Sarah Noble - model shooty thing.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #7379552
I see too much sharpening or DOF resulting in too much detail in her skin that isn't flattering. The last 2 also seem to have bad direct and harsh flash.

I don't think it's that oversharpened per se, at most just a little oversharpened - there aren't halos or sharpening artefacts, so I'd say the sharpening was well done for this size, albeit globally applied. (Put it this way, if it weren't a female portrait, it would not look "too sharp"). What method did you use to sharpen, OP?

Like I said, there's just too much detail, the lens is too sharp - so this is an example of undersoftening, not oversharpening. It happens with the 85L all the damn time. Download the images from a studio session, look at them, and it's just like...aw man...they're too friggin' sharp.

And, what Moppie said .

I still like 'em .

3 and 5 are my faves!!!

I like 3 &4 but, I think something could be done to tone down how much make up she has on. Those shots are great though!

Try this - run a strong high pass filter (20pix or something, make sure you can see all the detail) - then a very light gaussian blur (2-8 pix), invert it, and set the blending mode to linear light, then apply a black layer mask and paint on the new skin with a low opacity (~30%) white brush. You get nice, smooth skin texture that doesn't look plastic.

perryge wrote in post #7383664
I don't think it's that oversharpened per se, at most just a little oversharpened - there aren't halos or sharpening artefacts, so I'd say the sharpening was well done for this size, albeit globally applied. (Put it this way, if it weren't a female portrait, it would not look "too sharp"). What method did you use to sharpen, OP?

Like I said, there's just too much detail, the lens is too sharp - so this is an example of undersoftening, not oversharpening. It happens with the 85L all the damn time. Download the images from a studio session, look at them, and it's just like...aw man...they're too friggin' sharp.

Method of sharpening:

Seeing as I'm a total luddite with Photoshop and wouldn't know one end of it from the other, I have a rather antiquated processing system. I end up saving one high res jpeg for each edited photo, usually sized for a large print size (say 24x16" @ 300dpi). As I save it, I view it at 100% and apply USM til I can just see an impact in the area that I know is where the focus is, usually the eyes. Save it.

I then do a resize down to my web size (1000px @72dpi) and view it at 100% again, and apply a second much lower amount of USM. I also usually add the web name in there at that point. This method is something I learned and adapted from a rather genius landscape photographer that breexed through these forums about a year ago who had stunning images when viewed online. He'd probably cringe at my application of it, but once I started using it, I immediately saw an improvement in the appearance of my web images, so I'm happy.

perryge wrote in post #7384405
Try this - run a strong high pass filter (20pix or something, make sure you can see all the detail) - then a very light gaussian blur (2-8 pix), invert it, and set the blending mode to linear light, then apply a black layer mask and paint on the new skin with a low opacity (~30%) white brush. You get nice, smooth skin texture that doesn't look plastic.

*insert blank face here*

Suffice to say, whilst I understand the words you use, the practical application of this leaves me a bit dumb looking.


I do appreciate all the comments everyone. As the other thread I did recently suggested, I don't do these shoots for the normal reasons and I shoot the images in a more artistically fuelled mind-f*** kinda way. I prefer realism, even when doing conceptual stuff like the last shots. For me personally, smoothened skin, the plastic face look is dreadfully over-applied and in many cases cringe-worthy, and is definitely not where I want my own work to go. So whilst the skin shows texture in a very obvious and almost gritty way, that's exactly how I want it, it's real.

I do take on board though the comments about it, as it helps guide me to not take things too far, if that makes sense?

The comments about the ring flash, and harsh nasty direct light, whilst I appreciate, and thank you for, I politely giggled at. It's entirely, totally, utterly, the point. If that's not obvious with the way the images look, well...

... actually I won't go on. I did actually though.


Seriously though, thank you for all the feedback.

Heh Dave, the commments about the ring flash and light were not my comments - and bear in mind that the method I described for treating skin specifically DOES retain textures - I don't like plastic either, so we agree .

Oh yeah I know! The end comments there aimed in general!

#1 is great. What lens did u use?

Was there any cropping or is it straight from the camera?

mchong75 wrote in post #7388913
#1 is great. What lens did u use?

Was there any cropping or is it straight from the camera?

Thanks! All the shots except #2 are with the 24-70. Shot #2 is the little 50mm f/1.8 shot wide open. And I very rarely crop, not that I'm against it, I just choose not to, to try and force myself to compose better. A bit like a constant axe to grind... I don't think any of these are cropped at all actually.