kim_ramsey

Hi, there used several techniques to acheive this photo...

 

1)they duplicated the photo. so that they had 2 copies of the same photo.

2)converted one photo to sepia

3)placed the sepia copy as a new layer on top of the color copy

4)adjusted the top layer to acheive the colors.

5)merged both layers

6)duplicated layer again and added a gaussin blurr of about 25-30% to top layer

7)adjusted layer so that everything looked smooth

8)on top layer erased eye area, lip area, hair and clothes. So that it looks as though the skin is nice and shiney and smooth

9)merged layers again

10)duplicated layers once more

11)added another gaussin blur of about 25-30%

12)adjusted layer to give it a 'soft focus' look

At this point they may have worked with contrast. It will depend on your photo...

 

 

Hope that helps-Kim :)

photos with "emotions, histories, quandries, sorrows" are not what pageant judges are looking for. If I have learned anything in the last week. It is that I do not need to worry about the opinions on this board. As they will not agree with the opinions of the judges that I create these photos for. My daughter won over all photogenic with another photo, and over all portfolio from the strawberry shortcake photo out of 30 kids. To the poster above. Thank you so much for stating that my daughters posing is trashy. However, she's a doll and the pic above has been well received. I also booked 4 shoots this weekend with that photo! :)

Thank you all for your input. The reason for the special effects is that it is a pageant portfolio shot of my daughter. This type of special effect is pretty popular right now. You have the large version and then a smaller version somewhere in the photo. I agree that for normal photography my lighting is flat. However, for pageant photography it must be very even with no shadows. I worked a while trying to get it just right. I've got down now where my photos are evenly lit with 3 catch lights in the eyes. The photos I have on this site are old. My lighting is a bit different now. I'll be using this photo at a pageant this weekend. I will let ya'll know how it does. -Kim :)

I posted it for critiques and got some really low ratings but no one

has commented. Can someone tell me exactly what is wrong with it?

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

topic_id=1481&msg_id=00FkFe&photo_id=4250495&photo_sel_index=0

one more thing...I have found that this technique is actually much quicker than the blur technique. because when you use ur clone brush u only have to touch the areas that you feel need touched. where as when u use the blur you have to duplicate layers, add the blur to the entire layer and then erase the areas that you don't want blurred, adjust ur layers, blah blah blah. another thing that blur does is it removes features like the contrast around the nose and eyes. this is a much simpler way to go about it with a more realistic effect. when you use the brush you click the area you want to clone, and then tap over the same area until you get the texture that you want. if doing a light retouch like the poster above did then it may only take 2 minutes. this is the same technique that is used in major glamour magazines where u see pictures of stars such as brittany spears with perfect skin.

Beau, that retouch was done by another retoucher. Not by me. But, wanted to see what another retoucher could do with my own photography. I have since started retouching my own photography again, because I like mine a bit better. I retouch for a living. I'd say it takes me about 30 minutes to do a skin retouch. I'm attaching a sample. Now, you must remember that this is a pageant photo and we have gone through that subject on here before. but it gives a basic idea of the technique I use. Which is the clone tool set at 10% opacity and 10% step. The great thing about it is that you can add as much or as little as you want/need. In this case I added more than the normal picture would require. Pageant photos require more retouching than an average photo. I've attached a before and after of the original and retouched version. along with a close up of the skin.<div></div>

oops i meant to say Beau...i'm not trying to insult you.

guassin blur isn't a good technique as it leaves the skin shiney and blurred. Most professional retouchers do not use the blur technique. Not trying to insult you Justin. Because, it is a popular technique. And one that I used for a year or so before I finally figured out how to do it correctly.

Here is an excellent tutorial for skin retouching...

 

http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/beauty_retouching.html

Cindy, thank you for that link. It helped answer a few of my questions. And also made me feel less of a cheat for my post processing lol :)

 

Jochen-I'm going to try shooting RAW tonight. Wish me luck! :)

1) Where is a good place to find models?-give your card out to every girl you meet and offer tcp/tfcd's. I have alot of luck with sites like myspace.com, modelmayhem.com, and onemodelplace.com

 

 

2) How much should I typically pay the model for a shoot? How much time do I get? offer tfp or tfcd's (trade their time for your photos or cd). I shoot until we're both tired.

 

 

3) Who do you sell your images to? Stock? How do you make money? I made money from my models. I don't give them the photos in full resolution and I don't retouch them. So, they purchase prints and retouches from me. Which usually ends up being around $300-$400

 

I'm new at this been doing it less than a year. so, I don't know about selling images.

what about the dof blur? will that lens also help with that?

 

When I get ready to print my photos I do a color correction, contrast correction, saturation, and clarify them.

 

But, this is a completely raw image. I haven't done a thing to it. I got interested in photography when I started retouching photos. So, when I started learning to take photos, I wanted to perfect the picture taking process without having to retouch them at all. I thought thats what real photographers did...took awesome pictures with no retouching. am i wrong? I want to be able to shoot a picture and burn it to cd, and hand it to the my client with having to fix anything. Is that not possible?

