Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 23 Jun 2017 (Friday) 13:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Does my bride look 70? advice needed.

 
mikeearly
Member
Avatar
131 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 337
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Chester, VA
     
Jun 25, 2017 19:41 |  #16

Colin Glover wrote in post #18386918 (external link)
Great advice guys. To clear any confusion I'll point out a few things. 1). To ensure you saw as the bride saw them, I took them from the Facebook page I uploaded to. As you know, FB is not the ideal viewing platform. So that's why there are artifacts in the images. It was easy to just put up low resolution and pull down without resizing for POTN through LR. I did it on my phone for convenience. As with the clarity, I forgot the minus sign. So, what I'm in process of doing is....... Going back to my raws, clarity set to between -31 and -33, using a skin adjustment brush on the face and neck with sharpness reduced, nr at 30-35. Nothing overly drastic. No additional sharpening. Makes a big Difference. I'll post a couple of examples from my PC when I can, not FB. Oh Look!, You were right about the lighting. Terrible to deal with. Part of the walls had a tungsten cast on them. Hard to PP that. Modern cameras are great at resolving detail, too much in some cases. Thanks for the advice guys and girls.

Sounds like a good plan ... good luck with your efforts to appease this client.....

BTW, your experience here is why i never want to get involved with a wedding gig .... the same with portraits ... happy there are folks like you that want to do this ... me, could not handle the drama of people telling me that "they don't really look like that" ... never had a complaint from a bear, bird, etc. about how I made them look bad :)


Mike Early
http://www.mdephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,925 posts
Likes: 336
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Jun 25, 2017 22:12 |  #17

Colin Glover wrote in post #18386918 (external link)
Great advice guys. To clear any confusion I'll point out a few things. 1). To ensure you saw as the bride saw them, I took them from the Facebook page I uploaded to. As you know, FB is not the ideal viewing platform. So that's why there are artifacts in the images. It was easy to just put up low resolution and pull down without resizing for POTN through LR. I did it on my phone for convenience. As with the clarity, I forgot the minus sign. So, what I'm in process of doing is....... Going back to my raws, clarity set to between -31 and -33, using a skin adjustment brush on the face and neck with sharpness reduced, nr at 30-35. Nothing overly drastic. No additional sharpening. Makes a big Difference. I'll post a couple of examples from my PC when I can, not FB. Oh Look!, You were right about the lighting. Terrible to deal with. Part of the walls had a tungsten cast on them. Hard to PP that. Modern cameras are great at resolving detail, too much in some cases. Thanks for the advice guys and girls.

I really think you should read my answer again. Altering someone's appearance without their request is close to insulting, when the problem could just be Facebook's compression. I've photographed 120+ weddings, including people probably in their 60s or older and I've never once had to do skin smoothing. The older couples actually recommend me more than the younger ones.

Once they've seen the plain images you can offer to tweak them slightly.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 286
Joined Nov 2010
     
Jun 26, 2017 09:51 |  #18

tim wrote in post #18387011 (external link)
I've photographed 120+ weddings, including people probably in their 60s or older and I've never once had to do skin smoothing.

250ish in my case and never done it either.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shane_c
Senior Member
661 posts
Likes: 66
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
Post edited over 1 year ago by shane_c. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 26, 2017 18:12 |  #19

Some people just have a different view of themself than reality.

I have a lot of respect for photographers who shoot people, whether that be on the side or as their main income. I tend to avoid shooting people because I don't want to be bothered with trying to please someone else with my photo.

Most people will be grateful but there's always some out there who it seems will never be satisfied.


Canon 80D - Canon 15-85, Canon 40 STM, Canon 70-200L F4 (non-IS), Canon 1.4x II
G1X, G15
My Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 888
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
Post edited over 1 year ago by DaviSto.
     
Jun 27, 2017 07:28 |  #20

tim wrote in post #18387011 (external link)
I really think you should read my answer again. Altering someone's appearance without their request is close to insulting, when the problem could just be Facebook's compression. I've photographed 120+ weddings, including people probably in their 60s or older and I've never once had to do skin smoothing. The older couples actually recommend me more than the younger ones.

Once they've seen the plain images you can offer to tweak them slightly.

I take your point but I'd also be inclined to take the bride's comments as amounting to such a request. I think the artifacts problem (and the 'over-aging' issue) goes beyond Facebook, too. Photos of my own that I've downloaded from Facebook as a test show nothing like the scale of the artifacts on the images posted by the OP. Something else is going on ... probably due to some over-sharpening, perhaps a too high clarity setting. Going back to the Raw files would certainly be a good place to begin but the bride may well be looking for a bit more.

