[tomscy2000]

Auto focusing at f/1.8 is a PITA already! Actually, I found out today how much of a hassle hitting focus with only the center point as cross-type for the 6D was, even at f/6.3... Granted, I was shooting with a Sigma 105mm macro (the older version that has terrible AF), but still, I could not get that many sharp eyeballs with focus-recompose, and if I switched to a regular AF point, the stupid macro lens would rack focus, making me miss moments. Argh.

 

[eke2k6]

Its really ridiculous.

Here's a little trick I learned, Tom. You know how to do frequency separation retouching in PS, right. Well, just take the blur layer and run it through portraiture. It should really even out the skin without excess smoothing. Then you can clone out blemishes in the texture layer manually.

 

[tomscy2000]

  Its really ridiculous.

Here's a little trick I learned, Tom. You know how to do frequency separation retouching in PS, right. Well, just take the blur layer and run it through portraiture. It should really even out the skin without excess smoothing. Then you can clone out blemishes in the texture layer manually.

Mmm, yeah, I've tried that before; I always forget to do it, though, because I like the control I get out of choosing the kind of blur I do on the low frequency layer. A simple pass through Portraiture would definitely take care of a good number of things, though. Maybe it can be a first layer, and if the plugin smooths certain things out too much, I can paint it back on the layer mask. I definitely gotta start remembering to do it for edits I don't want to spend time on, though.
 
That shot, however, is probably getting the royal treatment. The real edit is going to take a good number of hours; I finally got a shot that is clean enough that it's actually worth cleaning up flyaways and misaligned hairs for, so this series of shots is going to get every trick in the Ps book thrown at it.

 

[Audioscope]

Guys, if you use a softer lighting, retouching becomes something that is almost optional for most models.
 
Facial blemishes still require retouching to an extent.  I try to stay away from smoothing out the skin too much, frequency separation or not.
 
Happy shooting 

 

[tomscy2000]

  Guys, if you use a softer lighting, retouching becomes something that is almost optional for most models.
 
Facial blemishes still require retouching to an extent.  I try to stay away from smoothing out the skin too much, frequency separation or not.

It's not always preferable to use soft lighting, though. Of course, if a subject has poor skin texture and tone, then soft lighting would be the weapon of choice. Otherwise, it's a creative choice. Personally, I want to start experimenting with bare bulb reflector portraits because they're much more intense and contrasty.
 
Skin smoothing is essentially the same as putting on foundation in makeup. Not everyone has the luxury of having a dedicated MUA (who actually knows what they're doing). The thing about retouching is to do it suitably and measurably, fit for the right look and occasion.

 

[Jon L]

Granted, I was shooting with a Sigma 105mm macro (the older version that has terrible AF)

 
I had all kind of AF issues with Sigma 70 Macro and had to get rid of it.  A pity, since that lens was sharper than my Canon100L macro..

 

[tomscy2000]

  I had all kind of AF issues with Sigma 70 Macro and had to get rid of it.  A pity, since that lens was sharper than my Canon100L macro..

My problems were compounded with the fact that the 6D has crap AF for all but the center focus point. The 5D-IV better come out; while I've changed my stance on the MP wars (I like my resolution these days), I need good low light for street shooting at night, so the 5Ds/R is out of the question.
 
The old 100L macro was not very sharp, IIRC. Haven't tried the version II with hybrid IS, yet. However, I've been fiddling around with the macro mode on the 24-70 f/4L and it's not too bad, just fiddly. I do want to wait and see if Sigma updates their 105 macro, or if Samyang ever decides to go AF. I'd mostly be using the lens for portrait work, because I find the 135 focal length is slightly long for the distances that I like to work at, and the facial compression is already decent at ~100 mm focal lengths (200mm is overkill, IMHO, don't feel like running around all day with a 70-200). The Tamron 90mm VC looks mildly interesting too.

 

[Jon L]

 
The old 100L macro was not very sharp, IIRC. Haven't tried the version II with hybrid IS, yet. 

I have the version II.  Still, the Sigma 70 is sharper, insanely sharp.  
Yeah, the new 5Ds/r and likely 5D IV are not exactly going to excite many.  I'm pretty sure I'll skip one generation at least before replacing my 5D III.
At least Canon did good with the new 11-24 mm.  THAT is an awe-inspiring accomplishment for photography..

 

[LugBug1]

Just a couple of experiments
 

 

 

[tomscy2000]

Love the perspective lines on the first shot, @LugBug1!

 

[tomscy2000]

 
This is the first photo from my beauty editorial that I decided to edit.
 
I had planned to do even more polishing than what I have here, but it got so tiring that I decided just to stop here.
 
There are some problems --- eyelashes not being curled enough, lip gloss overrun, and hair not being neatly covered and slicked down to minimize flyaways.
 
