Photoshop Gurus Forum
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
portrait accentuation
- Thread starter Gal Kimhi
- Start date
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
There are an infinite number of ways to make a photo unrealistic, many of which are available at the push of a button or two. We see two of them in this thread. My take on these is that unless the new "look" serves some purpose higher than just novelty, or to impress your friends and family (who don't know how easy it is to get many of these efx), or self-training, or generating something that a client wants, I just don't see much purpose in these.
OTOH, if you are an artist generating images in a particular theme, eg, "The Grizzled Old Farmers of Arkansas" ;-), then you probably want a consistent look among all the images that emphasizes the "grizzled" aspect, and so I could see the use of something like "Detail Extractor" in NIK Color Efx Pro applied (lightly, and in varying ways) to all of the images in that series.
OTOH, there are many fewer ways to get a conventional, high quality environmental portrait of an individual in uncontrolled lighting conditions, and I consider this much more of a challenge. In this case, your contribution as a photographer is much more subtle, but, IMHO revealing as to the character / status / etc. of the individual.
If this were me, I would have gone for the latter approach and obtained a good quality image in-camera, knowing that if I wanted to apply heavy efx, this could always be done later. The first thing I probably would have done is taken a couple of steps to my right to get those incredibly bright buildings out of the image. The next thing I would have done is put a white reflector near the camera to fill in his face. You said you were out hiking, so you probably don't carry a piece of white foam board or even a collapsible reflector with you, but you took the picture with a Canon EOS Kiss X5. It would have taken you only a second to pop up its fill flash and dial it down by a couple of stops and obtained a better initial exposure. The tiny on-camera fill flash would be no where as good as a reflector, but it certainly would have been better at controlling the extreme dynamic range than not having it at all.
Just my $0.20,
Tom
OTOH, if you are an artist generating images in a particular theme, eg, "The Grizzled Old Farmers of Arkansas" ;-), then you probably want a consistent look among all the images that emphasizes the "grizzled" aspect, and so I could see the use of something like "Detail Extractor" in NIK Color Efx Pro applied (lightly, and in varying ways) to all of the images in that series.
OTOH, there are many fewer ways to get a conventional, high quality environmental portrait of an individual in uncontrolled lighting conditions, and I consider this much more of a challenge. In this case, your contribution as a photographer is much more subtle, but, IMHO revealing as to the character / status / etc. of the individual.
If this were me, I would have gone for the latter approach and obtained a good quality image in-camera, knowing that if I wanted to apply heavy efx, this could always be done later. The first thing I probably would have done is taken a couple of steps to my right to get those incredibly bright buildings out of the image. The next thing I would have done is put a white reflector near the camera to fill in his face. You said you were out hiking, so you probably don't carry a piece of white foam board or even a collapsible reflector with you, but you took the picture with a Canon EOS Kiss X5. It would have taken you only a second to pop up its fill flash and dial it down by a couple of stops and obtained a better initial exposure. The tiny on-camera fill flash would be no where as good as a reflector, but it certainly would have been better at controlling the extreme dynamic range than not having it at all.
Just my $0.20,
Tom
ibclare
Queen Bee
- Messages
- 11,033
- Likes
- 4,638
Inflation Tom! 2 cents up to 20 cents. Sigh!
So given the fact that he has an interesting portrait of a man he ran across unexpectedly, I think it is worth trying to correct in Camera Raw or Photoshop. That would be a skills challenge. But I think it would not be impossible to focus on the subject. The background is already blurred and less significant. As you noted, the exposures are wrong, probably both for the subject and the background. I agree, as Inkz pointed out, the lighting is what needs to be sorted out. Then Gal could concentrate on playing with effects.
So, keeping with the current trend, that's my humble 20 cents!
To illustrate my ideas. Bear in mind, this is not one of my areas of expertise. My bg in photography is limited; I am a painter and printmaker with forays into graphic design and fantasy manipulations.
I generally tend towards making darker photos. In this instance, I tried to reverse that tendency, but though I use histograms, I am not as much technical as purely visual. Here is what I did, making a quick selection of the background, smoothed edges in refine selection, and copied that to its own layer. Then I applied a simple levels adjustment to the subject and a curves adjustment to the BG. Finally I went back into the adjustment masks, brushing with black (only minimally on the dark shadows in the trees) and then returned some original dark values to the subject, by degree, to the hotter spots - especially the hat and some on the shoulders, etc. - resulting from the adjustment to brighter. There are spots on the hat that seem devoid of pixels, so unless someone with more expertise or the right filter set can bring something up, I stopped there.
My result:
Actually, I recovered a bit more in the hat by making a selection of the hotspots and applying an adjustment just to those. Some improvement:
So given the fact that he has an interesting portrait of a man he ran across unexpectedly, I think it is worth trying to correct in Camera Raw or Photoshop. That would be a skills challenge. But I think it would not be impossible to focus on the subject. The background is already blurred and less significant. As you noted, the exposures are wrong, probably both for the subject and the background. I agree, as Inkz pointed out, the lighting is what needs to be sorted out. Then Gal could concentrate on playing with effects.
So, keeping with the current trend, that's my humble 20 cents!
To illustrate my ideas. Bear in mind, this is not one of my areas of expertise. My bg in photography is limited; I am a painter and printmaker with forays into graphic design and fantasy manipulations.