For a £200 budget wedding shoot, nobody wants to be spending a lot of time on processing. I've taken an interest in Google Nik recently (only since Google announced that it was no longer going to support it!) as a tool for doing very quick low effort image adjustments. I was able to get what I thought were more than acceptable improvements very quickly (using a little local soft-focus, a little skin smoothing) on the better IQ images put up by the OP. They definitely de-aged the bride without in any way turning her skin to plastic.

It's hard to judge how another person thinks and feels about things, especially when they are a different gender. But if I were the bride, I think I'd feel that the adjusted images were a much better representation of how I felt I looked (and probably friends and family felt I looked) at my wedding than the original images.

Nik doesn't do anything that can't be done in Lightroom/PS (it's far more limited) but it does save a lot of time in making basic localized adjustments (no messing around with brushes and masks). And it's free, it's easy to learn, and still works well with current versions of LR/PS (at least on a Windows 10 machine).


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 888
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
Post edited over 1 year ago by DaviSto.
     
Jun 27, 2017 08:27 as a reply to  @ DaviSto's post |  #21

By way of demonstrating the 'Facebook compression is not the explanation' point, here's one of my own images copied directly from Facebook. If you zoom in enough, you will certainly find artefacts but to nothing like the same extent as in the images posted by the OP. It's not just Facebook that is the issue.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Colin ­ Glover
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,298 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 108
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Southport nr Liverpool United Kingdom
     
Jun 27, 2017 09:18 |  #22

Davisto what presets did you use please? Post an example please.


Canon EOS 70D, Canon EOS 600D, EF-S 18-55 ii, EF 55-200 USM ii, EF-S 75-300 iii, Tamron 28-80, Sigma 70-210. Pentax 50mm, Pentax 135mm, EF-S 55-250, Raynox Macro adapter, Neewer filters (CPL, UV, FLD & ND4), Fuji HS20 EXR (30X zoom ) & cable release, Yongnuo 560 iii & Luxon 9800A manual flashguns for the Fuji, Hama Star 63 tripod, Hongdek RC-6 remote control, Velbon DF 40 www.point-n-shoot.co.uk website.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 888
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
Post edited over 1 year ago by DaviSto. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 27, 2017 10:36 |  #23

Colin Glover wrote in post #18388068 (external link)
Davisto what presets did you use please? Post an example please.

Hi, I'm not 100% sure which presets you are looking for but I'll provide as much info as I can, hoping some of it might be what you are looking for.

The picture that I copied from FB of my little boy is not going to be a lot of use, I think. It was cropped in Lightroom but I did almost nothing else to it: some general adjustments to the colour balance right across the image (not significant) and a half stop of extra exposure/brightness again across the piece. I didn't apply any sharpening and I left presence (clarity, vibrancy, luminosity) at default zero values. I spot removed one tiny dirt smudge in the white of one eye. I didn't apply any LR presets.

But no bride is going to have the skin of a two-year-old and there are no tricks in the book short of complete plasticization in post-processing (very undesirable) or a pact with the devil (even more undesirable) that are going to help with that.

The settings I used in Nik could be more useful and (I think) are what you were looking for. I used two Nik filter presets, both available from the portrait sub-set in the Color Efex Pro 4 module: Classical Soft Focus; and Dynamic Skin Softener. In both cases (for the example below) I added two control points approximating to a circle covering the bride's face and a smaller circle covering her neck. You don't have to be very precise in Nik because the program decides, from the limited information you provide, where the edges of the area to be adjusted are (hence no masks or brushes). The effect of using the control points is to localize the adjustments that you are making rather than apply them to the whole photo. [For shots where a lot of other skin is on view, such as the arm, it may be useful to add some control points there as well].

I may also have slightly reduced the brightness slider in the soft focus preset (can't remember now ... but it wasn't critical). The effect of this (admittedly based on the easiest of your files to work with) is to go from this:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

to this:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

To my eye this amount of smoothing is acceptable and doesn't look too artificial but, if anything, I'd back-off the Nik presets strength just a little. I know a few people have commented that any adjustment should be unnecessary and is, potentially, insulting and I do understand that. My gut feeling is that in this case photo-journalistic accuracy is not high on your main customer's priority list and she really wants to look what she feels is her best.

I should add to all this: 1) I am not an expert in Nik or post-processing more generally and am still earning the ropes; 2) although I got improvement from applying this technique to the other images you posted, the Nik software couldn't really cope with all the artifacts in those case. I think if you start off with a cleaner less-processed image to begin with you should be able to get significant improvements here too, though.

Finally, I'd consider dropping the B&W shots ... they are not likely to be flattering enough.

