How to avoid wrinkles and coarse skin pore texture?

<p>Hello... Me again... I've got a question regarding shooting brides with natural, window light. The image I have uploaded was of a bride standing in front of a window on an overcast day. It's a tight shot with a 70-200mm, but it's sharp enough that I can see every detail of her skin. I know you can smooth it in PP, but could there have been something I could have done to avoid seeing so much skin detail? Would adding extra light in the form of a reflector or flash have helped? If so, where would you have positioned it? Keep in mind that I'm looking for a quick solution due to the nature of a wedding.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17544097-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>There's a lens filter called a Diffuser, works like a charm. Also, certain cameras (I think the Olympus OM-D does it) have a special portrait enhancement mode that automatically diminishes lines and such.</p>

<p>There's a lot of difusing filters on the market and you can waste a lot of money. For many years now I've stayed with the "Softar 1," filter. This helps a lot.</p>

 

<p>I also change some settings in Bridge. In most cases this is all I have to do. If you do too much the image can look like it was a painting or something.</p>

 

<p>In BRIDGE this adjustment looks a lot better, however I didn't use bridge in this. This took about 1 minute and yes I went a bit too far with Adobe filter. The skin is a bit too soft, however the teeth and lips remain sharp. You can also adjust the earings and make them sharp.</p>

 

<p>In Bridge I try to make skin tones look like film. Not the digital look.</p><div></div>

<p>Patrick, can you show some example shots using the diffuser filter? I have to be honest - a google image search did not show impressive results. Most of the examples look like my foggy vision after swimming with my contacts in.</p>

I select ALL and set the bridge adjustments for every print. Again, this was done as a jpeg. In Bridge this is just a one click commend and it looks a lot better then what I posted.

<p>Patrick, can you show some example shots using the diffuser filter? I have to be honest - a google image search did not show impressive results. Most of the examples look like my foggy vision after swimming with my contacts in.</p>

<p>James, this image below was done with the "Softar 1," filter and adjusting the Bridge settings to look like the film days. I hate retouching and with this system I can edit a wedding in or about 1 hour. (in most cases) Hope this helps.</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00c/00c2Kj-542837484.jpg" alt="" width="465" height="698" /></p>

<p>Thanks Bob, that looks much better than the google search images!</p>

Hey James, thanks glad you like it. Email me if you need to know how to set the Bridge settings. They can vary a little depending on the wedding.

<p>The best you can do is add soft diffused lighting. Using softening programs like portraiture 2 works very nicely. You don't want it overly soft as someone has posted above, that looks horrible. Anyways everyones skin is different and some have good skin and don't require any treatment. When you use good lenses and shoot close ups you get exactly what you see. Large soft light sources is the best you can do in camera without degrading the lens with softars or netting.</p>

<p>There'ssome example info <strong><a href="http://www.tiffen.com/tips_diffusion_filters.html">here</a> </strong>and more<a href="http://www.tiffen.com/results.html?search_type_no=355&tablename=filters"><strong> here</strong></a></p>

<p>If your shooting a wedding then you should be only shooting Raw images. Therefore all your images will require editing. Buy Lightroom and set up a preset to soften your images while still retaining detail there are plenty out there or invest in a complete pre-set system light SLR Lounge pre-set system. You will find Lightroom will also help in keeping all your images organised as well as rating them along with many more features. </p>

<p>I agree with Bob the softtar 1 is great if you know in advance you want it that way.<br>

The method in bridge can be a hybrid of soft and sharp. open the file with normal processing.<br>

go back to bridge and place the same file on top of itself it ill give you chance to change settings before it places. remove all the sharpening and move the clarity slider to left. click place or open whatever the button says it will make softer layer on top. press your opt or alt key and make a layer mask. it should be black if not click on mask cntrl or cmd i should make it black. use paint brush set to white i use 30 percent opacity sometimes higher, too impatient for more than 3 stokes. paint area you want to soften. </p>

<p>I have a Softar I and a II, but really didn't use the II that often. I also only used them during my film days on my Hasselblad. I have never tried to 'fit' one to a Nikon digital but now am thinking I might give it a try. At any rate, the Softars work very well.</p><div></div>

