How do you make portraits 'pop' in photoshop elements?

[maylis_curie]

<p>Hi,<br>

I am seriously trying my hand at portraiture, and would be very grateful for a few tips. I can take very acceptable portraits (I own a Canon 5D Mk2), but they lack that little 'ooomph' that would make them even better. I am talking something like on this photo website: http://studiobloomphoto.com/index2.php . How can you get the colors to 'pop' like this, if you see what I mean? My pictures just seem rather flat compared to these...<br>

Any Photoshop tips? How do you make portraits this good?</p>

<p>Many thanks!</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Please post an example of your work so we can see the problem.</p>

[maylis_curie]

<p>Sure! Here's one.</p><div></div>

[tonybynum]

it's all about lighting and where you direct the viewers eyes . . . there is nothing extra special done in

photoshop with any of those images. get online and do some searches on post processing portraits. . . it's

basic eye work, and lighting, with some color . . . go to youtube and you can watch all kinds of tutorials

about how to processes faces . . . it's about the eyes, the lips and the lighting . . .

 

BTW, i would NEVER hire a person who puts that kind of music on their site, it's awful and if they are

reading this, ditch the music, youre scarring off potential clients . . .

[maylis_curie]

<p>Thanks Tony, I will definitely look on YouTube. I too thought the music was odd! I was strongly advised against having any kind of music on my own site, and I'm glad I didn't!</p>

[john tonai]

<p>You have some nice catchlights in her eyes, but the white balance is off and it is too dark. Both could be set up in the camera instead of relying on post-processing, but it can be done pretty easily.</p>

<p>BTW, Tony, not everyone is you. Some people like the comfort of the music. They are just scaring off potential clients like you (not that you would be their client anyway).</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>First of all, the best thing about the page you linked to was a sense of composition in the pictures.<br>

Your own image looked like it was already "popped" a little. To each their own, however, but I prefer something less "zippy" myself. However, somebody must want those rosy cheeks and plastic skin that result from some of the packages sold for portrait "zipping" and retouching. Remember, "Less is more"-- that which does not follow that dictum is doomed to look dated in a few years or perhaps even months.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what the fuss about the music on the website linked to, just another wispy-voiced singer, like an imitation of some iPod commercials. Maybe there's different music at different times.<br>

I personally may put in music from Ride of Valkyries on my portfolio page?That would certainly pop and I would be in big with the Aryan Nation crowd, too.</p>

 

[maylis_curie]

<p>Many thanks John. I love what you did, it's very much what I'm after and I'm reassured that it looks pretty easy to do! I just need to find the warming tool. My white balance is always on auto, I'm guessing I should probably adjust it to the conditions every time?</p>

<p>JDM- Yes, I very much agree about the composition and poses in the website I linked.My image wasn't popped by the way, just out of my 5D with no retouching. I understandyour point about 'less is more', but wondering if 'more is more' may indeed help sell this kind of image?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, as I said, somebody must like this stuff. You might want to offer potential clients some options on how "zippy" they want; but, then again, maybe that would just be confusing.</p>

<p>Do what the market wants, or you won't have a market at all is maybe even more basic than "less is more". :)</p>

[maylis_curie]

<p>John, I'm trying to replicate what you did to my picture, but can't it get exactly right. Can you go into details please?</p>

[papasan]

<p>Maylis</p>

<p>here is another alternative. You said in your original post that you wanted the portrait to pop more so i took a different approach to John, although I agree with him that the white balance is off in your original shot. If you took this shot in RAW you can adjust the WB quite easily in ACR before you open it in PSE. I worked on the photo in CS4 (I dont have PSE) but i believe everything i did is possible in PSE. First i made the eyes a bit lighter, then i added a level and curve layer to correct the exposure and the white balance (not perfect but this was a quick job to show you). I also did a bit of clean up on her skin to remove some small blemishes. Then sharpened the eyes and the lips, and added a bit of vignette to bring the focus on the face. I also thought that a tighter crop would enhance the photo. this is not better than your version or John`s just a different take on it. Your original shot is quite nice you have an adorable subject to work with so keep shooting she will grow so fast. Cheers - michel</p>

[papasan]

<p>I`m not sure why my photo did not download, i will try again. </p><div></div>

[RaymondC]

<p>I think, it's lighting, think studio lighting setup or at least diffusers and multiple wireless flash. If not maybe diffused lighting outside with the clouds and trees .... I am only a casual hobbyist but what I want from the photo is maybe less shadows, if I wanted shadows I prefer a black and white photo that is very starky ...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>With all respect, Michael, that "pops" to the extent of looking like the kid has rosacea on my monitor anyhow. And what about the white goggle around the right eye?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If I'm going to criticize others, it's only right that I make my own stab at it.</p>

<p>What I have done here is to open in ACR, set the temperature a little higher, pulled the exposure down a little, upped the shadow detail a smidgeon, and slightly desaturated to avoid the ruby cheeks.</p>

<p>Now you all can tell me how blah this is.... :)</p><div></div>

[wogears]

<p>Here's my edit. Ya gotta get the Levels and White Balance right first off. Then I smoothed out the skin and added some saturation and contrast.</p><div></div>

[papasan]

<p>" <em>"that "pops" to the extent of looking like the kid has rosacea on my monitor anyhow. And what about the white goggle around the right eye?</em>"<br /> Actually JDM, the original was much more red which i admitted i didn't completely correct. The white goggle was there as well, this is from the shoot not from post-processing, and i didn't attempt to correct this either. This was a 5 mins quick fix. The OP wanted more pop and that's what i try to do by bringing out the eyes and the colors and adding a bit of contrast. I never claim that my approach is better just my own interpretation. I like Les' take on this though, it's probably the most natural color balance.</p>