If I want to really submit it to something (which I won't), then I'd probably find a proper retoucher to put the right touches on the photograph.
 
But I'm not a good enough retoucher that I can take care of the last 5% in a timely manner, so whatever --- this is good enough.
 
Still, I think there's enough there to convey what I wanted to do, conceptually. It was a classic beauty shot without ostentatious trimmings.
 
I wanted to shoot a photo that ended with a muted palette but still possessed lots of skin detail in the face, and that's what I have here.
 
Things I learned from the shoot:

1. I need to buy a light meter. Seriously. I have a tendency to underexpose by 1/3 to 2/3 stop, and that could mean poor shadow detail in the brown/black color eyes.
2. The lack of modeling lamps on speedlights makes getting the initial lighting setup hammered down a PITA.
3. Shooting in small spaces is very bad when you want a white wall to falloff to darker than middle grey.
4. Wireless tethering with the 6D sucks. Stick to USB.

 

[LugBug1]

^^^ Seriously good shot and processing. Her expression and the picture as a whole is quite mesmerising. 

 

[Phishin Phool]

Sorry being a jerk but I find the overall image too soft and almost cgi or airbrushed looking in the face. I do like your model and the composition though

 

[Audioscope]

Recent creative shoot, something different.
 

 

 

[tomscy2000]

  ^^^ Seriously good shot and processing. Her expression and the picture as a whole is quite mesmerising. 

 
Thanks for the compliment, though I my personal feeling is that while the shoot turned out decently, I know a good number of individuals can get the same type of shot just as well, so I have a lot of work to do.
 

  Sorry being a jerk but I find the overall image too soft and almost cgi or airbrushed looking in the face. I do like your model and the composition though

 
Why apologize? Criticism is good. I don't mind. It's good to know what other people are thinking.
 
I do have a few things to note, however: the "soft", slightly fake look is done on purpose. I wanted a porcelain quality to her skin, and while her skin was already quite pale, I actually pulled back on the saturation of the reds and yellows even more. However, I did still retain all the detail --- I don't have the full resolution image online, but all her pores still exist and are easily visible compared to the raw image. The lighting also affects the way the shot is perceived. I modified my existing octabank with a small center "core" of light that is in between a soft and hard light, but that light will quickly fall off to very soft edges, so there's a huge and very soft shadow transition area. Thus, the shadows formed on her eyes and nose, while not completely hard, are harder than the shadow formed under her jawline (softened with a silver bounce), and much harder than the shadows on her shoulders. That's why her shoulders look a little "milky" and soft compared to the far more specular feel of the T-zone, which is lit by the harder center core of the light. I find this light quality to be very unique (but it's not really superior), and even I was thrown for a loop when I saw the raw image. The lighting looks significantly different from that of a classic beauty dish or softbox. You look at the shoulders and wouldn't believe it's not lit with a softbox, but look at the center of the face, and it looks like it was lit with a bare reflector with a tiny layer of diffusion.
 
The end goal here isn't to shoot a realistic image. The concept itself was inspired by a couple of different things: Tilda Swinton's campaign for NARS, and a beauty editorial that featured in Elle Vietnam. The final image, of course, looks like neither of them, but the color palette chosen is similar, with a similar level of skin texture. I actually considered doing the classic, bare-faced style (not really bare-faced; they're all wearing tons of makeup in those cosmetics campaigns) of beauty shot (that translates well to the kind of "HD" look that I assume you're expecting), but I decided to stick with this concept. Maybe I'll try the more orthodox look next time.
 
Doing a better job tying down the hair and having someone with the right retouching skills to clean up the hair will help substantially in selling that "sculpture" look. Right now, the hair looks loose and casual, inconsistent in style with the rest of the image. So I can understand why you find the image "off". The message isn't consistent, and I know that's something that's lacking in the shot. When working with a first-time MUA and model, however, I only try to make the best of it. I also make a couple of technical mistakes here; the shot was underexposed by about 1/2 a stop, and it was difficult to tell by just looking at the screen and histogram (there's too much middle grey to determine whether the skin exposure is good). My tethering was basically broken, so I couldn't preview values on a big screen. I did notice the underexposure after manually exporting it into the computer, but I couldn't get the right kind of pose and expression in subsequent shots that did have proper lighting, so the moral of the story is: get a light meter.
 
Long story short, I made a number of mistakes during the shoot, mistakes that I know I can correct in the future. However, I did still get a few shots out of the session that I thought were presentable and that properly represented what my original concept was.
 

  Recent creative shoot, something different.  

 

 
I like this one. The dress is cut off by just that tiny bit at the top; if there were a little bit more space on top, I think it'd be ideal. You can dodge out the wrinkles in the seamless paper if that's what you want.
 
Anything of her actually dancing? Or is she merely masquerading as a ballerina?