First portraits of my son... - DPChallenge Forums

02/17/2007 05:53:49 PM · #1

Playing around with the new flash this afternoon.

Shot in raw with simgma 500 super bounce flash with white card reflector, 50mm/f1.4 lens, tripod, shutter release, some window light.

Took many and ended up with a few I like.

Would love some input on these two.
What kind of advice can the portrait pros give me?

Is $5.00/hr to much to pay my own son to model, lol... :)

Looking forward to all and any input, good and bad.

I think these will be my first couple 8x10's I am going to have printed of my son.

Edited to add: yeah I know he needs a hair cut and his face cleaned. :)

Message edited by author 2007-02-17 17:55:10.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

02/17/2007 06:51:45 PM · #2

Decided I like this one better with his arm cropped out.

muckpond

Nikon D200

02/17/2007 06:58:08 PM · #3

the shots are crisp, so that's good. my only comment is that you might want to think about a different angle. right now he looks like he's all hair.

the blue background shot also needs some more lighting on the top or the side. the hair is too uniformly flatly lit. the lighting in the 2nd shot is much better.

i think $5 is pretty cheap. :)

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

02/17/2007 07:06:05 PM · #4

Unless you're going for the high-key (sorta) on purpose, these seem to lack contrast. If they look fine on your monitor, it may just be my non-calibrated crap here at work. ;)

Greetmir

Nikon D60

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

02/17/2007 08:15:43 PM · #5

I REALLY like the pose in this one a lot ... but agree that it could use a little more contrast and/or hilights for snap.

02/17/2007 08:48:46 PM · #6

Thanks a million for the replies.
I took it again in raw and added some highlight and a little contrast.
I have no idea what to go by, so I just stopped when I thought it looked better.

To much, to little?
Any better?

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

02/17/2007 08:52:54 PM · #7

Hmm, in looking at the two side by side it seems the one I adjusted the highlight and contrast on has lost some detail on the face.

Why did that happen?

Edited to add, it seems that it's only in the jpg as when I go back to the RAW file I can still see all the detail even if I increase the highlights and contrast more.

The full size jpg on each photo seem to have the detail yet, must be when it gets resized for dpc?

Message edited by author 2007-02-17 20:57:09.

Greetmir

Nikon D60

02/17/2007 10:16:09 PM · #8

If you are using USM you should always do it as the LAST thing you do ... even after resizing for DPC. Are you doing that?

Here ... I took the liberty to try something ...

All I did was load up your original posted shot into PS and hit Auto Levels, Auto Contrast, and Auto Color.

Look at the difference. I would use this as a starting point for further tweaking ... for example a bit more brightness.

Message edited by author 2007-02-17 22:31:54.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/17/2007 10:28:22 PM · #9

Originally posted by Greetmir:

If you are using USM you should always do it as the LAST thing you do ... even after resizing for DPC. Are you doing that?

I never follow this rule. :P I hate rules. Actually the best thing to do is smart sharpen whenver you darn well please, then do a minimal amount of USM after resizing for web (as in 1px, 25%, 0 threshold).

John, you lost detail while you were processing raw because you effectively overexposed the highlighted areas at the end of his nose and on his arm with whatever adjustments you made. It doesn't look bad; personally, I also hate the "your highlights are blown so your picture is lousy" rule. Your second attempt looks punchier and better exposed, and slightly more saturated. I think the light in the photo is generally good, evenly lighting him without too much variegation on his face, which is probably best for a young subject like this.

02/17/2007 10:48:12 PM · #10

ok, I let dpc resize the photo as I just uploaded the jpg file I had after converting it from raw.

I am working with paint shop pro XI, what is USM?

Gave it another try.

//pahl.smugmug.com/gallery/2482374#130301025-L-LB

If you click the different sizes on top to see the original.

Hope I am on the right track now.

fotomann_forever

02/17/2007 10:54:52 PM · #11

Quick shot at it.

I used nlk Color FX Pro Pro Contrast filter, but the same can be done with curves.

Also added a bit of Gaussian blur, faded the blur and then smart sharpened it.

fotomann_forever

02/17/2007 10:55:22 PM · #12

Originally posted by John Pahl:

I am working with paint shop pro XI, what is USM?

Unsharp Mask.

02/17/2007 11:03:18 PM · #13

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by John Pahl:

I am working with paint shop pro XI, what is USM?

Unsharp Mask.

Duh, I should have known that, lol..

What I did was whiten the eyes a bit, then sharpen just the eyes. Then sharpen the whole image.

Did all the sharpening last.

fotomann_forever

02/17/2007 11:07:00 PM · #14

The sharpness on the image at smugmug looks good to me. I think you need to get more aggressive with the curves though.

02/17/2007 11:18:25 PM · #15

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

The sharpness on the image at smugmug looks good to me. I think you need to get more aggressive with the curves though.

Ok, the last one I really seem to have lost detail in the eyelashes.

One more try for the night.

Looking at the original on this one I am happy with it or at least feel it looks much better then my other tries. I did not sharpen just the eyes on this last one, but think they look the best of any of them.

Photo

Thanks again for all the help.
It's funny how I can think something looks so great until things get pointed out to me. :)