How do I create smooth-looking photos?

[franklin_t]

<p>No matter how hard I try, the photos straight from my camera can never be smooth and clean like this:<br>

http://www.pbase.com/dlgphoto/image/109721171<br>

(notice how clean the girl's face and the dog's fur are.)<br>

So I suspect I must do a post-processing......with Photoshop may be. Anyone can share some practical tips?<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>It will be easier to help if you tell us more about what you're doing right now. Are you creating JPGs right from the camera, or shooting RAW? What software are you using to handle the images?<br /><br />What <em>camera</em> are you using? How are you lighting your subjects?<br /><br />Scale down an example shot, say to 700 pixels wide, and post it here so that we can see what sort of trouble you're having. <br /><br />The very average-looking shot that you linked to simply looks like it's properly exposed (fairly boring light, but there's enough <em>of</em> the light) and properly focused. That's far more important than what you do after the fact. So... more information, and ideally and example to show us what you're getting now, and you'll get some more specific guidance.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Franklin,<br>

it's a few different things from my experience. One huge issue I find is - ISO setting. Another is exposure. Then we have the issue of pixel density and then the final one - -<br>

Post Processing -<br>

that's the huge one. Post processing in the form of Noise Reduction - there's a lot of different ways to do it.<br>

Many do it with add ons to Photoshop, but smoothness can also be achieved through NX or NX2.<br>

So part of my question would have to be - - which software program do you use?<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>2 Cents worth. Post processing will help but you have to have the proper lighting to begin with. Are you using any sofbox? May help if you read a book about portrait lighting.</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>A good camera, no point and shoots, low ISO, good lenses, and you will not need noise reduction software.</p>

<p>A Canon D40 or newer, Nikon D80 or newer. Full frame if you can pay the price in $ , size, and weight. I am sure Pentax and Sony also make similar cameras in that price range. Essentially it comes down to sensor size, the bigger the better.</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>Going back and reading the other answers, I have to second Tommy Lee for good lighting. I always remind people that photography is all about light, direction and quality, once you have a certain minimum level of camera.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The only secret to that specific photo the OP linked to is great skin and cosmetics. That's it. I'm not seeing any obvious indication that digital editing is a significant factor. If any was done the photographer had the good sense to avoid overdoing it.</p>

<p>The photo is just competent, nothing special in the lighting. You could do the same with a single off-camera flash, possibly even with a bracket. But you wouldn't get the same results unless the model had very good skin and skillful application of makeup.</p>

<p>A lot of photographers overlook the basics, especially with portraiture. It's not magic, just good raw material (the models' skin), skillful application of cosmetics and decent lighting. And of the three, a top notch makeup artist and very careful lighting can compensate for flawed skin. Hollywood has been doing it for decades without resorting to gimmicks, including soft focus lenses.</p>

[franklin_t]

<p>Hi guys,<br /> Thanks for the insights...!!<br /> Hmmm I didn't realise that since the girl and the dog are in a studio, it's easier to create more proper lighting, because then the photographer can use softboxes and all the nice studio goodies....<br /> But what about when the photos are outdoor, when it's not practical to carry studio equipments? Probably the photographer only has some speedlights at best....<br /> For instance, these amazing outdoor photos are very smooth, crisp, clean looking as well:<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/smithography/sets/72157605486940282/<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcheong/sets/72157603917219822/<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/burnblue/sets/1588427/</p>

<p>As for myself...I use a D40, 18-55mm, jpeg, and sometimes ambient light, with occassional SB-800. Below are some photos that I took, which are not as crisp or smooth looking as the examples above:<br /> <img src="http://www.webjunction.info/DSC_0313.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <img src="http://www.webjunction.info/DSC_0047.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Just to be sure, none of the comments are meant personal, just try to point out some of the problems as I see them in the pictures you posted versus the look you seek.</p>

<p>For your first picture, I think the key is light. There is too much of it. And a lot of flare (lower left corner) which kill the contrast. Looks like you're almost shooting into the sun - that will never yield good exposures unless you go for complete sillhouettes. <br>