<p>So there's nothing I could have done lighting wise on location that could have disguised the pores and wrinkle lines? I was wondering if having her turn more would have helped? Then again, the window light was diffused already and they way the room was setup wouldn't have allowed me to shoot from any other angle. I was just wondering if there was a lighting or posing technique. I guess the only thing all of you are saying is to do skin softening in post production. Thanks!</p>

<p>A big softbox above the face and a big white reflector below creates the "Miss American" portrait look. I don't care for it. Plus, even the softest, most flattering light on a human face will reveal details. Here is a technique I use sometimes...<br>

1. Duplicate layer<br>

2. Lighten the layer using curves or levels - experiment with how much<br>

3. Apply gaussian blur to the layer - experiment with how much<br>

4. Reduce the opacity of the layer to taste, maybe to 25% or so<br>

You can build an action to do this.<br>

Here is an example on a portrait of my wife. It took about 90 seconds to complete...</p>

<p><img src="http://richardbarron.net/test/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/abby-before-after.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Keif wrote "guess the only thing all of you are saying is to do skin softening in post production. Thanks!"

 

Not everyone! Use this Softar 1 filter!

<p>Oh yeah, sorry, Bob. Didn't want to leave you out. Cheers.</p>

<p>What you have here is a perfect storm of mistakes.</p>

<p>Terrible make-up job, shot in bad light, using the wrong lens, and then underexposed/dirty on top of it all.</p>

<p>It happens.</p>

<p>The trouble with filters like the Softar is that it often works for one image, and not the next ... and when it doesn't work you can't reverse the effect. </p>

<p>When possible, note when the make-up needs some touch-up. As the day goes on people with greasy skin get greasier looking. Shiny skin tends to produce even larger "hot spots" with diffused edge detail when using a diffusion filter, and still needs attention in post. Some noted wedding shooters carry a pad to blot up grease ... I tend to ask one of the Bridesmaids to attend to it.</p>

<p>If you are posing a subject there is no excuse for poor lighting ... however, "of the moment" type shots aren't always in the best lighting situations. Some available light, candid photographers like Jeff Ascough position themselves where the light is best, and wait for the subjects to turn or move into it. </p>

<p>Post solutions are often grossly over-done, producing skin tones not found in nature. It simply requires skill ... there are no automatic solutions that work every time in every situation. One of the best post programs I've used so far is OnOne's Photo Tools which has an excellent set of skin retouching tools that produce a layer in PS so you can erase the effect in areas where you want to keep the specular crispness ... like hair, teeth, lips and eyes ... or use the layer pallet to lessen the effect of the over-all layer. That said, it still often requires use of the Patch Tool in PS to deal with stubborn areas ... the difference between the patch tool and clone stamp is that the patch tool retains subtile skin texture better.</p>

<p>IMO, you are asking for trouble by using a 70-200 to do portraits ... it ISN"T a portrait lens! Canon's 50/1.2, 85/1.8, 85/1.2 and 100/2 are. Nikon's 85/1.4 and 105DC or 135DC are. Sony's new ZA50/1.4 and their ZA85/1.4 or ZA135/1.8 are. Portrait lenses are perfect, perfect lenses aren't. Many older "flawed" lenses are better suited to romantic and flattering looking portraits ... lens aberrations are why the Zeiss 110/2FE MF lens is so prized by many portrait shooters ... and many have adapted that MF lens to use on their 35mm Canon or Nikon DSLRs. </p>

<p>Anyway, here's a recent example of a fast grab shot where the light was okay and I went for it. The 30 something bride did her own make-up and it was decent ... but her skin was a bit greasy in the 90 degree weather, and the pores were too visible in outdoor light (which is really revealing light usually). Fortunately the light direction helped, but I still had to do a little work using the OnOne skin tools ... then lessened the layer so some skin texture still showed through ... not sure it'll show that in this tiny 700 pixel upload as this was retouched for a 17 X 22 print ... final size DOES make a difference).</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

