PP of a portrait.

M

MLse7en

Suspended / Banned
Messages
84
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys!
Ive been reading forums for couple of weeks now and I can say that I have learned a lot new things. Thanks for that.
There is a thing - I am very newbie to photography but want to improve. I understand the basics of lenses, exposure, apereture and iso. I can easily control the frame, but I don't know what to do next. So here come the question:
How to PP portraits? How do you PP portraits?

I have this kind of a question because I feel eager to work with people and like it a bit more then doing landscapes. So I want to improve my knowledge of PP. I can see that portrait looks fine and that's about it, but I want to have a sort of a WOW effect on it. How do I improve the portrait?

Here is a picture of my girlfriend Lila, that I took the other day. I have adjusted some clarity in RAW and saved it to JPEG. Do you guys have some advises on PP for these images or some general guidlines that I could use?


Lila by MLse7en, on Flickr


Lila by MLse7en, on Flickr

P.S.
I am using PS CS5
P.P.S.
And yes, this is how I like doing portraits - fast shutter speed and a bit of bokeh in the background. And yes, I aknowledge that I should be using 1/125 - 1/100 for portraits but this is how I like them. Is this a mistake or can I continue to shoot portraits in high shutter speed?
P.P.P.S
In the second image you can see that I am new to photography and I suffer lack of flashlight...
 
Last edited:
Good photographs are also the product of good lighting. You need t get THAT right before you think about post processing. While the lighting in shot 1 is fine... soft, diffused and offers good modelling, the eyes are a bit dead... so try using reflectors outside... a silver reflector below the model would have filled in the shadows by 1/3 to 1.2 stop and lifted the eyes. Maybe fill flash set to -1.5 to 2stops would have worked too, but that would be my last resort as you run teh risk of adding shadows unless you used a very diffused flash source.

Shot 2 has terrible lighting. You're shooting into a bright blue sky which has under exposed the face considerably... a good 2 stops. Again, understanding lighting and metering is needed here. If you have metered for the face, the sky would have been over exposed. You can't work with such contrasts without modifying it. A reflector or fill flash, or full off camera flash would have been needed here.

Basically.... you can't go around expecting post processing to fix all your exposure and lighting problems. That's not professional, and it teaches you nothing.

Great images start with great lighting.

Forget your shutter speeds... who cares? So long as the subject is sharp if sharp is what is needed, who cares if it's 125th, or 1/1000th? You have to remember though, that what speed you choose may dictate what aperture you decide upon (which you've clearly realised), and for me, with portraits, aperture is FAR more important than shutter speed as it has a real, aesthetic effect on the image due to depth of field, whereas shutter speed has none, other than freezing or blurring action. Set the aperture to get the depth of field you want, and set whatever speed gives the exposure required... in fact.... for portraits, I'd shoot with aperture priority. Unless speed is important.. maybe some movement in hair for effect etc.... aperture is king if you like your "bokeh". You do realise that the word "bokeh" describes the quality of out of focus areas... and is not a name for shallow depth of field images?

MLse7en said:
In the second image you can see that I am new to photography and I suffer lack of flashlight...
Click to expand...

Exactly... you talk of "wow".... well.. that's not done in post processing... wow comes from taking great photographs in the first place. PP is just enhancing what's already there. Avoid the amateur propensity to just reach for post processing as a cure for bad photography. That's stupid; it's akin to thinking that photography isn't actually important to taking good photographs. Which if you think about it, is the dumbest thing you could possibly think.



Also.... unless you're after a specific effect... shooting someone looking down at such an angle is rarely flattering.. once you pass 19 years of age... gravity is not your friend :)
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I took the image to PS and started with imperfections of the skin. Afterwards I worked a bit with eyes and lips.


Lila PP by MLse7en, on Flickr
vs

Lila by MLse7en, on Flickr

Which one you think is better?
 
The first one.... but the lighting is poor on both of them, and post processing won't change that.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Good photographs are also the product of good lighting. You need t get THAT right before you think about post processing. While the lighting in shot 1 is fine... soft, diffused and offers good modelling, the eyes are a bit dead... so try using reflectors outside... a silver reflector below the model would have filled in the shadows by 1/3 to 1.2 stop and lifted the eyes. Maybe fill flash set to -1.5 to 2stops would have worked too, but that would be my last resort as you run teh risk of adding shadows unless you used a very diffused flash source.

Shot 2 has terrible lighting. You're shooting into a bright blue sky which has under exposed the face considerably... a good 2 stops. Again, understanding lighting and metering is needed here. If you have metered for the face, the sky would have been over exposed. You can't work with such contrasts without modifying it. A reflector or fill flash, or full off camera flash would have been needed here.

Basically.... you can't go around expecting post processing to fix all your exposure and lighting problems. That's not professional, and it teaches you nothing.

Great images start with great lighting.

Forget your shutter speeds... who cares? So long as the subject is sharp if sharp is what is needed, who cares if it's 125th, or 1/1000th? You have to remember though, that what speed you choose may dictate what aperture you decide upon (which you've clearly realised), and for me, with portraits, aperture is FAR more important than shutter speed as it has a real, aesthetic effect on the image due to depth of field, whereas shutter speed has none, other than freezing or blurring action. Set the aperture to get the depth of field you want, and set whatever speed gives the exposure required... in fact.... for portraits, I'd shoot with aperture priority. Unless speed is important.. maybe some movement in hair for effect etc.... aperture is king if you like your "bokeh". You do realise that the word "bokeh" describes the quality of out of focus areas... and is not a name for shallow depth of field images?