The second one looks slightly out of focus in the left corner. Maybe stopped down a bit further it may have looked sharper. Anyway, for some reason, I find the first tree on the left distracting, and that affects the "perception" of how sharp the image is. The rest of the image is sharp, and with a bit more contrast you could come close to the look you indicate you want.</p>

<p>The pictures you link to look all like taken from tripods; the second set looks a tad like HDR too (or exposure bracketed shots). More important (to me), these pictures are not really comparable to your examples. Content, location, light, it's just a lot different. This makes it hard to make a decent comparison, I think, it's a bit apples and oranges.<br>

In most of these pictures, you get a smooth look probably because the exposures were quite long (guessing, around 1/2 a second up to several seconds). Any movement during the exposure becomes a blur, giving a dreamy look when done well. Not all subjects are suitable for it.</p>

<p>Note, in my view post processing should not always be necessary, but with shooting RAW you at least give yourself some comfort-zone to get some settings wrong "in the field". Getting exposure right can be tough enough. And going from RAW to JPEG with the right camera settings in Nikon software is easier than easy. So, in my view, little excuses to stick to JPEG.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Hi Franklin,</p>

<p>I looked at the photos at some of the links that you provided. Almost every one of those photos was taken at dusk or at night. Your photos were taken in the middle of the day, so the light is completely different. If you want to take photos that look like the Dubai set or the BURNBLUE SET, you have to get yourself a good tripod and start taking photos at dusk or at night. (Note that BURNBLUE says that most of his exposures were about 3 minutes long!) That's the FIRST STEP - SHOOT IN THE RIGHT LIGHT.</p>

<p>When shooting at dusk, try different settings to see what happens, but you might get the best results by setting your White Balance to Daylight (Direct Sunlight) or Cloudy. These seem to work better than Auto for dusk shots.</p>

<p>I would encourage you to try to shoot in as many different lighting situations as possible. Different times of day, different kinds of weather, different times of the year, with and without artificial light sources. Review all of your shots and pick out the ones that you like the most. Note the lighting conditions used for these images and make those your target lighting conditions for future shooting. Don't waste time or energy in light that doesn't do what you want it to do. You can take great pictures in bright sunshine, but they'll never look like night shots. Light is the biggest factor in determining how your photos will look.</p>

 

[john_liberty]

<p>Of the two photos you posted, the first was obviously ruined by lens flare. The second one looks pretty good. If you have Photoshop, just do an Auto Levels, correct the colors in Hue/Saturation, add some contrast, go to Levels and make a few adjustments, then Curves, and then Sharpen it up some. Sounds like a lot to do but it's usually the bare minimum you need to do w/ a digital image, and once you get the hang of it you can do it all in about a minute or much less. Then save it under a different file name and compare the edited version w/ your original. You should see a big difference, but if your lighting is not right in the beginning it will be difficult to fix that in post editing.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>You're right--the photos you took were unsharp. Step one is to learn to hold the camera steady. There's a technique for it, and to begin with I'd suggest shooting with either a tripod or with the camera braced on an immovable object. Step two is to use an adequate shutter speed, usually the reciprocal of your lens length or faster. Step three is to use even lighting, preferably at a slight raking angle that emphasizes texture in your subject. Step four is checking your equipment by trying the exact same shot with a known-good camera. John is correct that a multitude of sins can be corrected in post-processing, though they are better not committed at all. I did a Simonize job on your submissions, just to give you an idea of what's possible.</p><div></div>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Your flared picture was way out of range--here it's still unsharp, but it looks better simply because your values are now in the ballpark. Your snapshot of trees and buildings is also unsharp, but by separating the tonal values slightly and adding local contrast, the detail that was there is now sticking out like a sore thumb.</p><div></div>

[phule]

<p>[[Of the two photos you posted, the first was obviously ruined by lens flare]]</p>

<p>The shadows say otherwise. These are spots of water following a storm. Either on the lens or on the window in the building the OP was shooting from.</p>

