My Peppa

[docfav]

Here's one of my youngest son. My other son calls him "Peppa". No PS yet.

C&C welcome.

ISO 800 (taken at sundown)
1/400
f/4
AV Mode

[queenbee288]

What a cute little boy. I bet he has gorgous eyes. Your shot is a little underexposed and needs some processing. Using photoshop I did a curves adjustment, boosted saturation, cloned out the extra person in the background and cropped. I also sharpened it a little bit.

[docfav]

Thank you. That does look better. I'm still a PS n00b. Learning it slowly.

[bobrock111565]

I agree with QueenBee that he is a bit underexposed. But I would take a slightly opposite route...rather than "sharpen" the image after adjusting the tonal values and color, I would do some skin softening instead. I think it looks better on a young kid like this. Beautiful young boy.

[Gamut]

What are you guys doing to smooth the skin? Assuming you're in PS?

[bobrock111565]

Originally Posted by seesponge

What are you guys doing to smooth the skin? Assuming you're in PS?

Everyone has a different technique, and all have their merits. In PS there are always dozens of ways of doing the same thing. I'll offer two suggestions:

1) The manual method and probably the most popularuplicate your image layer. Blur this duplicate layer using a surface blur or gaussian blur...amount depends on resolution of image. Just look at the skin. Blur it until it smoothes MORE than you want. Then click the "add layer mask" at the bottom of the layers pallet and fill with BLACK. Now there is no effect. Use a soft brush, at about 15% opacity and paint back in with WHITE on the layers mask on the skin areas only. If you overdo it, you can then lower the opacity of this layer to reveal a little of the sharper layer underneath.

2) Really fast and easy method, with very good results: "Portraiture" by Imagenomic. I use this on the default settings on a duplicate layer, and then just lower the opacity of the layer until I'm happy, and further add a layer mask if any non-skin areas got softened too. This program is killer! I can't live without it now. http://www.imagenomic.com/pt.aspx

[Gamut]

Thank you Bob. I thought that might be what you were doing. I wasn't sure if there was some sort of after market filter or tool you might be using so I thought I'd ask.

Never heard of Portraiture. I'll check it out. Thanks again!

[docfav]

Yes. Thank You. I'm going to have to try these myself.

[bobrock111565]

Originally Posted by seesponge

Thank you Bob. I thought that might be what you were doing. I wasn't sure if there was some sort of after market filter or tool you might be using so I thought I'd ask.

Never heard of Portraiture. I'll check it out. Thanks again!

I cannot say enough about "Portraiture". I've recently been to a few seminars hosted by a few very famous photographers/PS experts...one by Scott Kelby and the other by Jack Reznicki. Although I was already using "Portraiture" at this time, they both recommended it very highly.

It does instantly what would normally take you several minutes or longer to accomplish. Great results, and like I said earlier, you can just use it on a duplicate layer and lower the opacity if you find the effects too much. But I love it.

Another two programs (PS Plugins) which I find extremely good for portraits are by "Image Trends, Inc.", called "Pearly Whites" and "Shine Off". The first one quickly whitens teeth and eyes, and the other takes the shine off of faces. I sometimes have to run "Pearly Whites" twice for some teeth, but then "Shine Off" usually works fine the first run through. Again you can always reduce the opacity of the duplicate layer after applying. All of these are GREAT time savers.

Bob

[docfav]

Thanks for the settings. I looked up portraiture. I think that might be a little more than I want to spend for playing around with the kids. I take the time and learn how to do it from your suggestions.

Thanks again.

[neil85]

nice photo ... i like bobrock's edit as when he cloned out the othe person its not as noticed.

the original one by queen you can see the box in which is was cloned.

i dont think its too far off as underexposed ...

brightness to me all depends on the photo, expose it a little to much and the skin tone doesnt match the natural tone the person really has

[bobrock111565]

Originally Posted by neil85

nice photo ... i like bobrock's edit as when he cloned out the othe person its not as noticed.

the original one by queen you can see the box in which is was cloned.

i dont think its too far off as underexposed ...

brightness to me all depends on the photo, expose it a little to much and the skin tone doesnt match the natural tone the person really has

Yes...agree with Neil. The exposure is really highly "custom". I almost get tired sometimes of hearing comments like "a bit too underexposed...". Well yes, some images technically ARE underexposed. But as Neil says, other images might just look better that way. Not just the skintones, but for example I think if this image were exposed longer, the background highlights would become really blown out and perhaps become too distracting. Yes, a reflector or fill flash would have been welcome, but perhaps not available on this shot. Anyway, a slight underexposure in this case is totally fixable and in my opinion the boys face make it a "keeper".

[docfav]

Thanks everybody for all the critiques.

Doc

[Moin]

Cute boy, nice Edit..Ty Bob for the Share (Imagenomic)