Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Post Your Photography Here #2 (new dial-up 800X600 friendly)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Post Your Photography Here #2 (new dial-up 800X600 friendly) - Page 820

post #12286 of 12591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Yum Goong View Post
 

Went to an abandoned brickyard today. The weather was pretty bad and I also forgot to take my tripod with me...

 

#1 looks spooky, great shot!

post #12287 of 12591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Yum Goong View Post
 

Went to an abandoned brickyard today. The weather was pretty bad and I also forgot to take my tripod with me...

 

 

 

You couldn't pay me enough to walk through that.

 

Nice leading lines!

post #12288 of 12591
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

You couldn't pay me enough to walk through that.

Nice leading lines!

X2
Every step would likely conjure up the "I've seen a horror movie just like this where..." thought.



Really like the portrait behind the wall eke. A little wider than 50mm?



And as I am a sucker for penguins and completely biased, awesome photos of the penguins a page back!
post #12289 of 12591
A trio I kind of ended up liking more than I expected:

14330117917_da55bc9d44_b_d.jpg

14515166944_dea67281a1_b_d.jpg

14329982458_4bd226512a_b_d.jpg
Edited by vwinter - 6/27/14 at 10:29pm
post #12290 of 12591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinster View Post  Her skin is like porcelain. Heavy post-processing or just naturally gorgeous    :wink_face:

 

Well, I'd say a bit of both; she does have nice skin. The picture is intended for blowing up; if you look at a larger size, she does still have pores and skin texture. The color gradients have been smoothed (Asians value pale skin, though I actually didn't go so far and left a bit of color in her skin), though, and obviously the skin has been de-blemished, but it's not as drastic as one might think.

 

For portraits, I've moved onto frequency separation retouching, which separates skin texture (high frequency information) on one layer, and color (low frequency) on another layer. This technique makes detail preservation easier than cloning and healing, or using some blurring plugin.

 

The degree to which skin is retouched depends on the desired aesthetic of the photograph. Sometimes, it should be realistic, while other times it needs not be. For this shot, I wanted to juxtapose the smooth skin with the intense texture of a spray-painted aircraft fuselage. This contrast makes her skin seem smoother and the airplane more textured. If this were a shot of only her face and lots of background bokeh, you wouldn't be calling as much attention to her smooth skin, because it all looks smooth.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post  A trio I kind of ended up liking more than I expected:

 

Not loading for some reason?

post #12291 of 12591
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

Well, I'd say a bit of both; she does have nice skin. The picture is intended for blowing up; if you look at a larger size, she does still have pores and skin texture. The color gradients have been smoothed (Asians value pale skin, though I actually didn't go so far and left a bit of color in her skin), though, and obviously the skin has been de-blemished, but it's not as drastic as one might think.

For portraits, I've moved onto frequency separation retouching, which separates skin texture (high frequency information) on one layer, and color (low frequency) on another layer. This technique makes detail preservation easier than cloning and healing, or using some blurring plugin.

The degree to which skin is retouched depends on the desired aesthetic of the photograph. Sometimes, it should be realistic, while other times it needs not be. For this shot, I wanted to juxtapose the smooth skin with the intense texture of a spray-painted aircraft fuselage. This contrast makes her skin seem smoother and the airplane more textured. If this were a shot of only her face and lots of background bokeh, you wouldn't be calling as much attention to her smooth skin, because it all looks smooth.


Not loading for some reason?

Yea I was being hopeful that I could get an easy direct link from the flickr app on my phone. What was I thinking. It took some time to get the direct links off the non-mobile pages. If anyone knows of an easy way to do this, I'm all ears.

It should working good now.


Makes me wonder how many of the better portraits I see put weight on post vs excellent makeup. Personally, I don't retouch much. Not like I'm getting paid for it lol. Interesting technique though, will look it up when I have a chance.
post #12292 of 12591


Edited by Amish - 6/27/14 at 11:13pm
post #12293 of 12591
Somewhere in New Zealand this morning.
post #12294 of 12591
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post


Yea I was being hopeful that I could get an easy direct link from the flickr app on my phone. What was I thinking. It took some time to get the direct links off the non-mobile pages. If anyone knows of an easy way to do this, I'm all ears.

It should working good now.