 

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>photoshopping aside, i think franklin that you probably just need to return or begin studying your basic photography. use a reasonable quality dslr with a prime lens and a hood with no filters. set everything to manual and revisit or begin learning to understand the relationship between all your controls. you don't seem to be grasping the basic necessities so i think lighting is well too far ahead for you at this point. you should be understanding that the question you asked with the information provided was extremely vague. clear photos require a good quality lens whose performance is not hindered by flaring, cheap filters. use manual focus so you're actually thinking about what you're focusing on and use manual aperture and bracket your shots so you can see which fstops perform the highest. this is much easier when using a prime than a zoom. learn to use the proper white balance and your various colour settings to work with the particular scene. put the flash away for a while. </p>

<p>and btw, don't ever photograph people standing right up against a wall. the flash created a harsh shadow on it and the wall is pretty well in focus so the image looks very flat. </p>

[KenPapai]

<p>"Johnny" -- if you used a real name, had a portfolio, type correctly (punctuation, spacing, capital letters, and the like) and/or a Website of your own, maybe you'd be worth responding to. You have <strong>nothing</strong> on photo.net yet, but act like a know-it-all. </p>

<p>I think you do know, but then, who knows?</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>"ken"--sorry i haven't been inclined to write up a profile here yet and that that seems to be a problem for you. feel free to google me if you're desperately curious.</p>

<p>i am also sorry that you don't approve of my typing. i didn't know i was writing my dissertation.</p>

<p>it's ironic that you call me out for acting like a know it all since you seem to be acting like one about my typing. what's even more ironic is that you say i'm not worth responding to yet you've gone out of your way to avoid making any useful commentary on the substance of my words and still acknowledge (aka 'respond' to) me.</p>

<p>what in particular did you find objectionable about my advice? your portfolio and unfriendly nature don't seem to be helping Franklin improve his photography very much.</p>

[franklin_t]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

Thanks for the response. Wow...everyone seems to be a big-time expert here....your skills put mine to shame =).<br>

Rob Bernhard is right....those shadows aren't lens flares....those are water spots on the window actually. The rain had just stopped at that moment.....<br>

The shot was taken handheld.....I don't remember what focal length it was, but it was close to 18mm, so I didn't think using a tripod was necessary......well, at least less necessary than if I were using 55mm, for example.<br>

I'm at work now, but later I'll try to post some more photos, so may be I can learn more about the sins I committed :)</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Franklin, I think it will help if we place the individuals against a clean and uncluttered background, or at least a pleasing background. Hopefully the light is soft, so that it doesn't generate a lot of shadows. Use a fill flash to light up and soften the shadows. I am no expert on people photography; I am trying - 'cuz people see a bigger camera and expect you to know something ;). Anyhow, last weekend I attended an outdoor wedding held in an oceanfront locale. It was extremely foggy. I had my Nikon D300 with the 24-70mm lens and took a few shots of the B&G sitting on the rock. Next thing you know a few of the B&G's relatives asked to take pictures of them. I had them stand where the background was foggy but clear. Considering the ISO was set at 800 (not the finest grain - I would would have tweaked it down if I knew), I think the results were not bad.</p>

<p>The second item I think helpful is a noise reduction software, such as Imagenomic's "Noiseware". I bought it to reduce graininess on landscape photos, and was pleasantly surprised that it does a very good job on skin tone as well. They also make one for portraits and I think it gotta be pretty good.</p>

<p>I am attaching one of the photos mentioned above. I have not post-processed it at all other than some cropping, so you can see how it was like. The clear background, softlight, and fill flash did the job, if any credit.</p>

<p>When I ran it through the default setting of Noiseware (mentioned above) for this test, the skin tone of the Dad does get softer. I will attach this shot next.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Attaching first original shot.</p><div></div>

[Mary Doo]

<p>This shot ran through the Noiseware program on average derfault setting. Does the skin tone of the Dad look better? </p><div></div>