Finally, finally, I don't think your bride is going to be nearly so worried about shots in which she does not feature. I'd focus my attention on her.

David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
welshwizard1971
Goldmember
1,347 posts
Likes: 948
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Southampton Hampshire UK
     
Jun 27, 2017 16:01 |  #24

Can I ask what ISO the brides pics were shot at??


5DIII, 40D, 16-35L 35 ART 50 ART 100L macro, 24-70 L Mk2, 135L 200L 70-200L f4 IS
Hype chimping - The act of looking at your screen after every shot, then wildly behaving like it's the best picture in the world, to try and impress other photographers around you.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,473 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 588
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jun 27, 2017 16:21 |  #25

DaviSto wrote in post #18388130 (external link)
Finally, finally, I don't think your bride is going to be nearly so worried about shots in which she does not feature. I'd focus my attention on her.

Agreed. You don't have to heavily process every shot, but in the ones where the bride is very prominent, spend a little time to make her look her best.


You might also do a tiny, TINY amount of darkening/burning along the jawline. That pose - the chin pulled back into the chest/neck - is unflattering on any human, but you can mitigate it a bit by drawing in a bit of shadow where the jaw would otherwise be. Gotta be careful to not make it look too fake, though.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Colin ­ Glover
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,298 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 108
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Southport nr Liverpool United Kingdom
     
Jun 27, 2017 18:47 |  #26

Thanks guys. Keep you posted.


Canon EOS 70D, Canon EOS 600D, EF-S 18-55 ii, EF 55-200 USM ii, EF-S 75-300 iii, Tamron 28-80, Sigma 70-210. Pentax 50mm, Pentax 135mm, EF-S 55-250, Raynox Macro adapter, Neewer filters (CPL, UV, FLD & ND4), Fuji HS20 EXR (30X zoom ) & cable release, Yongnuo 560 iii & Luxon 9800A manual flashguns for the Fuji, Hama Star 63 tripod, Hongdek RC-6 remote control, Velbon DF 40 www.point-n-shoot.co.uk website.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Colin ­ Glover
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,298 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 108
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Southport nr Liverpool United Kingdom
Post edited over 1 year ago by Colin Glover.
     
Jun 27, 2017 19:05 |  #27

This is one edit with skin softening. Went back to raw. It's a bit too matte for me. Need help tweaking it. Went back to raw. WelshW. Iso differed between shots. This one was 400. Some were 3200 for some reason, as was set to auto 3200. This from a resized JPEG in PS. Not Facebook.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon EOS 70D, Canon EOS 600D, EF-S 18-55 ii, EF 55-200 USM ii, EF-S 75-300 iii, Tamron 28-80, Sigma 70-210. Pentax 50mm, Pentax 135mm, EF-S 55-250, Raynox Macro adapter, Neewer filters (CPL, UV, FLD & ND4), Fuji HS20 EXR (30X zoom ) & cable release, Yongnuo 560 iii & Luxon 9800A manual flashguns for the Fuji, Hama Star 63 tripod, Hongdek RC-6 remote control, Velbon DF 40 www.point-n-shoot.co.uk website.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,581 posts
Gallery: 81 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3770
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 1 year ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Jun 27, 2017 20:48 as a reply to  @ Colin Glover's post |  #28

Color and or saturation seems off to me, but it might be my display. Can you share the raw to see what can be done? It appears to me that she spent time in the sun, and that isn't helping. I have shot many a portrait with even worse wrinkling effects.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,925 posts
Likes: 336
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Jun 28, 2017 02:56 |  #29

That skin softening is not good. Far too much. It looks unnatural. Just process them normally, and read my other posts. Ten weddings in you should be looking for advice from the pros, not asking a question then doing what you want.

I think I've given all the advice I have.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Colin ­ Glover
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,298 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 108
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Southport nr Liverpool United Kingdom
     
Jun 28, 2017 03:38 |  #30

Thanks Tim. Duly noted. What's best way to put a raw file up please?


Canon EOS 70D, Canon EOS 600D, EF-S 18-55 ii, EF 55-200 USM ii, EF-S 75-300 iii, Tamron 28-80, Sigma 70-210. Pentax 50mm, Pentax 135mm, EF-S 55-250, Raynox Macro adapter, Neewer filters (CPL, UV, FLD & ND4), Fuji HS20 EXR (30X zoom ) & cable release, Yongnuo 560 iii & Luxon 9800A manual flashguns for the Fuji, Hama Star 63 tripod, Hongdek RC-6 remote control, Velbon DF 40 www.point-n-shoot.co.uk website.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17,573 views & 28 likes for this thread
Does my bride look 70? advice needed.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is stp0830
798 guests, 400 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.