Lovely eyes...

I am an eclectic photograapher. This image is certainly different from my previous image of the gorilla. I think that this lady, who is an aspiring model has lovely eyes. Light from a single softbox placed close to the model. Canon 40D camera with 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. Exposure manual 1/125 second @ f/11.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...p;d=1265996002

I think this pictures deserves to be in the nSCPs not only by it's quality but also because it is a pleasure to look at such a beautiful eyes.

And BTW, isn't there any other image with the whole face of this young woman ?

This certainly is a VERY nice image; almost perfect.

I just have a slight feeling that 3-4% less forehead would be better, but holding something across the top of my eyeline view doesn't help me judge because then the frame is then missing too.

EDIT: I didn't explain that well and I can't make my mind up, here is what I mean:
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...8&d=1266054070

Cheers, Dave

Hi ya,

Hope you don't mind, but I've had a quick play with this to give it my standard portrait treatment. Almost impossible to do a great job with such a low-res sample, but you might find some of the workflow of interest.

In particular ...

- Whitened the whites of the eyes 30% (sorry, poor selection on the left eye)

- Blurred the skin to remove some of the texture (same for the texture of the makeup)

- Increased eye contrast & colour

- Sharpened eyes

- Given a little plastic surgery under the eyes

Ta da ...

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...9&d=1266058425

Very nices work. I like Colin's subtle enhancements as well.

Chuck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Hi ya,

Hope you don't mind, but I've had a quick play with this to give it my standard portrait treatment. Almost impossible to do a great job with such a low-res sample, but you might find some of the workflow of interest.

In particular ...

- Whitened the whites of the eyes 30% (sorry, poor selection on the left eye)

- Blurred the skin to remove some of the texture (same for the texture of the makeup)

- Increased eye contrast & colour

- Sharpened eyes

- Given a little plastic surgery under the eyes

Ta da ...

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...9&d=1266058425

---

Colin, I agree with your version. It is much better with your corrections. Thanks for the help...

I have gotten quite lazy with retouching portraits in general and have been using Portrait Professional Studio 9 for a lot, if not most, of my retouching. It generally does quite a good job and I can go between a light retouch job to a major overhaul.

However, this is the first partial face portrait on which I tried Portrait Professional and I was blocked from completing the retouch using that software because the program seems to require that you outline the mouth - since there was no mouth in the image, Portrait Pro refused to go any further and stopped processing.

I emailed the folks at Portrait Professional regarding this anomaly and they replied that this situation had never come up. They asked for a sample of the image and I sent them a large JPEG of this shot. I think that they might play with their program and include a fix for this type of image in any subsequent versions.

As was mentioned in a private email (I appreciate the decorum of the sender in sending me an email rather than posting) the model's left eye seems to be a bit smaller than her right eye. I didn't notice this off the bat but, now that I look at some full face versions, this seems to be the case. If I were to shoot her again with this type of framing, I would position her so that her right eye is closer to the camera. I have found that when two eyes are not of equal size, I prefer the apparently larger eye to be closer to the camera. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

... As was mentioned in a private email (I appreciate the decorum of the sender in sending me an email rather than posting) the model's left eye seems to be a bit smaller than her right eye. I didn't notice this off the bat but, now that I look at some full face versions, this seems to be the case. If I were to shoot her again with this type of framing, I would position her so that her right eye is closer to the camera. I have found that when two eyes are not of equal size, I prefer the apparently larger eye to be closer to the camera. What do you think?

---

I have seen this eye problem since I first look at the picture. I have corrected it with the Liquify tool from CS4 using Colin's version.

http://www.antoniocorreia.com/photos...15_2dzEF-L.jpg

Just a quick one - I don't normally look in this category - portraits aren't my thing, but I like this composition. There's one thing that caught my eye straight away though and that is the reflection of the light box in the models' eyes. I know nothing about portraiture but can this be avoided by moving the lighting source slightly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve H

Just a quick one - I don't normally look in this category - portraits aren't my thing, but I like this composition. There's one thing that caught my eye straight away though and that is the reflection of the light box in the models' eyes. I know nothing about portraiture but can this be avoided by moving the lighting source slightly?

