make-over shoot

[jemmy]

Hi guys...back again:greenpbl: Anyway this time i am wanting critique & comments on a little idea of mine. Basically i am in the process of setting up a small home based portraiture business.... nothing huge (so don't stress!!!), just friends, family and the good old word-of-mouth thing... So as well as general portraits, i am also wanting to offer make-over shoots..... Kinda like 'glamour photography' without all the satin, big hair and soft lenses! Am struggling with what i should call it????? I think if i say 'glamour photography' people will automatically think of the above.... I did make-up artistry for a few years and also love hairstyling, hence why i thought of offering this. Pretty much helping people look their best in a fun model-style portrait shoot?? Any ideas???? Especially on what to call it appreciated!!!! Here is my first attempt...

#1.. the 'before' shot xx

#2...

#3...taken inside using a canon 420?ex speedlight flash, bounced off ceiling... kinda looked too dark to me - i dont like the overall colour - but i really suck at flash photography so not sure! Give me some natural light anyday!!!

#4...same here, bounce flash

#5...natural window light

#6...the sun kept sneaking in & out from behind clouds and was pretty bright in this one.... really liked it in b&w - a bit 'magaziney' ? though but not sure if it is 'acceptable' in the professional world???

#7...i suppose this one is too dark but for some reason it is one of my favourites? not sure why or if the nose shadow bothers me too much, just something about it that i love??!!

All of these pics were shot using my Canon 350D with 50mm 1.8lens... Full manual mode, shot in raw and converted using my zoombrowser software... some photoshopping done but must ask Mommyof4boys what tools she uses to airbrush!! Thanks for looking and for any feedback:heart:

 

[Funkyflame]

is this the same person like the first pic? wow, can`t believe it *what make-up makes*... great pics ... my favorite is 5 and 6 ... 5 could be a little more sharpness ...

 

[markc]

Just some quick thoughts:

I like #2, but I would crop it down some. It feels a bit unbalanced, probably because her eyes are right on the horizontal midline.

In #3 and #4 the bounce flash isn't working for me. I looks like the light is coming from a ceiling light. I would either try turning it down or shooting vertical and bouncing off a wall.

I like #5. I'd try a sharpening filter on it.

#6 is way too blown out for me. High key can be nice, but it's tricky. The shading on the side of her face and her faded lips just make me thing "blown" instead.

#7 is interesting. I think I'd rather see her facing into the frame rather than out of it. She also seems to be squinting a bit.

In most of them, it seems like the camera is just above her eye level or more. I'd like to see some of them right even. #1 seems even, but that one doesn't count. #6 might be, but it's hard to tell. Her head is even with the camera, but it looks like she might be looking up.

 

[jemmy]

Anyone else???? I can take it! :.) xx

 

[AprilRamone]

You did a fantastic job on her make over My favorites are #3 and #5 because she just looks more natural in those. I like her smiling better than when she's not. You may want to try a bit of a softening effect for her skin so you can't see the pores as well. (I HATE when you can see every one of my pores in my own photographs). Great job!

 

[jemmy]

Thanks April... any specific advice on removing pores??? She has got quite large pores and i used the 'bandaid' (cant remember what its name is!!) tool on the bigger ones - bloody time consuming ~ there must be an easier way????? xx I did have more of her smiling but, knowing her, she will prefer the non-smiling ones, hence why i posted more of the 'modelish' ones... thanks again xx And can i be a pain and ask for a comment on the last photo?? I still like it for some unknown reason but not sure if it is 'really' any good at all?????????????? xx

 

[Johnboy2978]

To remove poors, you might try something like neat image which removes grain from pictures. I use it quite a bit when I photograph my daughter. I use it b/c she is still rather bald and has some pronounced veins on her forehead and neat image tends to soften it up a bit.

 

[Digital Matt]

A quick easy retouching tip is to duplicate the background layer, run a dust and scratches filter on it, about 10 -20 pixels, and then set the layer opacity to about 50% to start. Add a layer mask and mask it off to just the face, leaving out the eyes, eyebrows, lips, and edges around the nose. Adjust the opacity as desired.

 

[Christie Photo]

... any specific advice on removing pores??? She has got quite large pores...

I use the gaussen blur tool in Photoshop, but go by that... I'm completely self-taught.

It may be that you like the last one because it has directional lighting. The ratio is too strong, but there is some modeling... some shaping.

Now for the hard part. My first reaction was... I like the "before shot" best. Number 5 is nearly good. I think if you retouch under the eyes, it will be mostly good.

I think my problem with the series is mostly the lighting. It's just not flattering lighting for a modle like her. Sorry. I'm happy to offer some more direction, but nearly every shot has different concerns.

And, MY feelings are the first, best improvement would be a longer lens.... twice as long. A normal lens is just too short for shooting people, especially less than perfect people and in sooo close.

I hope this helps.

Pete

 

[Christie Photo]

A quick easy retouching tip is to duplicate the background layer, run a dust and scratches filter on it, about 10 -20 pixels, and then set the layer opacity to about 50% to start. Add a layer mask and mask it off to just the face, leaving out the eyes, eyebrows, lips, and edges around the nose. Adjust the opacity as desired.

Yeah... yeah! This is just the way I use the gaussen blur tool. I'll have to try the dust tool now.

Thanks, Matt.

 

[Digital Matt]

Yeah... yeah! This is just the way I use the gaussen blur tool. I'll have to try the dust tool now.

Thanks, Matt.

