Crisp Vibrant Colors

<p>New photography here that mostly photographs people. I am looking to find out how I can really make my pictures pop without them looking to fake. The posted picture/link http://www.jessicastrickland.com/blog/portrait/ is what I'm really going for. She has such nice, crisp, bright, vibrant that don't look too over the top. How can I achieve this? Does this mostly have to do with lighting (artifical vs natural?). Please help!!!</p>

<hr>

<b>Photo attachment removed in accordance with <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines/">photo.net community guidelines</A>:</b><br>

<i>"Any image you post should be your own work. If you want to reference an image shot by someone else, please link to it rather than post the image itself."</i><br>

<p>There are a number of ways to get crisp, vibrant images. One way is to use high quality lenses. The better build quality with better glass will give you a sharper, less distorted image. The camera can also make a big difference. Pro level cameras usually have a better sensor, better resolution, and better processing. All Digital cameras are designed to capture images that are a little low in contrast and a little soft. This is so the camera can capture the greatest amount of data from a scene. You are expected in take your images into Photoshop and sharpen them and raise the contrast slightly. If you can you should shoot in RAW format. Then in a RAW processing program, like Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop you can add some contrast. I would also recommend adding clarity and vibrance to portrait images. I would not recommend adding saturation to a portrait. The vibrance will do this. For landscapes you would add saturation and less or no vibrance. These recommendations should greatly improve the pop of your images. That pop is mostly sharpness and contrast, just don't over do it, because then they will look fake.</p>

<p>Kathy -<br>

This is the sort of dramatic change, for the better or the worse depending on your taste and degree of adjustment, that can be accomplished in editing software. This case, I used Elements 6. Camera as listed; I think I used two off camera flashes.<br>

Jim</p><div></div>

<p>I would guess that most D-SLRs and all but the worst lenses are capable of pretty good results, but good lenses may give a little extra sharpness and contrast. Mostly it's lighting (natural and artificial) and post-processing. Flash also can do a lot to really stop camera and subject movement cold and manage contrast.</p>

<p>If you are using, say, photoshop or similar you could try "local contrast enhancement". Go to "unsharp mask" and set:- amount 20% radius 50% threshold 0%, toggle between before and after with the preview box. I find this helps most pictures "pop" without being too over the top.</p>

<p>The Jessica Strickland site (from which the sample photo was copied) seems to be temporarily inaccessible from my IP. But when I looked at it yesterday I saw a variety of techniques used in preparing portraits, wedding photos and others. She seems to be using a mixed bag of some fairly trendy techniques:</p>

<ul>

<li>Emulating old color photos (with nostalgia-influenced fading and color shifts).</li>

<li>Selective desaturation of some colors while increasing saturation of others.</li>

<li>"Glow" type effects that help to minimize wrinkles, puffy eyes and facial blemishes without resorting to excessive smoothing or blur.</li>

<li>Very definite color shifts to produce nearly monochromatic blue or other dominant colors.</li>

<li>Emphasizing a bright, cheery mood and appearance while not worrying about highlight detail (in the sample photo you linked to the background and hair highlights are blown, but it's not a distraction).</li>

</ul>

<p>While it's possible to emulate these effects with the tools available in photo editing software like Photoshop, Elements, Paint Shop Pro and others, these effects are so popular now that many photographers are using actions or plug-ins to streamline the process. For example, one of the currently trendy iPhone apps is Hipstamatic to produce a retro-vintage effect on digital captures. Google around and you'll find many of these available either free, as shareware or in free trial versions for testing. You can also try the freebie Picasa, which includes a few handy tools for some of these effects.</p>

<p>The rest is up to you. Ms. Strickland's real forte appears to be her ability to engage her clients and subjects in a positive way to get photos that don't appear forced or uncomfortably posed. I suspect she'd get similarly appealing photos with a b&w film camera.</p>

<p>Good lenses, more expensive cameras, Photoshop, all play a part but also the time of day and/or the type of light you are shooting under plays a HUGE part in how saturated your photos will be.<br>

Usually colors are more saturated under a midday sun than at dawn or at dusk. Also using flash although some might find this unpleasant, gives you a crisper and more saturated picture than if you had not used it. While you can always bumb up the saturation by simply increasing contrast in PS , if not well done the picture might look a little fake or cartoonish. It can also add artifacts to your photo which become very apparent when you try to print it. </p>

<p>I suspect there's a typo in the OP's link, unless I've stumbled across the wrong Jessica Strickland:<br>

http://www.jessicastrickland.com/blog/portrait/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Good lenses, more expensive cameras..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Equipment is the least important part of that photographer's style, other than reasonably fast lenses for shallow DOF in some photos. Otherwise most of it could be done with a modest kit. A responsive camera with quick AF is probably also an asset, but there are many mid-priced dSLRs now that have very snappy AF and overall response.</p>

<p>Again, the essential key to Strickland's photos is her ability to connect with her subjects. In terms of post processing technique she's using a mixed bag of currently trendy effects, most of which can be mimicked with various Photoshop actions and plug-ins. She's also not afraid to "break the rules" and shoots into the light to induce flare, doesn't worry about preserving every nth of a degree of highlight detail in her subject's hair or skin, doesn't worry about slight tints in skin color (some show marginal bits of magenta, cyan, etc., depending on the effect she wants). But to duplicate her photos you'd need her personality and ability to interact with clients to get those unforced, cheery expressions. That's why she not only gets away with breaking the "rules", but makes a virtue of it.</p>

<p>Thanks, Phil, looks like the original URL had a stray "r" in there, which also appears incorrectly on a Google search. I'll fix the URL in the OP's first post.</p>

<p> I think Andrew made a really good point that hasn't been expanded - she makes excellent use of lighting. I'm pretty sure that not one of those shots were done with just natural lighting (maybe some with just a reflector or two.) She was using flashes or strobes and that is what I found made the biggest difference the my photos of my kids when shooting outdoors - fill flash makes a huge improvement - the hardest part is balancing it to look natural.</p>