Exactly... you talk of "wow".... well.. that's not done in post processing... wow comes from taking great photographs in the first place. PP is just enhancing what's already there. Avoid the amateur propensity to just reach for post processing as a cure for bad photography. That's stupid; it's akin to thinking that photography isn't actually important to taking good photographs. Which if you think about it, is the dumbest thing you could possibly think.



Also.... unless you're after a specific effect... shooting someone looking down at such an angle is rarely flattering.. once you pass 19 years of age... gravity is not your friend :)
Click to expand...

Hi David!
Your honest reply made me WOW! :) Thank you so much for saying so many important things!
1. I think Ive realised that the time has come for me to buy some lightening...
2. Ive made a mistake using bokeh, thanks for pointing out, that in this case it is shallow depth of field.

Now I feel ashamed that I have posted that terrible picture. :bang: I will continue reading and save up some money for flash+diffuser and couple reflectors.
To be honest David, it is very hard for me to find a person that could give some good critique. Thanks again for so much attention and advises. I will keep in mind the shadows and CORRECT exposure for my upcoming photos. Also Ive understood which is bigger priority - shutter speed or light.

P.S.
If, Ive understood correctly, then the areas, that need to be filled in are:

Lila PPP by MLse7en, on Flickr

basically the face.
 
Last edited:
LOL.. don't feel ashamed!! Never be ashamed to show your work.. ever. How else are you supposed to learn?


The first one is really not bad... it's just that even diffused, the lighting is mainly top down because your light source is essentially the sky! Placing a reflector just below the model, just out of frame, would bounce light back up into the eye sockets and give more "sparkle".

Even a piece of A1 white card would work as well... so you don't need to spend a fortune. The only drawback is that, seeing you were up a tree (or seem to be)... you may need an assistant to hold the reflector :)

Fill flash, even using the camera's built in flas is useful too if used carefully (1.5 stops down or so).

Ultimately, if you are serious about outdoor portraits, off camera flash is the way to go, but that can be a steep learning curve... but many on here will be more than willing to help you with that, but seriously, reflectors are VERY effective for outdoor portraits, especially in high contrast situations like sunlight or very directional light.

Shot 2 just has too much contrast between sky and face in terms of brightness... a shot like this will always need some additional light. Again, you may be surprised just how effective a silver reflector can be, but a shot like #2 could have really used flash.

Lastolite reflectors are great... and also any third party equivalent, as a 1.5metre round reflector folds up to around 15" inches across and is really easy to carry around.



[edit]

Yes, the areas you highlighted are the problems for me, but not necessarily the neck (although now pointed out, could do with a lift too)... it was the eyes.. just looked flat and grey.... muddy was a word that came to mind. Essentially though, the image is solid (although I'm not sure of the tree trunk as a background.. that's a bit distracting). The good thing with reflectors is that you can actually see... in real time, the effect they are having. Looking at shot #1 again, the light seems to be brighter behind the model too, so again a reflector would have been effective here as the brighter light falling from behind the model would have been bounced back.
 
Last edited:
In the first one a bit of burning/dodging around the eyes and adding a catchlight will make a big difference.
For the second the face needs lightening and again the eyes need a tweek, both these are done very quickly and could be a lot better with a bit time spent, but I'm in the middle of upgrading my computer so need to turn it off to work inside it.


8709727731_1f7f8ebbe0_b.jpg



8710850338_902e3e7140_b.jpg
 
That's merely correcting fundamental mistakes no decent photographer would have made in the first place.

Get it right in camera and you would have to do none of that, and it would look better.
 
The question was PP of a portrait, not how do I get it right in camera, and this is the post processing and image editing section of the forum.
 
I don't care what forum it is. PP shouldn't be used to correct mistakes that can easily be avoided in the first place. I'll be damned if I don't give such advice because this happens to be a PP forum.

No matter how quickly you did this, it wouldn't be as fast as popping up the flash and dialling in -2 stops.
 
I have no problem... I just feel the OP should realise that he could have done exactly what you have just done by popping up the flash and dialling in -2stops. That would take maybe 2 seconds, and the results would be better.

What you posted makes a hell of a difference to the images he took, granted, but long term, this is not a solution to better photography. I feel it's important people know this.
 
I guess it would be better with a little supplemental light. But I don't think it's irredeemable.......

treepic.jpg


[Added some sparkly stuff from another picture, adjusted contrast here and there, added one of those misty tints people seem to like now....]. BTW if I had another shot of her eyes I'd probably bring them in from there as it's really hard to recover any light in them here without it going all Midwich Cuckoos.
 
Obviously it would be great to get it right as much as possible in camera but images can be easily 'rescued' if you now how to be sympathetic with them.

Branch.jpg


There is loads of dynamic scope left with this image to adjust.
 
By those who realise they are paying a great deal of cash to be taught by a team with combined professional experience of over 130 years, yes. By those who think they know it all already, no.
 
Pookeyhead said:
By those who realise they are paying a great deal of cash to be taught by a team with combined professional experience of over 130 years, yes.
Click to expand...

Pah. That's nothing. Some of my lecturers were over 130 years old. Plus one of them was actual Brain of Britain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top