 

As for shadowing...I know nothing is wrong with shadows as long as they are placed properly to enhance the photo. However, I'm working on pageant photography and the retouchers all want even lighting with absolutely no shadows whatsoever. They have a different idea of what a good photo is and what isn't. too much contrast isn't good but they still want the eyes to be sharp.

 

So, basically I'm trying to learn to do it their way. completely even lighting, no shadows, and sharp eyes. But, I'm finding out that my photos are flat...which I don't like. the retouchers don't notice that they are flat. I guess that is because they remove any all shadows and traces of features?

Mark, one more thing about color.

 

i'm pouting now btw lol. This is very frustrating for me! well, actually a few more questions...

 

1)color--it looks good in my camera. the histogram was reading pretty even. Are you saying that a lens is going to help with color too??

 

2)the gray space on my photos...I was wondering about that the other day. I noticed that other headshots don't have as much space as mine do. They seem to fill the entire frame. Where as when i shoot mine, if I fill the entire frame with my subject, I have to cut off parts like clothing.

 

now i see the magenta in my photos...aw shoot. I don't know what to do as far as the color balance goes. if i try to manually set it goes crazy. this was shot on automatic and it's not correct. how frustrating is this?

yes, thank you Mark. Funny you should mention callibrating my monitor. When it was mentioned above that there was red in the photo, I could not see it. and i never do notice it! so, i thought I should try to callibrate my monitor. that's what I did. And I'm not sure it was done correctly! lol. My screen seems awfully dark to me right now lol

Thank you Mike. Yes, I read that on another thread and talked to my local camera shop about it. There seem to be some differing opinions in this area. The cheapest lens the camera shop could come up with is $1000. However, I have found on ebay that you can pick an off brand such as tamron or vivitar and the price ranges from $150-$400. Which brings another question to mind---Will a lens make any difference with the dof? My camera or lens whichever it is will not blur my backgrounds.

 

Alexander: are you talking about the output on my lights? They aren't adjustable. I have to move them forward or backwards to adjust my lighting. I'm looking into getting a better set now. I started out with these just to get used to shooting indoors with lights.

Cindy: no I'm not using a light meter. thank you for the link. I've never considered shooting in RAW because I was told that images are harder to photoshop? Also, I'm working with a retoucher for my pageant photos now, and she says that she doesn't know how to work with that format?

 

Mike: I'm using the lens that came with the camera 18-55mm. I also have the lens from my film rebel 2000 which is 28-80. I think I read somewhere that the lenses from the film cameras are actually a bit larger? However, I'm not sure how to calculate that.

thank you Elaine. Yea, I know I can fix the contrast in photo shop. But, I really wanting to get the contrast fixed with my camera so that I don't have to add it in photo shop. I want a perfect photo straight from the camera lol

I totally agree with you Elaine. This is my step daughter. I'm lucky if I get her to pose for me at all lol. She's a hard one. You move her head, she moves her shoulders, you move her shoulders, she moves her arms lol. I'm not happy with the placement of her fingers in this photo. but, I just have to live with it! hehe :))

Recently, I've overlooked my creative side have been trying to focus

on the more technical issues of photography. I believe my main

issues are color, clarity, and contrast...hummm, that would be just

about everything lol. For the most part, I think I've got my color

right where it is supposed to be. My lighting is looking much

better. but, still I can't seem to get that crisp contrast that i

see in so many other photos. I'm shooting digitally with the cannon

rebel 300d, 2 unadjustable strobe lights with 1 silver, and 1

translucent umbrella. No backlights. My light set up is: silver

umbrella placed approx. 3 feet from subject directly in front of

them, light shot through translucent umbrella set directly to the

subjects right side approx. 2 feet from subject and 1 foot above

shining down from the right side so that I don't get a shadow on my

subject. I'm trying to acheive very even lighting with no shadows

what so ever. I've pretty much done that here but lost my catch

lights in the process. Any suggestions?

Thomas-that's a fun post. but, i can honestly say that I didn't gain or lose a thing by reading it. So, what was the point?

well, I think he cleared it up. We can post a photo for critique as long as we place w/nw in the subject line. So, it's not the posting of photos for critique that's not allowed in this forum. It's our use of the word 'critique'. That makes all difference! BTW, I find the critique forum to be of little to no help. I have posted 2 photos in the last week and neither of them have any comments and only 5 ratings each.

now, i'm confused. what exactly can we use this forum for???

adorable subject, nice lighting, great contrast...A+

This is really bothering me about these photos. One of the moms fingernails are really dirty. Not sure if I'm the only one that noticed this is not? You can add a french manicure to cover it.

I posted critiques in this forum because I seen others post critiques and no one ever asked them not to. I haven't posted any since I was told that I wasn't supposed to. One could say that started a thread just to air a rant is another way of getting attention for your photos. How else can a beginner learn if they don't post their photos?

 

Elaine-I actually found your photo in the critique forum and commented from there. What a cute photo you just posted! I love the bears.

I'm not sure why you'd want to go the 'studio' way. Why not go into the street and shoot candidly?

 

"Also I want to do some of them being cheerful if at all possible"

 

I'm not sure there is anything cheerful about being homeless.