kim_ramsey

You could be right Will. Honestly, I don't know. I'm just as new to photography as you are. I've been retouching for a little longer. Still, I'm wondering why the photo seems sharper on some areas of the and not on others. Such as the eyes look a bit more crisp...not much, but just a tad more crisp than the rest of her features. Such as around her nostrils and lip line. They are completely smeared of definition. I'm shocked. If this was indeed a non photoshopped image. But, as mentioned I'm very new to photography. I don't think that I would want to acheive this look. but, it is interesting none the less.

"I prefer to use Photoshop as little as possible, because I think an image looks natural, the more you get right in the original shot, this shot of Dayna is pretty much what I shot, BTW she loves/wears contacts if you're wondering about the eyes."

 

Seriously? This is the original? At first glance, I thought that it was highly photoshopped with a glaussin blur. Especially around the nose and lips. It looks as though a heavy blur was added over the photo. Did you use vaseline on the lens or something? The eyes look like they had a lighten tool swiped across them. How did you acheive this look?

very interesting. So, you're saying the clarity and contrast have alot to do with the lens? I've been trying and trying to get my photos sharper with little success. Perhaps, I could use a better lens. very good input nathan.

holds=How old

I had to comment. As I was sitting here reading this thread and admiring the shot that Kim Long posted, my 9 yo daughter comes up behind me and says 'kids should not be posed without a shirt, hold is that little girl? Is that her mom's NAKED tummy?" lol. This comes from a child that has a mother that loves shooting nudes hehe.

 

On topic, I would be curious to see if that same photo studio that turned this mother away, also turns away the young adult and teen girls that wear the hip huggers and belly shirts?

The best way in my opinion is to use a background and lights ;) However, you can look into chromakey if you must. Now, I don't use chromakey because when I do my own photography I don't feel the need to spruce it up with alot of editing. The thrill for me comes from getting it right without editing. When I do retouching for others they are usually from snapshots that I turn into pageant glitz photos. The backgrounds are usually of a wall or whatever and have to be put onto a new background. I can't tell you how they do this in photo shop because I like to do things the hard way lol. So, I use paint shop pro 7. I can do everything that others can do in photoshop. However, it just takes longer and has to be more thought through. What photoshop will do at a push of a button, psp7 will not. It usually takes more steps. I'll tell you how I do it in psp7 and you'll have to figure out how to use it in photoshop.

 

I extract the image from its original background by using my eraser tool. You have to scale the image up until you can see your pixels. You don't want to cut off a single peice of your subject. Then I add them to their new background. I then use my soften tool to blend the 2 images together. Sometimes, I use my dodge tool right behind the subject to separate the subject from the background. That's it. It takes practice. You have to be careful not to make it look choppy or rigid. I have some old photos that I can show you, I'm attaching them. I can't show you any recent because the photos are still in use. These are so old that they're not in use anymore.

Rajesh,

I'm not quite sure what you find so attractive about the style. Coming from a professional retouchers point of view, the editing looks somewhat elemtary/beginner level. That's how I feel about the first photo you showed me and it's how I feel about your photo. The technique you are trying to acheive will always look like that. Your photo on it's own looks quite appealing. Although, I can't be certain because it is edited in such a manner. What these photos look like is a cheesy attempt to change the background of a portrait to hide an unattractive background. Backgrounds can be changed and look very realistic. However, this style just isn't getting in for me. In my opinion, you should search for a technique that is less obvious. This is just my 2 cents. take it or leave it.

It looks to me as if the portrait was first colorized or given a sepia effect. Then with low transparency simply painted over. The effects were the product of retouching. I've done something close to what you are wanting. I'm sorry, I didn't have much time. This took all of 2 minutes to open up, add sepia, then colorize, and then paint with low transparent paintbrush in black. coming up with the exact color would be just a matter of working with your colors when colorizing. come to think of it, even manual color correction would do it quickly. I didn't take this snapshot. but, it was convenient for me to grab and edit.

you could also tell Dad that 'some people don't like to see themselves or their children in photos because pictures always tell the truth'...hehe ok i'll stop now

I don't see a dark shadow. And I'm very paticular about shadows...hate them. I think the baby looks cute. the eyes are nice and bright...thats important to me too. Sounds like Dad was just trying to be ugly. don't take free pictures of their kid anymore. lol

Thanks for your input. I was able to figure it out! I had it set incorrectly. I switched it to automatic color balance so I don't have to deal with it anymore lol :)

I know the lighting was too bright on this picture. but, aside from

that, even when my lighting is good my pictures still have a pink

hue to them. I'm using the cannon rebel digital. Does anyone know

how to prevent this from occuring. During the shoot the pictures

look fine on the view finder. But, when I upload them I get pink

photos! grrr....

so how you keeping the light from hitting the background? Is it just far enough away that it won't hit it or are you aiming the light from above the subject onto her?

I am a fan of nudes also. However, I do find it very offensive to see a child over the age of 2 years nude. I don't know how the law reads on this subject. But, I would just about bet that any type of nudity of school age children would be considered child pornography. I don't doubt the intentions of you or your father. However, I do feel that in this day and age there is a fine line between pornography and nude art. And anything that involves children after the age of about 2 or 3 years would fall into pornography.

I think the traditional indian attire would be awesome. You can take 'parts' photos of her bare tummy with her hubby leaning his head on it. There are several shots you can do. Do a search on yahoo or google for photography+maternity. Also, a white nightgown would be good for a nice soft look. You need to push to get hubby involved.

very nice. I think I would have liked to see more light in moms eyes.

they're photoshopped. the same image was taken then turned sepia and added to the original color image and the sepia was lightly blended into the color. very slight hint of sepia conbined with color to give a very subtle color change.

I'm sure this was hard for you. I hate when pics that I am so proud of aren't as great as I thought. But, this is how you learn. You've got a very beautiful subject. I agree with most of the above posts minus some of the shrewd remarks. haha. Get rid of the sepia or tone it down just a bit...well, maybe more than a bit. One of my pet peeves is harsh splotches of sun light. Which is present in this picture especially on her arms and in the background and on her boob lol (milk stain?). Hands are very important in the type of shot you were trying to get. Try to keep them posed gracefully. They look somewhat ackward in this portrait. Bad cropping...it's strange where you chose to crop it off at the bottom of her waist. It makes her look very wide. This model is a bit over weight and her dress was too small. It's your job to take all of her flaws and hide them. Because her dress didn't fit her correctly her armpit areas kind of bulge and dangle. The photo is missing the pretty curves that every model deserves. Her eyes are nice and bright...I like that.

 

Try to find areas with more shade, watch your backgrouds, try positioning her arms flowing gracefully toward the back of her. zoom and crop better. do your photo shoots after 5pm in the outdoors or on overcast days. invest in reflectors.

anyways, back to the original question. First (as mentioned above) you need to find out what kind of modeling she does. commercial print is going to be different than fashion or glamour. The main thing to remember is that the portfolio is to market the model. It should contain a variety of headshots, 3/4 and full body shots. Also, it should contain a good variety of (at least 3)looks. You'll need to find out if she is going to bring her own make up artist or if you'll need to supply one. Que in on her best features and make sure to create those stunning catch lights in her eyes...especially in her headshots. One thing that is important with modeling portfolio's is that you make sure that the model looks her age. If she's 12 don't do 20 year old shots with her. If she's 20 don't make her look 12. hth-Kim