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

<p>I am another who uses the Softar. I thank Bob and Nadine, our recently deceased moderator, for that tip. A good mua is invaluable. Lighting, large diffused near camera axis. The further off camera axis, the more skin detail is brought out. As Marc says, there are examples out there, including the ad for one editing program, that turns the skin to plastic, not a pore in sight. Good for space men but not for earthlings. If there are large blemishes, don't try to eradicate them and soften skin in one application of blur or what ever softening program. Skin has texture and on the face it varies from one area to the next. I edit blemishes, then wrinkles on separate layers. Then soften skin painting in on a black mask in each area as needed, still retaining texture. Mark is right about lens selection. I am a 85/135 dc/50 user in that order. 85 for 1 or 2 up to torsos, often on the fly, limited space. My choice for head shots, 135 dc. Remember when you open up and have a shallow dof, say a quarter inch, what do you think happens to the skin out of focus? It is softened. Same for highlight and shadow edge transfer also softened. For my vision, all good. </p>

<p>Marc said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've used so far is OnOne's Photo Tools which has an excellent set of skin retouching tools that produce a layer in PS so you can erase the effect in areas where you want to keep the specular crispnes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was thinking of buying the onOne's software suite upon its upcoming new release. Have you (or, anyone else here) had a chance to compare onOne's <em>Perfect Portrait 2</em> with Imagenomic's <em>Portraiture</em>?</p>

Lot's and lots of photographers get that stinky glare off of the faces from the oily skin when using a flash, even when bouncing the light.

 

I worked and worked on an idea I thought of while I was taking classes at California Institute of Technology.

 

I shoot with quantum flash units and with a dome. What I did was paint, using white nail polish, to the center of the dome which makes the light spread around more and it really helps prevent reflections, glare off of the faces of the brides and others.

 

Kind of cool for sure. It really does wonders about 90 percent of the time.

 

By the way I only use the SOFTAR 1 filter for close-ups not full length.

 

Long story short see if all of you can modify your flash units to prevent relections.<div></div>

Hehe! I just noticed the rubber band around the flash unit. I guess when a flash unit is held together with tape and rubber bands it's time to be sevice! The flash took a beating this season. I'm glad I have 3 quantums!

I'm posting this because of the Mr. Kief asking about wrinkes. Remember this rule if you wish. Always us a flash when photograhing older folks.This really works very well hiding all of he wrinkes. With a SOFTAR 1 filter you won't need to do any post processing, but you should be a 1/2 stop over exposed.

 

Quantum is a pretty good company. Not great. By far I like the White Lighting units and their amazing inexpensive service. My only complaint with Quantum is if you want the flash back in a week for repairs, well their service is very fast. You pay for it though. You have to ship stuff over night and you then get it back in 1 week. I have a problem with that. If you send in your gear by ground mail, well you won't see the repairs come in for a month to 6 weeks. And yes, you have to pay for the shipping when they return your fixed gear within that one week. Shipping fees alone expect around $100 for the one day shipping. Then you have to pay for the upgrades, the parts, and the labor. This can add up fast. Something like $600 per unit. They also tell you to send in your batteries and your cords and see if the batteres are not charging to full power and their other trick is you need to change the bulb, because the bulb doesn't hold its true color. I'm sending in 3 units tomorrow and perhaps a total of $1500. That total bill will burn.

 

They do a very good job, the gear is like new, actually better then new, because of upgrading the software and often replacing the circuit boards. It's crossed my mind wondering if it would be wise to spend another $150 for a new flash unit. New units are about $750 or so. That was 5 years ago! I'm sure they are around $9,000,00 now.

 

I've decided to post this in case people may want to change flash units. I've shot with pretty much every flash unit, Canon, Sunpak, Nikon, my personal favorite the Metz 60 CL , Vivitar 283, Normans, the Hasselblad flash, I hated that and returned it and a mess of other major and off brand units.

 

Well I'm very happy with Quantums. Their 400 watt power rating is pretty much, at least double the power of any flash on the market, I've shot it at 60 feet away from the subject, on full power and the images were just fine! My test was at a church using a 70 to 200 f 28 and a 30th of a second.

 

My strong feeling is buy one or 2 if you aren't happy with your pesent flash. Just one wedding pays for the flash.

<p>It looks like $ 1000 for one Q kit that includes turbo battery. <br>

I don't have one but have never heard a bad word about them. you can do a lot with 400 watt seconds. That should match the sun up to about 10 feet.</p>