Makes me wonder how many of the better portraits I see put weight on post vs excellent makeup. Personally, I don't retouch much. Not like I'm getting paid for it lol. Interesting technique though, will look it up when I have a chance.

 

Ahh, I see them now. Awesome shots!

 

Yeah, doing that off the phone is probably a bit of a pain.

 

Pro shots are a lot of both. The makeup artist has to be good so that the photographer can elect to light with a harder light such as a beauty dish, versus an octobox. A beauty dish brings out detail better, as well as contours lighting in a more defined manner, so photographers love using it. But it won't do skin any favors. Almost all shots will be heavily retouched; the crux is whether the casual eye can tell or not. Makeup artists are worth their weight because if makeup is done correctly, it saves the retoucher a lot of time. The best retouchers aren't cheap and charge by the hour, so unless you're Annie L. and can block out a huge budget for anything, most shooters will try to get it as right in camera as possible so that it spends as little time with the retoucher as possible (and that might be why you encounter Photoshop fails now and again). Even so, it's far more time than you'd expect. I don't even try to adjust eyelashes or remove micro-hairs. Retouchers do a lot of insane things to minutia that most people couldn't conceive of needing to do.

post #12295 of 12591
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post


Really like the portrait behind the wall eke. A little wider than 50mm?

 

 

Nope, they're just cropped to hell. I love that my cam is resolving enough for me to completely change the composition of a shot without visibly losing much. The original edits are below.

 

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post

A trio I kind of ended up liking more than I expected:
 

 

 

Truly awesome shots. I think only the subtle tones of B&W can do justice to great architecture.

 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

 

Ahh, I see them now. Awesome shots!

 

Yeah, doing that off the phone is probably a bit of a pain.

 

Pro shots are a lot of both. The makeup artist has to be good so that the photographer can elect to light with a harder light such as a beauty dish, versus an octobox. A beauty dish brings out detail better, as well as contours lighting in a more defined manner, so photographers love using it. But it won't do skin any favors. Almost all shots will be heavily retouched; the crux is whether the casual eye can tell or not. Makeup artists are worth their weight because if makeup is done correctly, it saves the retoucher a lot of time. The best retouchers aren't cheap and charge by the hour, so unless you're Annie L. and can block out a huge budget for anything, most shooters will try to get it as right in camera as possible so that it spends as little time with the retoucher as possible (and that might be why you encounter Photoshop fails now and again). Even so, it's far more time than you'd expect. I don't even try to adjust eyelashes or remove micro-hairs. Retouchers do a lot of insane things to minutia that most people couldn't conceive of needing to do.

 

 

 

If you're interested, I just tried the Imagenomic Portraiture plugin for LR and PS. It's what I used to retouch the before and after of the shots I just posted. Look especially at the brick one. It's completely automatic, but you can choose parameters if you wish. I feel like everything I've done to skin before is a waste now.

post #12296 of 12591
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post  If you're interested, I just tried the Imagenomic Portraiture plugin for LR and PS. It's what I used to retouch the before and after of the shots I just posted. Look especially at the brick one. It's completely automatic, but you can choose parameters if you wish. I feel like everything I've done to skin before is a waste now.

 

I have Portraiture. I've been using it for the last five years or so. I still use it as a final pass these days and step back the transparency. I still like it a lot as it's quite powerful and stacking multiple instances and using masks can help do different levels of retouching to different sections. Using it to do texture sharpening is actually quite good because it has a great skin selection mask.

post #12297 of 12591
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

 

I have Portraiture. I've been using it for the last five years or so. I still use it as a final pass these days and step back the transparency. I still like it a lot as it's quite powerful and stacking multiple instances and using masks can help do different levels of retouching to different sections. Using it to do texture sharpening is actually quite good because it has a great skin selection mask.

 

Awesome! I'm amazed by it, honestly. I just used to do basic skin smoothing with some LR brushes I got from SLR lounge, but I feel like Portraitiure could take my photos to completely new heights.

post #12298 of 12591

 


Edited by Redcarmoose - 6/29/14 at 12:39am
post #12299 of 12591

post #12300 of 12591

A bit of fun with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and D800.

 

 

And also the "Bigma" 50-500mm at full zoom. This is a school about a mile away shot at 500mm.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Post Your Photography Here #2 (new dial-up 800X600 friendly)