I generally tend towards making darker photos. In this instance, I tried to reverse that tendency, but though I use histograms, I am not as much technical as purely visual. Here is what I did, making a quick selection of the background, smoothed edges in refine selection, and copied that to its own layer. Then I applied a simple levels adjustment to the subject and a curves adjustment to the BG. Finally I went back into the adjustment masks, brushing with black (only minimally on the dark shadows in the trees) and then returned some original dark values to the subject, by degree, to the hotter spots - especially the hat and some on the shoulders, etc. - resulting from the adjustment to brighter. There are spots on the hat that seem devoid of pixels, so unless someone with more expertise or the right filter set can bring something up, I stopped there.
My result:
Actually, I recovered a bit more in the hat by making a selection of the hotspots and applying an adjustment just to those. Some improvement:
Last edited:
ibclare
Queen Bee
- Messages
- 11,033
- Likes
- 4,638
I got kicked off the forum before I could add that one problem with trying to bring out midtones that are barely there is the color artifact that results. I guess you could play with that, but I suppose a better pic to start with would be the way to go. Ah, but to find those perfect situations on the fly . . .
Nice one Tom. I am really going to have to get over my shyness at bringing light in!
Nice one Tom. I am really going to have to get over my shyness at bringing light in!
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
ibC: "Inflation Tom! 2 cents up to 20 cents. Sigh! ..."
I didn't want to do it, but there was nothing I could do. My board of directors told me to either up my rate or go to the Creative Cloud Consulting business model. LOL!
WRT the OP's image, all the tech stuff notwithstanding, what I really like about this photo is the direct gaze / eye contact. It shows an involved, and probably very good relationship between the photographer and the subject. The last time I shot a farmer with whom I had no previous contact, after the first couple of snaps, he went back to shoveling manure. No, I'm not kidding. :-(
T
I didn't want to do it, but there was nothing I could do. My board of directors told me to either up my rate or go to the Creative Cloud Consulting business model. LOL!
WRT the OP's image, all the tech stuff notwithstanding, what I really like about this photo is the direct gaze / eye contact. It shows an involved, and probably very good relationship between the photographer and the subject. The last time I shot a farmer with whom I had no previous contact, after the first couple of snaps, he went back to shoveling manure. No, I'm not kidding. :-(
T
chrisdesign
Guru
- Messages
- 4,204
- Likes
- 6,208
I like your version best Paul. The guy just looks very natural. That is the main thing in this image. A few lost pixels here and there don't matter.
ibclare
Queen Bee
- Messages
- 11,033
- Likes
- 4,638
I agree chrisdesign. I am still pushing myself to bring light in. And by keeping it darker and adjusting it as I did, the contrasting highlights/shadows are flat. Nice job Paul.
@ Tom
I agree, it is a sensitive, honest portrait in the genre of photojournalism. Is that still a category of photography, lol?
@ Tom
I agree, it is a sensitive, honest portrait in the genre of photojournalism. Is that still a category of photography, lol?
ibclare
Queen Bee
- Messages
- 11,033
- Likes
- 4,638
I imagine this thread is done by now, but I forgot to shut down last night and this fella's portrait was still there. So I tried bringing some more light in. Curious if anyone wants to comment on how well it worked . . . seems I am not quite able to evaluate that myself. 
Sry to hijack your thread Gal.
Sry to hijack your thread Gal.
WOW!
I never thought that my humble photo would encourage so many posts....
thanks for all of you guys' advice!
i'll try to take that into mind...
i sincerely agree with the common opinion here that the best photo is an unedited one.... but... what can i do... i am not at that level yet...
Cheers!
I never thought that my humble photo would encourage so many posts....
thanks for all of you guys' advice!
i'll try to take that into mind...
i sincerely agree with the common opinion here that the best photo is an unedited one.... but... what can i do... i am not at that level yet...
Cheers!
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
GK: "...but... what can i do... i am not at that level yet..."
Sorry, but I just don't buy that: In a second, you could pop up the flash on your Canon EOS Kiss X5 and walk away with a fill-flash image that would take anyone much longer to reproduce in PP, and would likely never look as good.
My guess is that there is something else causing you to hesitate about using that feature of your camera.
Perhaps you think that a pop-up flash looks amateurish? A good photographer uses whatever he needs to get a good shot.
Perhaps you have heard that on-camera flash gives a flat, unflattering look? It does, but only when it's your main source of light, not when used as a twinkle of fill flash.
Perhaps you don't know how to set the camera to fill-flash mode? It's trivial. Learning to do so will be rewarded handsomely in many future pictures.
etc. etc.
Tom
Sorry, but I just don't buy that: In a second, you could pop up the flash on your Canon EOS Kiss X5 and walk away with a fill-flash image that would take anyone much longer to reproduce in PP, and would likely never look as good.
My guess is that there is something else causing you to hesitate about using that feature of your camera.
Perhaps you think that a pop-up flash looks amateurish? A good photographer uses whatever he needs to get a good shot.
Perhaps you have heard that on-camera flash gives a flat, unflattering look? It does, but only when it's your main source of light, not when used as a twinkle of fill flash.
Perhaps you don't know how to set the camera to fill-flash mode? It's trivial. Learning to do so will be rewarded handsomely in many future pictures.
etc. etc.
Tom
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
"...i never even thought about using a flash..."
Err ... I don't want to seem harsh, but it was in post #4, my very 1st response to you in this thread, along with other comments that I had hoped might also be useful, e.g., take two steps to the right and get the bright background buildings out of the picture, use a white shirt or anything white as a reflector to supply fill light, etc.
Tom
Err ... I don't want to seem harsh, but it was in post #4, my very 1st response to you in this thread, along with other comments that I had hoped might also be useful, e.g., take two steps to the right and get the bright background buildings out of the picture, use a white shirt or anything white as a reflector to supply fill light, etc.
Tom