---

Hi Steve,

They're called "catchlights", and they're a good thing :) (we actually enhance them or even put them in if they're not present in the original). Actually, they're quite handy - you'll see them is every magazine shot, and it gives some excellent clues as to what lighting they used :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

As was mentioned in a private email (I appreciate the decorum of the sender in sending me an email rather than posting) the model's left eye seems to be a bit smaller than her right eye. I didn't notice this off the bat but, now that I look at some full face versions, this seems to be the case. If I were to shoot her again with this type of framing, I would position her so that her right eye is closer to the camera. I have found that when two eyes are not of equal size, I prefer the apparently larger eye to be closer to the camera. What do you think?

---

Yes - the right eye is definately larger (quite common) - and yes, it's normal practice to position the larger eye closer to the camera (because we expect that to look bigger). I changed the eye size in photoshop by 3% (which Antonio subsequently adjusted even further).

On a side note, using the liquify tool can work OK, but it can also make the eye look bulbous ... the technique I prefer is ..

- Put a very loose select around the eye and eyebrow (leaving about a 1/2 inch or 1cm clearance)

- Shift F6 to bring up the feathering property box; put in a generous feathering radius of 10 to 15

- Control (CMD on Mac) J to duplicate the feathered selection to a new layer

- Control (CMD on Mac) T to free transform the eye + eyebrow portion on the new layer

- Change size (both vertical and horizontal) from 100% to around 103% and apply

- Toggle the layer view off and on to see the difference

- Merge the two layers.

To be honest, I had a quick look at Portrait Professional when it was still in Alpha, but still feel that Photoshop gives a lot more control; in a typical portrait you need just a few steps for each of the following ...

- Enhancing (or creating) catchlights

- Eye whitening

- Teeth whitening

- Red vein removal in corner of eye

- Eye sharpening

- Eye colour enhancement

- Eye contrast enhancement

- Eyelash and eyebrow enhancement

- Bags / creases under eye removal

- Skin smoothing

- Hair sharpening

- Face slimming

- Makeup application or enhancement

... and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head just at the moment! It takes a bit more work (15 to 30 min per portrait), but I like the result (and the control at each step of the above thanks to variable layer opacity).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

... the technique I prefer is ...

---

Good point Colin. Thank you for the good tip. :)

I have done it with the Liquify tool using a rather small circle with many clicks making the adjustments very slowly, and comparing frequently with your version.
:)

The shape of these catchlights are one of the reasons that I tend to favor softboxes over umbrellas to modify light. A rectangular catchlight seems to me more natural than the octagonal catchlight of an umbrella since in natural lighting, catchlights are often formed as reflections of window light. However, on the other hand, if I am out on location in someone's house or business, umbrellas are quicker to set up and break down than are softboxes.

I have, but have not yet experimented with a shoot-through umbrella which has a black backing through which you insert the strobe. This preventa another problem with shoot-through umbrellas; the indiscriminate scattering of light to the rear of the umbrella which can cause problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

The shape of these catchlights are one of the reasons that I tend to favor softboxes over umbrellas to modify light. A rectangular catchlight seems to me more natural than the octagonal catchlight of an umbrella since in natural lighting, catchlights are often formed as reflections of window light. However, on the other hand, if I am out on location in someone's house or business, umbrellas are quicker to set up and break down than are softboxes.

I have, but have not yet experimented with a shoot-through umbrella which has a black backing through which you insert the strobe. This preventa another problem with shoot-through umbrellas; the indiscriminate scattering of light to the rear of the umbrella which can cause problems.

---

Shoot-through umbrellas generally work better than the black/silver when shooting just 1 person as you can get them closer, and the softness of the light is proportional to the size of the light source and how close it is. With more than 1 person though you can get too much fall off and need to move the lightsource back - at which point using the reflecting side of an umbrella may be your best option (or a bigger softbox).

I am going to be a bit of a Brando in baggy Levis on this one and go against the grain. I actually prefer the original image. For me it is pretty close to perfection in its capture of the human face. However I do have one niggle. Although the lady has an especially dainty hooter I can never quite settle on the eyes with so much acreage given to the nose. I would have gone for the eyes only. It would make a far more seductive and mysterious image. The alternative would be full face as with the other posting and again they are very accomplished portraits.

Steve

Here the original image cropped to the eyes only. To tell you the truth, I like all of the images because I just like pictures of lovely females.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...8&d=1266196267

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

To tell you the truth, I like all of the images because I just like pictures of lovely females.

---

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it! :)