[rhettrhatto]

<p>My apologies for the multiple empty post. Had a problem posting the image.<br>

Anyway, here is my take... adjusted clarity, vibrance and blacks on LR.</p>

<div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I can't believe an expensive camera as the Canon 5D Mark II didn't come with instructions for white balancing.</p>

<p>I'ld return it and get my money back.</p>

<p>But really, Maylis, all kidding aside, a few tips on how to make an image "Pop" on one image in a photo forum such as this isn't going to get you very far with other images captured in the future with that glorious camera if you don't have some skin in the game from day one by at least brushing up on photography and post processing basics on your own.</p>

<p>Sorry for being so blunt about this but if you're going to be serious about photography even as a hobbyist and do it with a level of expertise that doesn't frustrate you, you're going to have to at least get to a level that allows you to recognize when an image has white balancing issues and know it can be easily fixed at the time of capture and in post. IOW get to know your camera a little bit more and ask your basic photography questions in the Photo.net "Beginner's Forum". </p>

<p>Besides how will you know what to fix on the next image that doesn't "Pop"? There are a myriad of things that can screw up an image you're going to have to recognize on your own which will take some training to figure out. And quite a few "keepers" will require software a lot more beefier to fix than Elements. Lightroom is a more economical solution than the full version of Photoshop.</p>

<p>Again, sorry for my being so blunt about this.</p>

[michael_s10]

<p>I'm one of the few that don't get what you mean by "pop" - there are a lot of nice photos on the site that you referred to originally, and I think there's not a single technique used to achieve all those looks.</p>

<p>Could you pick one of the photos that in particular that demonstrates the look you are going for?</p>

<p> </p>

[maylis_curie]

<p>Thank you so much to everyone for their contribution. Michel, I probably liked your image best after the one John produced yesterday (still my favorite I think). Les, I liked what you did too, and I will work on those Photoshop skills!<br>

I have to admit I always leave the white balance on auto, assuming it will sort itself out, but obviously that's not the right thing to do. I need to remember to change it every time depending on the situation.<br>

Tim, thank you for your comments. I do have Lightroom too, but I somehow find the interface very annoying to use. It's meant to be intuitive, but not for me. For some reason I find element a lot easier/logical...</p>

[gertle]

<p>I'm going to side with those that suggest that some changes in technique could help. The reason I say this is that the eyes didn't really seem to be focused as sharp as they could have been. A key feature to certain types of portraiture.</p>

<p>If you zoom in and follow the material of the childs jumper from the beginning of the childs left shoulder and follow in towards the chin you can get a relative idea of the depth of field that was actually available considering your camera/exposure settings at the time of the snap, 105mm lens @f5 from the exif data. The center focus point was selected but indicates the cheek/left side of the childs mouth was the focus point, unless you did a focus and recompose, this could put the eyes outside the area of acceptable focus.</p>

<p>Follow that one step further and you can see that the child teeth were clearly in focus but focus tails off as you recede into the eye socket. A wider aperture would have allowed more of the mask of the face to be in focus. The alternative would be to lock focus on the eyes, the nearest one if they are not in the same plane of focus, and then recompose the image before shooting.</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Maylis's full rez jpeg is a "primo" capture. Going on all the excellent post processing results posted here verifies that.</p>

<p>It's just things weren't done behind and in front of the camera with regards to lighting and WB as others mentioned to deliver what had to be achieved in post. It's a sharp capture, but, from the many "My expensive prime lens isn't sharp" topics posted here, as it always seems to be the case with any camera under this type of light the hit to contrast gives the impression it's flat, dull and out of focus to the point the DOF plane of focus is hard to spot.</p>

<p>Maybe using flash at very low power for fill light and setting WB to Flash incamera would've gotten you closer to the fixes posted here. At least it would've given a better starting point.</p>

[richard_bach]

<p>Most of those mages don't have anything special done in photoshop, its al in the lighting. The lighting in your image is lat and dull, where as the lighting in the images on that site is poppy and warm. Your white balance IS off, but that deosnt account for the flat feeling of the light. its the quality of the light itself. Perhaps you could even shift the white balance a bit on the warm side, as is often pleasing for portraits. But, like anything don't overdo it.</p>

<p>I would be willing to wager most of those shots were made late in the day on a sunny day, which is why you get that nice "poppy" look you're going for (because of the directional shadows vs/ the flat light in your picture that illuminates everything somewhat equally). Als the warmth of the light greatly enhances the pictures on the website. This is not something one can easily do in Photoshop. There is a difference between warming the picture afterwards and warm light.</p>

<p>Aa far as Photoshopping goes just a little curves can go a long way. If you brighten your highlights and darken your shadows a bit then youll be a little closer to that look. To my monitor, the other images look a little flat, as if they brightened everything equally rather than only brighten the highlights which is what you want. Keep the shadows dark, as this will add contrast to your image. Things like sharpening the eyes, smoothing the skin, etc are only the icing on the cake, and will not make a mediocre image into a great one. As always avoid surface blur and most other skin blurring techniques that remove the skin texture. Unless, of course, you want your eople to look plastic.</p>

<p>Have fun and hope this was helpful!</p>

<div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>And here's my shot at it. I was trying to lead viewers' eyes to the face, have the baby's eyes be sharp and contours on the face be better defined, but without enhancing mottling, excessive saturation, contrast, etc. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>