but I still need to figure out how to work them), and the idea is that the umbrella is my main light (or two), and the table's surface is a reflector.

What's on the table - is two flash guns in manual mode, triggered wirelessly (one with cowboy trigger, another - optically off of the first one); and that yellow thingy is a continuous "shop" light, providing me with the chance to focus, and in general - to see anything in the dark What's under the table - doesn't matter

Now - please be brutally honest , and tell me - can this ever give me That Pro Look, or not?

Thanks!

[vladimir]

Vladimir,
Yes the criticism on this site is often pretty soft, but I appreciate that because it's not discouraging to n00bs like me and when you do get criticism, it's usually good advice as opposed to 'flaming' you might get elsewhere.

Brian,
I really hope that my "brutal honesty" remarks didn't sound like I am criticizing the atmosphere in this forum! I was simply telling Colin not to worry about offending me. I can't compare this forum with anything elsewhere, because I didn't try any other forums, really,.. but I really like it here.

Equipment - no you don't need $10k worth of stuff, though honestly it doesn't hurt!
You can achieve a lot of different looks with 3 flashes, which if you aren't terrified of cheap Chinese stuff, you can do pretty cheaply! That's where I started with flashes. While there are still times a full manual flash will work for me, I prefer to use the Canon flashes that I purchased more recently. Especially for taking people pics, the added features of an expensive flash make a big difference! (most people have a very short attention span, which usually doesn't work well with full manual flashes)

Yep. With flashes - Pentax simply doesn't have the flash system which would compare with Canon/Nikon's. I don't think manual or not manual is really a choice for me. I have two flash guns (as you can see above) and maybe I need a third one. My thought about the reflector - is "maybe I can use a reflector instead of the third one?".

This may not qualify as brutal honesty, but hopefully gives you some insight into my journey over the last year or so.
As far as your photo goes - personally I would have added another light so that he had some highlights at the edge of his head. This way his head would have some shape
As far as post processing goes, I like Colin prefer to get it as close to good in the camera as I can.
I do this because I really don't enjoy 'touching up' people. It's not bad at all, there are just other things I would rather be doing. That said, you DO need to have PP skills, or at least someone to do it for you. Well, I say need if you want that PRO look

Yes, of course I want to "get it as close to good in the camera as I can". But I don't mind touching up people. The problem with touching up, though, is that it seems to only go so far (not too far) in improving the quality of a picture. Case in point - NO amount of touch up can produce a portrait like Ashley's. I must admit - I didn't realize it till recently. I thought - with enough PS skill and time spent - even not so great photo can look great in the end. I don't think so anymore, or at least I don't see me getting SO good in PS, to make that idea work.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Vladimir,

I think "pro-quality" is really nothing more than "not having a weak link in the chain"; if you can pay the required amount of attention to every required area (ie "don't let any area(s) let the team down") then you should get a good result at the end.

So what kinds of things do we need to "check off"?

- Good exposure

- Good colour

- Good composition & posing

- Good clothing

- Good lighting

- Good background

- Good post-processing

Probably more, but that's all I can think of for now!

Are you thinking of studio type portraiture, or outdoor/location portraiture?

[speedneeder]

I would add good expression, though this may be implied in posing/composition.
You can take a technically perfect photo and it would be exactly that. Truely memorable (aka great) photos, I think are the result of capturing just the right expression in addition to those other things. I recently took some photos of my son, and the one that people consistantly tell me they like best is where his eyes are closed and his face is contorted with his goofy yet totally infectious laugh!
They are all lit exactly the same - everything was in manual for these shots so yes EVERYTHING was the same for each photo, but the expression in the one is priceless.

[vladimir]

Are you thinking of studio type portraiture, or outdoor/location portraiture?

I am thinking - studio type, while hoping, actual studio is not a requirement.
Actually - here I've seen exactly how I want my photos to look.
Possible?
Impossible?
One interesting detail about that Bill Gekas guy - he is using same camera I do - Pentax K5. Another great proof for me, that cameras don't make pictures. Photographer do.

[speedneeder]

Vladimir, the default photo I go to on your link is a girl in a red hat, which appears to me to done with a single light source - possibly a big window with some diffusion. You can get that same capture yourself, but you will have to do some post processing to get an image like that. Look closely at the eyes.

[speedneeder]

Here's an example of what you can do with 2 cheap manual flashes, a couple of shoot through umbrellas, a $10 roll of black fabric from the discount shelf, and some freeware editing tools. It's not perfect by any stretch, but not bad I don't think!

[vladimir]

Here's an example of what you can do with 2 cheap manual flashes, a couple of shoot through umbrellas, a $10 roll of black fabric from the discount shelf, and some freeware editing tools. It's not perfect by any stretch, but not bad I don't think!

Very nice, Brian! I like the portrait!
I kinda doubt that a girl in red hat is lit by just one window, or that she is lit by a window at all. The chiaroscuro is so impeccable there!.. But I could be mistaken.
Tell me more about your shoot thru umbrellas. How to you mount them? Could you mount it on a tripod? Which ones do you use?

[speedneeder]

Wescott umbrellas and some lumupro stands purchased from midwestphoto.
I think the cheapest stuff they sell

If there is more than one light in the red hat photo, I would like to understand that, not saying there aren't some reflections there! They eyes to me are WAY overdone, but I realize that some people think this sort of treatment looks great. More power to them.

[Colin Southern]

Vladimir, the default photo I go to on your link is a girl in a red hat, which appears to me to done with a single light source

Just look at the catchlights in the eyes - it usually tells all you need to know about the lighting used.

[speedneeder]

The eyes in this case are so photoshopped I have no idea what's there?
Colin, could you elaborate on the lighting?