Couple Casual Shoot in Library - Request Critique

[Braineack]

Just to clarify, though, I did not cut and paste them. That is a real photo. Single exposure. The only reason it looks like that was cos I was trying to use a ps technique that involves using the high pass filter to softer the skin tones.

The BG behind them and what appears to be a space where their bodies should appear makes it look unreal. I would expect a row of books behind them, but it looks like a never-ending window through the racks, much like looking at an image in a mirror through a mirror; if that makes sense. The area below the shelf they are peaking through appears like you should be able to see their toros/hip/legs. It's hard to tell but the books beneath them appear to be a row of books that are behind them.

Something that might help is completely eliminating that entire space or cropped that entire foreground area out.


looking back at #3, you also need to watch your focus and DOF. You missed the focus on the girl's face and it landed just in front of her so only her arm is in focus. Then it appears to tried to save the image by applying tons of sharpening, and then tons of noise reduction. When viewing the images at 1600px and above it's very apparent.

I feel like this shot should have been captured with both subjects completely in focus. It doesn't make sense the guy is completely blurred; maybe if he was off leaning against the racks reading a book, but not while he's looking at the camera smiling.

I would have tried this at around f/8-11 or so and let the ISO skyrocket in order to get the shot.

 

[abovenormphotos]

Ah yes. I get what you mean. The placement of the subjects in the frame in relation to the whole scene is not well done. Noted.

I was trying something a lil different when I decided to keep the dof thin for pic 3. But I guess it didn't work out well. What I'm surprised with is that fact you pointed out that the focus is not on the lady's face. I shall go check the lens and see if everything calibrated well. Or perhaps I botched the post processing. Thanks for pointing it out!

And really thanks for taking the time to explain all this. It is invaluable advice.

Best regards,
Norman.

 

[littlenomad]

The second one is a little odd in its' pose. I like 1 and 3 personally, though her eyes look over- processed in 3. Agree about that yellow bit on the right in 3 as well. Maybe changing the colour of that would help?

 

[Austin Greene]

I used one of the photoshop methods I watched on a YouTube video that is used to smooth skin. It involves applying a high pass filter, inverting the image and then setting it on overlay blend mode to achieve skin smoothing. I think that the entire image looks soft cos of that. Oh and I keep the clarity slider a tad on the negative side during my initial manipulation in Camera Raw.

That's because, at least as you've described it, you're doing it incorrectly.

Here is a general procedure:
1. Duplicate layer
2. Set to Overlay
3. Add High Pass filter, size 10
4. Add Gaussian Blur, size 6
5. Create mask from layer, then paint white the areas you want it to apply to at 100% brush opacity (skin only, no eyes or clothes or elsewhere)
6. Set opacity of this mask layer to whatever looks natural.

That said, I can also see where you've clearly done some sharpening or adding of a high-pass filter which has made some of the images look terrifically over-sharpened (that's a bad thing). Her eyes and teeth look way overdone.

 

[Braineack]

the correct way to smooth skin, is not.

 

[abovenormphotos]

The second one is a little odd in its' pose. I like 1 and 3 personally, though her eyes look over- processed in 3. Agree about that yellow bit on the right in 3 as well. Maybe changing the colour of that would help?

Hi littlenomad,

Thanks for dropping in with the comments. Yeah, I'm still trying to find my way around the post processing of portraits. Shall take note of dialing it back for #3.

Yes. I think I shall try to eliminate the pesky yellow thing on the right. After one of the forumers pointed that put, that's all I see in that photo. Haha.

 

[abovenormphotos]

the correct way to smooth skin, is not.

Haha. With the wide array of tools available for editing, I thought I could produce something better through processing. Guess I'm not there yet!

 

[abovenormphotos]

That's because, at least as you've described it, you're doing it incorrectly.

Here is a general procedure:
1. Duplicate layer
2. Set to Overlay
3. Add High Pass filter, size 10
4. Add Gaussian Blur, size 6
5. Create mask from layer, then paint white the areas you want it to apply to at 100% brush opacity (skin only, no eyes or clothes or elsewhere)
6. Set opacity of this mask layer to whatever looks natural.

That said, I can also see where you've clearly done some sharpening or adding of a high-pass filter which has made some of the images look terrifically over-sharpened (that's a bad thing). Her eyes and teeth look way overdone.

Hi Austin,

Thanks for the detailed procedure. You are right. I actually did the exact same thing as you listed. I only did not add the Gaussian Blur. I guess I shall add that in and then adjust it better. Shall try it out! Thanks!

 

[jenko]

Cute idea, for sure. I like that they met in the library. My spouse and I were not in the library, but we met in a literary-type place as well. I like the setups in #2 and #3. I think you just need to fine-tune the technical details a bit, like exposure and focus. I do not think the skin needs softening. She looks like she has nice skin already, maybe just touch up any blemishes with the healing brush.

 

[Braineack]

the correct way to smooth skin, is not.

Haha. With the wide array of tools available for editing, I thought I could produce something better through processing. Guess I'm not there yet!

It always look fake to me. I do, however, like using Portraiture when I really want to smooth skin; it does a pretty good job. But otherwise, I'll just spot-touch blemishes and for the most part keep things as they were.

 

[paigew]

I love these! Great set.

 

[abovenormphotos]

Cute idea, for sure. I like that they met in the library. My spouse and I were not in the library, but we met in a literary-type place as well. I like the setups in #2 and #3. I think you just need to fine-tune the technical details a bit, like exposure and focus. I do not think the skin needs softening. She looks like she has nice skin already, maybe just touch up any blemishes with the healing brush.

I'm glad the photos struck a chord with you!
I shall go work on my technique. Hopefully I can figure out what's wrong with the focussing and rectify it.

Thanks for dropping by with the comments!

Cheers!

 

[abovenormphotos]

It always look fake to me. I do, however, like using Portraiture when I really want to smooth skin; it does a pretty good job. But otherwise, I'll just spot-touch blemishes and for the most part keep things as they were.

Ah! I never knew about Portraiture. I never knew it even existed! I always thought photoshop was the de facto program for any and all heavy duty editing. And the fact that portraiture is a plug in and not a whole new program sounds awesome. Shall go check it out! Thanks for being such a treasure trove of sage advice Braineack!

Cheers!

 

[abovenormphotos]

I love these! Great set.

Thanks for the affirmation paigew!

Cheers!

 

[Braineack]

It always look fake to me. I do, however, like using Portraiture when I really want to smooth skin; it does a pretty good job. But otherwise, I'll just spot-touch blemishes and for the most part keep things as they were.

I always thought photoshop was the de facto program for any and all heavy duty editing.

for heavy duty editing, sure. But I try to use PS as little as possible in regards to my photos. And this is coming from someone who uses PS for a living.