Brightly lit eyes?

How do you get amazing brightly lit eyes! Lighting set up please?

Put light into them.

My suggestion is position your model to catch the light perfectly

Probably, what you're seeking is a "catchlight." That's the word used to describe the highlight of a light source's reflection in a subject's eyes. There's no single way to achieve this, but in general, the larger and closer the light source - closer in distance to the subject and on axis with the lens - the larger the catchlight.

Nikxta wrote in post #12521014
How do you get amazing brightly lit eyes! Lighting set up please?

Several things contribute to "brightly lit eyes" for one you must get plenty of light into the eye so it will be well lit. Too many times the main light is too high which leaves the iris of the eye looking dark. Some people have dark eyes! Blue, gray and green eyes reflect the light easier than does brown and black eyes, for these you may need to brighten them up post capture in Ps.

Benji

Some decent post processing also helps... Portrait Professional is a program which will enhance many portraits and will save others from the trash bin.

RPCrowe wrote in post #12521887
Some decent post processing also helps... Portrait Professional is a program which will enhance many portraits and will save others from the trash bin.

The key is to get it right in camera and not have to use a lazy man's program like Portrait Professional to do the job for ya. I've tried Portrait Professional a few years back and if the face don't line up to their templates you get a crap image. If i remember right it can't make the iris bigger to make the pupil smaller.

This is just my two cents, take it as a grain of salt. Not trying to start any debates on any program or argue.

Getting things as right as you can in camera is certainly a good strategy. However, I hope you are not tarring all post processing as "the lazy man's way of doing things", because that is simply not true. Every single photo that comes out of our cameras can likely be made better by intelligent and skillful post work. It's just as true now in the digital world as it was back in the days of working things over in the darkroom of the film world.

To the OP, can you show us an example of a photo that you do not like ? That would make it easier to give you some hints on how to do things perhaps differently.

I agree, George. We can't always have everything as perfect as we would like, but an intelligent approach to lighting, exposure, color, etc. will make a huge difference in terms of what comes out of the camera.

Too many people just point lights and hope for the best, and then wonder why there are lighting issues or a poorly placed catch light.

We all do post work on some level but it should be used to enhance and not fix. When you're doing post work to fix mistakes or oversights it becomes time consuming, frustrating and a poor way to approach photography.

george m w wrote in post #12522034
Getting things as right as you can in camera is certainly a good strategy. However, I hope you are not tarring all post processing as "the lazy man's way of doing things", because that is simply not true. Every single photo that comes out of our cameras can likely be made better by intelligent and skillful post work. It's just as true now in the digital world as it was back in the days of working things over in the darkroom of the film world.

To the OP, can you show us an example of a photo that you do not like ? That would make it easier to give you some hints on how to do things perhaps differently.

I agree

I use lightroom, ACR, or photoshop to make my images better, but Portrait Professional is a lazy mans tool to me.

abbadon31 wrote in post #12522095
I agree

I use lightroom, ACR, or photoshop to make my images better, but Portrait Professional is a lazy mans tool to me.

Eek!!! Portrait Professional is a recipe for destroying images. Certain aspects of skin are destroyed and creates a whole new set of problems.

I used PP once and that was enough to know that it's not for me and I would never recommend it.

I think PP, like most post work, is best in moderation. I don't adjust the physical attributes of the subject like the jaw line or nose. I set all of that to zero and adjust for cleaning up skin. I save that and usually add it as a layer on top of the original shot and mask what I don't like or lower the opacity and fill to my liking. it did wonders on a shoot for a senior who had very obvious acne issues. I think the more time you spend with a program, you can get a feel for just how much should be applied.

Some may think it's "lazy" or not prefer it like Robert who has his own (and obviously really good) style of editing and that is fine. At the end of the day if the shot looks good then it looks good and the way you get to the final image won't matter to the person looking at it most of the time. .

TMR Design wrote in post #12522142
Eek!!! Portrait Professional is a recipe for destroying images. Certain aspects of skin are destroyed and creates a whole new set of problems.

I used PP once and that was enough to know that it's not for me and I would never recommend it.

The trick to using Portrait Professional is to let it do only about 10% of what it wants to do.

In fully automatic mode, it will turn a normal looking person into a monstrous caricature.

nathancarter wrote in post #12522462
The trick to using Portrait Professional is to let it do only about 10% of what it wants to do.

In fully automatic mode, it will turn a normal looking person into a monstrous caricature.

I found that even taking control of it still produced artifacts that I don't find pleasing.