No problem Pete. I actually do it slightly different, and you might like this. I leave the layer at 100% opacity, and after making the mask, fill it with 100% black to completely mask it off. Then I use a middle gray brush to pain the effect on, which in effect gives it a 50% opacity. The nice thing about that is that you can change the tone of your brush to a lighter or darker gray and selectively change the opacity for different parts of the face. I usually will do the face a bit stronger than I would do hands or arms. Sometimes under the eyes might need a bit more, and you can easily customize it that way.

 

[jemmy]

I use the gaussen blur tool in Photoshop, but go by that... I'm completely self-taught.
It may be that you like the last one because it has directional lighting. The ratio is too strong,
not sure what you mean here?? by the ratio being too strong? is that the nose shadow thing?
but there is some modeling... some shaping.
Now for the hard part. My first reaction was... I like the "before shot" best.
ouch that hurts!And i can safely say that will not be her favourite

Number 5 is nearly good.
and so does that

I think if you retouch under the eyes, it will be mostly good.
I think my problem with the series is mostly the lighting. It's just not flattering lighting for a modle like her
I think she's gorgeous
. Sorry. I'm happy to offer some more direction, but nearly every shot has different concerns.
I really think photography is a personal thing - a shot one might like, another might hate... so i will try not to get too cut.
And, MY feelings are the first, best improvement would be a longer lens.... twice as long. A normal lens is just too short for shooting people, especially less than perfect people and in sooo close.
Ok, now im very confused ... ive read on this forum that the 50mm 1.8lens is very good for portraits (which is why i bought it as i am soley into portraits) The guy who sold it also said it is an 'excellent' lens for portraits! So is this just if taken from a distance?? Can you not get in close with this lens? I thought it was wide-angle lenses below 50mm that distorts ~ though im not sure if it was distortion that was bothering you? or everything:lmao:
Anyway, i hope you reply to me to help me get my head around the 'lens choice' thing if nothing else. I myself am still happy with the shots and she felt 'gorgeous' which was an aim in itself... I fully understand that my technique can improve ~ hey, im just self taught remember ~ and that is why im on this forum, to learn more. Thanks for your comments

 

[Christie Photo]

not sure what you mean here?? by the ratio being too strong? is that the nose shadow thing

OK... when I say ratio, I mean how the amount of light in the highlight areas compares to the amount of light in the shadow areas. I think the ratio is too great. Just as important, the quailty of light is problematic. The light souce is small (not large and diffused like your pergola series - very nice!), which emphasizes the texture of the skin and causes hard-line shadows. So what I meant was a bit more fill light.

I think she's gorgeous

So do I. I think it's evident in the first view. I like #5 too. Maybe it's her wonderful smile. MOST of us (adults) do not have flawless faces. A professional, cover-girl type model may look fine in this lighting. But I thought the whole idea here is to emphasize the good and "play-down" what's less than perfect. Softer light will do this, reducing or eliminating the need to "remove pores."

Ok, now im very confused ... ive read on this forum that the 50mm 1.8lens is very good for portraits (which is why i bought it as i am soley into portraits) The guy who sold it also said it is an 'excellent' lens for portraits!

Me too! I don't know WHY there is such an consensus around here about that. I can only guess that folks mean "photographs of people" when the say "portaits." I agree it's a wonderful lens... sharp, bright, an incredible lens for wedding work or group and full-legnth portraits. A longer lens is gonna be a better choice for individual portraits more than 90% of the time.

i will try not to get too cut.

I certainly didn't intent to inflict any wounds. I'm turly trying to be helpful.

Pete

 

[Digital Matt]

Originally Posted by jemmy
Ok, now im very confused ... ive read on this forum that the 50mm 1.8lens is very good for portraits (which is why i bought it as i am soley into portraits) The guy who sold it also said it is an 'excellent' lens for portraits!

Originally Posted by Christie Photo
Me too! I don't know WHY there is such an consensus around here about that. I can only guess that folks mean "photographs of people" when the say "portaits." I agree it's a wonderful lens... sharp, bright, an incredible lens for wedding work or group and full-legnth portraits. A longer lens is gonna be a better choice for individual portraits more than 90% of the time.

It is considered a good portrait lens when used with an APS-C digital body, because it becomes an 80mm lens after the "crop" factor.

 

[markc]

Personally, I prefer a range of 85mm-135mm for portraits on a 35mm film camera. On a 1.6x digital like the Canons, that would be 53mm-84mm. On the 1.5x Nikons, that would be 57mm-90mm.

A 50mm on a 1.6x Canon is like an 80mm, so I'd say that's on the low end, but usable for head & shoulder shots. On a Nikon 1.5x, it's like a 75mm, so even less good for normal portraits. A lot will depend on the pose and the person being photographed. I think the above shots would have been helped by a longer lens.

When I shot film, I used my 85mm/f1.8 for portraits and the 50mm/f1.4 for environmental portraits. I still do the same on my 10D, but I can get away with getting tighter with the 50mm because of the 1.6x factor. All of the ones here were taken with the 50mm/f1.4 on a 10D, as was this one. So I think a 50mm on a digital can be a good portrait lens, but you have to be careful how you use it, and there will definitely be times when a longer lens will give you better results. The same applies to the 85mm on film cameras.

In the first set I started with the 85mm, but didn't have room to work comfortably, so I switched to the 50mm. It was more of a test session, so a smooth workflow took precedence. I'm happy with the results, but if I had stuck with the 85mm, they probably would have been even better. If you are serious about portraits, I would consider getting one; especially if you like shallow DOF. The bokeh on the 85mm is so much better than the 50mm/f1.8.