Which filters or actions have been usedon the photos?

[flimit]

Can someone help me.... I want my portraits to have the same effects as the photos... Which filters or actions maybe have been used for 1) skin toning 2)softness(glamour effect) 3) details 4) color filtering....
Is the effects remind you of a filter or action?....
Thank you... :mrgreen:

 

[IamSam]

Hi flimit and welcome to PSG.

This is a loaded question and would be next to impossible to answer. One thing I've learned over time is that I doubt you can even reach a consensus that the retouching in the images you've posted are even adequate!

Retouching images is truly in the eyes of the one doing the retouch. It's a matter of personal preferences, time, and experimentation.

Start here and begin examining as well as trying out the different actions from the net.
https://www.google.com/#q=Photoshop+actions+for+retouching

As for the Plugins/filters, I think you will receive many suggestions by some of our members. Check back.

 

[Tom Mann]

Probably over 95% of what you are seeing is the model, lighting, makeup, costuming, and a pro photographer who knows how to put it all together. Without seeing the exact same images before preprocessing, likely , there is so little left to do, it's impossible to say exactly what relatively minor changes have been done in PP. It's probably more productive to post one of your own images and ask what we think should be done with it.

Tom

 

[Tom Mann]

U might also get more/better responses if u ask what plugins or actions are favored by good pro portrait photographers. Unfortunately, I think u will be disappointed in that the answer is likely to be, "very few". Almost certainly, none of the zillion commercial actions being sold to slather on obvious efx, eg , dreamy, misty, high key, cross processed, grunge overlays, cute vignettes, etc., etc.

T

PS - By "good pro portrait photographers...", I'm excluding mall, team, senior, and many of the low end engagement / wedding photographers, many of whom DO make use of actions to add obvious efx that are likely to become dated n a couple of years.

 

[MikeMc]

PS - By "good pro portrait photographers...", I'm excluding mall, team, senior, and many of the low end engagement / wedding photographers, many of whom DO make use of actions to add obvious efx that are likely to become dated n a couple of years.

Made my Day!!!!

 

[ibclare]

I can't say, but it's possible you want a kind of porcelain effect. Look at this post.

There may also be some sepia toning on the third one. Layer adjustment>photo filter.

I'm just guessing; you've already heard expert opinions above, and so much does depend on the original photo shoot results. Professionals don't just jump into doing this kind of work, and as Tom suggested, use relatively few post processing effects when possible. More often than not, I would guess, just some airbrushing type touchup and maybe exposure or color balance correction. But even those last two would be abhorent to a good photographer who sets up shots and lighting very carefully and knowledgeably. Nevertheless, to the rest of us professionally challenged, some post processing may be helpful to get the effect desired.

 

[MikeMc]

I just looked at the shots again. I suspect Tom is dead on, as I found basic flaws in all the images, each could be easily adjusted in PS to give that "perfect" shot vs what was shown....(very subjective) But one thing that doesn't lie is the catchlights in the eyes...look for them

top.....poor hair behind....muddy

mid.....poor hair again, poor eye detail, lower cheeks look sallow

bot....My wife called the "Tomatoes" in the uncropped shot, at the dress edge


I didn't see a lot of crispness in the hair and eyes as most shooters seem to do in todays world...but I don't think that was the intent.

I do not see a lot of PS done on any of them...

I love second guessing shooters!

 

[Tom Mann]

Mike, don't forget the oily nose in the 2nd shot reflecting poor makeup + no (or ineffective) 'shopping.

T

 

[Tom Mann]

Also, if you have Firefox set up correctly for full color management (eg, as described here) and you have a monitor with reasonably wide gamut, look at the difference in the 1st image when viewed in Firefox vs when viewed in IE. Such a large difference tells me that whomever processed these images made some error in color management: either he didn't convert to sRGB, converted incorrectly, or applied the wrong tag, or something of that sort. If it had been done correctly, the images in both browsers should be almost identical, not like it is, ie, much redder in IE.

T