Photoshop Gurus Forum
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Retouch totally with Camera Raw
- Thread starter xversion1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- camera raw retouch xversion1
im no expert but id look at the blown areas and see if you can selectively adjust them, her wrists have detail in the first pic , id copy and mask the blown areas back in at different opacities , the wall has can be done as well and her thighs , nice image though well done
id also clone the area of wall too finish it off neat
the red flower on her shoulder is distracting id move that a little and maybe add a couple more but only a couple
id also clone the area of wall too finish it off neat
the red flower on her shoulder is distracting id move that a little and maybe add a couple more but only a couple
Last edited:
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
My guess is that you correctly wanted to brighten up her face, but in doing so, caused wildly unreal greens and the magenta of her dress. A quick way to warn you if this is happening is to set your softproof mode to CMYK and then turn "gamut warning" on. This is what I show below.
#1 - Out of gamut areas in the OP's tweaked version:
Obviously, if you are going to print on a wide gamut modern printer, these areas won't be so badly out of gamut, but this technique still provides a quick and dirty warning that colors are going bizarre on you.
When I looked at your original, the first thing that caught my eye was that the background was too distracting -- too many bright, colorful, high contrast areas. I feel that this image should have the opposite. I achieved this using a combination of HSL/grayscale adjustments, a slight grad filter, and pulling down the white slider (in ACR) for the entire image.
Of course, the next obvious thing to fix is to brighten her face. I did this using an adjustment brush. In an analogous way, I wanted to tame the nearly blown skin areas (eg, on the top of her leg). I did this with another adjustment brush.
Finally, since the subject is obviously the girl, not the background, and the edges of the frame are quite bright (and bright areas pull viewers' eyes away from the subject), I applied a vignette.
With the exception of the final down-rez'ing to display in-line in the forum, all the changes I made were done in the ACR module of PS / CS6. Obviously, they could just as easily be done in LR since that shares the ACR module with PS.
Below is your tweaked version (for easy comparison), followed by my tweaked version. There always is a personal preference factor when tweaking images. For example, some viewers may not like the amount of vignetting I introduced. However, I don't think there is any doubt at all about the problems with your tweaked version: Yes, it's brighter (as the subject's face should be), but you did this by a method that made the rest of the image suffer.
BTW, there are some other odd things going on in this image such as the sharpening artifacts in your tweaked version, strangeness I introduced in her outstretched hand because I applied a strong vignette, the bright red OOF flowers, but IMHO, those are less significant issues than large areas of unrealistic color, excess brightness and detail in areas that pull your eye away from the subject, etc.
HTH,
Tom M
PS - BTW, it goes without saying that unless you are editing and evaluating your changes using a calibrated desktop monitor in a room with controlled, constant lighting, you won't be able to make commercial / professional level editing decisions.
#2 - The OP's tweaked version (for reference)
#3 - My tweaked version. (ACR only)
#4 - A few minor, final tweaks in the main part of PS
#1 - Out of gamut areas in the OP's tweaked version:
Obviously, if you are going to print on a wide gamut modern printer, these areas won't be so badly out of gamut, but this technique still provides a quick and dirty warning that colors are going bizarre on you.
When I looked at your original, the first thing that caught my eye was that the background was too distracting -- too many bright, colorful, high contrast areas. I feel that this image should have the opposite. I achieved this using a combination of HSL/grayscale adjustments, a slight grad filter, and pulling down the white slider (in ACR) for the entire image.
Of course, the next obvious thing to fix is to brighten her face. I did this using an adjustment brush. In an analogous way, I wanted to tame the nearly blown skin areas (eg, on the top of her leg). I did this with another adjustment brush.
Finally, since the subject is obviously the girl, not the background, and the edges of the frame are quite bright (and bright areas pull viewers' eyes away from the subject), I applied a vignette.
With the exception of the final down-rez'ing to display in-line in the forum, all the changes I made were done in the ACR module of PS / CS6. Obviously, they could just as easily be done in LR since that shares the ACR module with PS.
Below is your tweaked version (for easy comparison), followed by my tweaked version. There always is a personal preference factor when tweaking images. For example, some viewers may not like the amount of vignetting I introduced. However, I don't think there is any doubt at all about the problems with your tweaked version: Yes, it's brighter (as the subject's face should be), but you did this by a method that made the rest of the image suffer.
BTW, there are some other odd things going on in this image such as the sharpening artifacts in your tweaked version, strangeness I introduced in her outstretched hand because I applied a strong vignette, the bright red OOF flowers, but IMHO, those are less significant issues than large areas of unrealistic color, excess brightness and detail in areas that pull your eye away from the subject, etc.
HTH,
Tom M
PS - BTW, it goes without saying that unless you are editing and evaluating your changes using a calibrated desktop monitor in a room with controlled, constant lighting, you won't be able to make commercial / professional level editing decisions.
