clear eyes that stand out

FarrahJ · Oct 12, 2009

Your photo is a great example! =) What a cutie!

I think sometimes the processing can make the eyes look unnatural. There is a lot of personal preference in processing.

Whereas, a person with dark brown eyes, not so much - the detail isn't there, so the "pop" isn't, either.

I disagree...and while I tend not to process my son's eyes quite as much, since I don't want them to look unnatural...but brown can be just as beautiful! =)

ClickyPicky · Oct 12, 2009

Oh don't get me wrong - brown eyes are GORGEOUS (I have brown eyes, as does my daughter

)

Just that in terms of seeing a TON of detail in the "fibers" of the iris of eye - (which, I think, is what she's referring to by seeing "detail") - typically light colored eyes show that detail a lot clearer and "pop" like unless you get REALLY close.

That's not to say that brown eyes can't be just as beautiful and dynamic - it's just harder to point out the individual iris "fibers" for lack of a better word in the typical photo.

Elly · Oct 12, 2009

i was also talking about the detail in the eyelashes and the join where the eye lid touches the white part of the eyes.thats why i thought it may be something about contrast or maybe focus or sharpening.

ClickyPicky · Oct 12, 2009

Elly... you can see way more details of the eyes in the photo I posted than the one you posted earlier on Flickr.

No offense, but I'm not willing to post a bigger picture with the camera details - I prefer to protect my work by only posting low resolution photos. I shot this photo with a Canon 40D with a 50mm 1.8. Which is like, the cheapest Canon lens you can buy.

The photo on the photographers website, you can see more detail because the subject has light eyes and it's a very up close shot, taken with a very high quality lens.

If you scroll through her photos, you will see that the eyes of each subject displays detail based on how close they are to the camera and how light of a color their eyes are.

ClickyPicky · Oct 12, 2009

It also makes no mention that I could find whether that particular photographer uses Canon or Nikon?

Bottom line - details and such of the eye (inner or outer) are going to be better with a $1500 lens than a $80 one - Canon or Nikon. Considering Audrey charges $400 just to show up, I'm guessing she uses the high quality ones

kkamin · Oct 12, 2009

All the eyes have been brought out in Photoshop-sharpened, brightened, possible catch light enhanced or added, the area around the iris darkened.

Here is another example of eyes taken by a Canon, with an entry level Rebel. Out of the camera versus a a few swipes with Photoshop. (I realize the shot out of the camera is a little underexposed, but you get the point)

FarrahJ · Oct 12, 2009

kkamin - going for the twilight look? her eyes are certainly not that light IRL

kkamin · Oct 12, 2009

FarrahJ said:
kkamin - going for the twilight look? her eyes are certainly not that light IRL

"Twilight" like the movie?

kkamin · Oct 12, 2009

"Raawwrr!" I didn't see the movie but that's the noise they make in my head.

Elly · Oct 13, 2009

thank you for your help.she uses a d700 with nikon 50mm 1.4($300) and 85mm 1.4($1200).i did some looking for information. maybe we see things different but i see a difference.i see that there is more seperation between the eye lid and the white part of the eyes,it looks a bit clearer and more noticable where it joins.and also the eyelashes.in the photo you post with the big eyes it looks a tiny bit less clear and in the inside of the eye when i compare,not much but in my eyes it stops it from looking as strong and clear.this is the difference i talk about and i see it a lot i just didn't know why.if you put the two photos next to each other and look.maybe its only me who likes it clearer like this.

SpeedTrap · Oct 13, 2009

Elly said:
thank you for your help.she uses a d700 with nikon 50mm 1.4($300) and 85mm 1.4($1200).i did some looking for information. maybe we see things different but i see a difference.i see that there is more seperation between the eye lid and the white part of the eyes,it looks a bit clearer and more noticable where it joins.and also the eyelashes.in the photo you post with the big eyes it looks a tiny bit less clear and in the inside of the eye when i compare,not much but in my eyes it stops it from looking as strong and clear.this is the difference i talk about and i see it a lot i just didn't know why.if you put the two photos next to each other and look.maybe its only me who likes it clearer like this.

IT IS NOT THE BRAND OF CAMERA THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.
sorry to yell but, it seems you will not accept that. The things you are talking about have nothing to do with the brand of camera. It is photoshop.

Elly · Oct 13, 2009

ok you dont have to shout.i've seen photos of audreys like that which are straight from the camera without photoshop.anyway i only asked why i saw lots of pictures like that from nikon and couldnt find the same from canon.they can both use photoshop.i think i have a more precise eye then lots of others.

ErectedGryphon · Oct 13, 2009

Every photo you have linked to where the eyes "pop" are mostly blue eyes, and have extreme depth of field. They have also been post processed to make the eyes more of a subject than the actual person.

To me it looks as if you are trying to associate a photographic style with a particular brand of camera. If you put a different camera in the hands of those photographers, odds are you will get the same end results, because that is their style.

Try this exercise; take (or buy) your CF Card to the camera store, pick a Canon and a Nikon (with similar lens), shoot he sales clerk while focusing on the eyes. With out post processing (RAW Files) you won't be able to tell the difference. Now JPG, the cameras post process in camera, and one might have better face/eye recognition than the other.

Elly · Oct 13, 2009

ErectedGryphon said:
With out post processing (RAW Files) you won't be able to tell the difference. Now JPG, the cameras post process in camera, and one might have better face/eye recognition than the other.

maybe this has something to do with it.how much do you know about this for eyes with both cameras?have you compared?

ErectedGryphon · Oct 13, 2009

Elly said:
ErectedGryphon said:

With out post processing (RAW Files) you won't be able to tell the difference. Now JPG, the cameras post process in camera, and one might have better face/eye recognition than the other.

Click to expand...

maybe this has something to do with it.how much do you know about this for eyes with both cameras?have you compared?

The most I know about this, is that Canon puts this feature in their P&S cameras, because most people that buy P&S shoot family and friends. When dealing with dSLR I only care about Sensor quality because I shoot RAW, and post process what I want to print or post.

When I shoot people I do focus on the eyes, but my style is to make the person the subject, so I use a wider DoF, and process more on skin tones.

I would think if you took the 50D and set it to "Face Detection" mode you might see similar results, but I bet you would still need some Photoshop work.

P.S. FarraJ in post #16 does a very good job in showing the difference; in the first pic the boy is the subject (Wider DoF), in the second, the eyes become the subject (Shalower DoF) with more light and processing on the eyes. And she used a Canon.