Portrait shot

[laura]

I am struggling with PP on some portrait shots, any help would be greatly appreciated.

1965

Also any comments on how to improve inital shot. Thanks.

[jerryph]

Laura, the PPing is not the problem right now. You should first concentrate on the photography aspect and worry less about photoshop and the reason I say this is because of minor oversights and beginner mistakes that we all make, are visible in your shots. Better to nip this in the bud and build a solid foundation... trust me, the PPing will come once the photo is solid.

- Clipped fingers bottom left
- subjects not engaging with the viewers
- I don't see a story being told

The Child looks negatively distracted by the camera, as opposed to interested in what is happening, no smile, no fun in this shot, no intensity.

Getting things in the right order will help you make better photos. That said, though I am not liking the distracting blown background too much, I do like the sharpness and colours. Her eyes are vivid! :)

[laura]

I can't believe I never noticed the clipped fingers!!

I know the background is overexposed (see my other thread in Lighting section) I keep doing this, how do I stop this happening???

The colours are okay though? At least I got one thing right haha.

[coffee]

I would do a search for "portrait work flows" or something similar. If you are going to be doing a lot of post work of portraits, it might be helpful if you make a punch list of sorts of your work flow as a reminder of what not to forget.

I agree with Jerry. Getting the best shot you can in camera, will make PP easy, and will free up time for creative post work instead of trying to fix mistakes.

Look over the Internet for instructionals like CS3 For Photographers DVD, or something like that. They give step by step instructions of not only what you might want to do with a portrait, but how to execute it. There is also a wealth of free info all over, like this site here.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php
This site is huge and has info on just about anything you are looking for.

[laura]

Thanks for the info Joseph, I best start reading! :)

[solo1]

Laura,

Be careful of not having to much light on subject, the child face is blow out, she has many hot spots. This area is over-exposed, this means that there no details in this hot spots on face. No program can recover what is not there. You are best to underexposed, and later retrieve the informations.

The fingers can be cropped out when you review the portrait.

Hope this helps a little

[jerryph]

I am leary about making colour or WB comments unless my monitor is calibrated. If I remove the profile from my monitor, yes the baby's face looks lightly blown out and the colours lightly off... but recalibrating my monitor and the face is a little over-exposed, pleasantly... nothing close to being blown out. Colours are great, baby's eyes are killer sharp. :)

I would also suggest doing a search on YOUTUBE for CS3 and portrait, you will likely find a lot to view and test out but don't forget the basics. ;) :D

... and I just noticed that Solo1 is from my end of the country and not too far from me... welcome!

[solo1]

Hi Gerry,

I brought the photo into ps CS4 in raw and looked at it there.

Where are you situated, Thank you for the welcome.

[jerryph]

I'm on the South Shore, near the Champlain.

[StephenK]

But then Photoshop can still help out in a pinch! :)

[StephenK]

...and then there's the newer recruits for the Cirque du Soleil... :^)

[jerryph]

But then Photoshop can still help out in a pinch! :)

Yeah, but the point is getting it right in camera. Exposure and composition are things that can be done in post but thats not going to help your photogpahy very much if you cannot get the basics right, "in-camera".

IMHO, that is where it is supposed to be done... less work to do later! ;)

Today I have a day of portraiture at a local strobist meet, I'll likely post some shots later today or tomorrow.

[jerryph]

...and then there's the newer recruits for the Cirque du Soleil... :^)

Now that wasn't very nice of you! :eek:

They look like Andorians from the star trek series. :p

[Kaye]

Now that wasn't very nice of you! :eek:

They look like Andorians from the star trek series. :p

Jerry, I agree also.

[StephenK]

Yeah, but the point is getting it right in camera. Exposure and composition are things that can be done in post but thats not going to help your photogpahy very much if you cannot get the basics right, "in-camera".

IMHO, that is where it is supposed to be done... less work to do later! ;)


Without hesitation I absolutely agree..! Knowing ones camera, and what needs to be done in relation to each shot is essential!
And yet the original point that I made is still valid. I've been editing images that others have posted in differing web sites for about
a year. Since we've moved almost competently to a digital medium for capturing our images, I've begun to appreciate the need
to become almost equally as proficient with a good editing software of some sort. My go-to preference is Photoshop.

Even with an absolutely flawless understanding of the variables involved when capturing an image there's still little control over
the Murphy's law of unwanted intrusions that loves to introduce itself in persistent and unpredictable ways. And if a person shoots
in the raw format it would seem almost a requirement that they follow this up with good editing.

There are several images here that would have been a shame to have lost! I'm currently using this one that I edited as the
desktop image for this computer. I love this shot!

http://www.proudphotography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3149

And then there's the relatively easy editing-out of general flaws within an image. Cleaning up wrinkles, removing facial distractions
and adjusting the general tones to help warm and sweeten the composition.

I'm not sure a photographer today is able to, or even wise to, forgo the learning of editing software with an eye toward some proficiency.
It comes in handy, both in a pinch, and for the nuts and bolts of steady and predictable production. :^)

[StephenK]

Now that wasn't very nice of you! :eek:
They look like Andorians from the star trek series. :p

But Jerry.... Wouldn't Andorian's not look upon this with a knowing degree of pride and thus appreciate the
warm acknowledgment of a mother-daughter bonding moment? :^)

[jerryph]

I am far from against post processing, but my point was that a well versed photographer should not need to "save" shots when there are errors with the basics like exposure. If there are issues with the exposure, don't rush past there, but stop, adjust, get it right, and get the set of shots done. *Then* use PPing to enhance, not to correct for things you can easily avoid.

Proper exposure, white balance and composition are a couple of areas that benefit greatly and should be addressed in camera rather than post. I'd much rather spend time enhancing my shots rather than correcting them. Also, under certain conditions, like trying to recover an under exposed picture, correcting it introduces additional noise... and as we know... with an over exposed picture, once an area is blown out, that is data forever gone and unrecoverable... and no amount of post processing will save that.

Getting it right in camera is crucial to a good photographer. Lightroom/CS3/CS4 are great tools to enhance (I own them all), and though they can "save" shots, I wouldn't use them as crutches to cover for my being lazy or inattentive while taking the photos.

[StephenK]

Getting it right in camera is crucial to a good photographer. Lightroom/CS3/CS4 are great tools to enhance (I own them all), and though they can "save" shots, I wouldn't use them as crutches to cover for my being lazy or inattentive while taking the photos.

But Jerry... I agree... we are both on the same page over this one! :)

[jerryph]

:D

Yes we were, I was just too out of it to notice... lol