#2 - The OP's tweaked version (for reference)
#3 - My tweaked version. (ACR only)
#4 - A few minor, final tweaks in the main part of PS
as i said im no expert but glad tom addressed some of the things that i noticed , tom is a genius , in saying that i dont like the vignette in the hand , id also fix the wall its a little distracting on both sides of the girl , white spot on right and the corner on the left can be fixed , in my taste toms image looks like a dull day , id probably brighten it a little but not too much , maybe its the grey wall but doesnt look like a pool day , id also repair the white spots above and to the right of her head just clone from the left , also the black area in the pool tiles , now im getting picky haha nice job tom
Last edited:
Thank you guys, I've learned a lot from you. I only do with the light before, now I know that I have to notice a lot of things in a photos. I have the link to download the original photo here and hope you guys can show me more specific with hi-res image for more obvious, not the low-res extracted from one above.
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
@ego - I agree with all your comments, especially the "dull day" look of my previous tweak. I wanted more of a shady forest look, not a dull day. See if you like the attached version any better.
WRT all the blown OOF bright blobs of light, etc. -- you are absolutely right. They have to go. They immediately pull the viewers' eyes away from the subject. When I work on an image, I try to triage the problems, and usually work first on large area, obvious trouble spots and then make my way down down to smaller problem areas. In this case, I hadn't gotten to the smaller ones in my earlier posting because from the thread title, the OP seemed like he wanted everything done within ACR / LR. The only option one has for performing small area edits in ACR / LR are tools like the adjustment brush, and, IMHO, while good, they have their limitations, and it's silly not to make use the exquisite selection and masking facilities within PS.
FWIW, in this version, I didn't do bother to do anything with the OOF red flowers. I figured that's something the OP will probably want to play with himself.
There are lots of other things I would do if I had more time to spend on this little demo, but I hope this gives you an idea of what can be done.
@xversion1 - Thanks for posting the raw file. That does make it much easier to tweak your image. BTW, I found it too confining to use ACR exclusively. I probably did a third of the work in ACR and the remainder within PS proper.
See what you think. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Cheers,
Tom
WRT all the blown OOF bright blobs of light, etc. -- you are absolutely right. They have to go. They immediately pull the viewers' eyes away from the subject. When I work on an image, I try to triage the problems, and usually work first on large area, obvious trouble spots and then make my way down down to smaller problem areas. In this case, I hadn't gotten to the smaller ones in my earlier posting because from the thread title, the OP seemed like he wanted everything done within ACR / LR. The only option one has for performing small area edits in ACR / LR are tools like the adjustment brush, and, IMHO, while good, they have their limitations, and it's silly not to make use the exquisite selection and masking facilities within PS.
FWIW, in this version, I didn't do bother to do anything with the OOF red flowers. I figured that's something the OP will probably want to play with himself.
There are lots of other things I would do if I had more time to spend on this little demo, but I hope this gives you an idea of what can be done.
@xversion1 - Thanks for posting the raw file. That does make it much easier to tweak your image. BTW, I found it too confining to use ACR exclusively. I probably did a third of the work in ACR and the remainder within PS proper.
See what you think. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Cheers,
Tom
That's great. I see your tweaked version much better. But I think if the skin tone more purple will look good for me. I don't know much about printing, maybe more yellow can easy to print but purple?
By the way, something I don't get it because I dont understand these words: OOF, WRT, OP, IMHO, FWIW... :|
By the way, something I don't get it because I dont understand these words: OOF, WRT, OP, IMHO, FWIW... :|
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
@ego -> +1.
WRT removing the white near her head, I just got tired of working on this and didn't feel it was worth putting in any more effort. I also wanted to leave some obvious things for the OP to do -- some trivial (eg, move the OOF flowers), some not at all trivial (eg, tame this last white blob that happens to be in back of strands of hair -- a relatively difficult knock-out task).
@xversion:
1. slight magenta vs slight yellow cast to skin: To be honest, I also prefer her skin with slightly more magenta, but never having seen her in person, I'm just guessing, so I went with a slightly more yellow skin because that is becoming the de facto standard in commercial photography / advertisements.
2. Acronyms -> A good on-line guide to common Internet acronyms and abbreviations is:
http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/?
My guess is that all of these except "OOF" will be listed. "OOF" is photographer's shorthand for "out-of-focus". There are lots of other common photography acronyms such as "DoF" (depth-of-field or depth-of-focus), "AWB" (automatic white balance), etc. A good guide to these is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abbreviations_in_photography .
HTH,
Tom
WRT removing the white near her head, I just got tired of working on this and didn't feel it was worth putting in any more effort. I also wanted to leave some obvious things for the OP to do -- some trivial (eg, move the OOF flowers), some not at all trivial (eg, tame this last white blob that happens to be in back of strands of hair -- a relatively difficult knock-out task).
@xversion:
1. slight magenta vs slight yellow cast to skin: To be honest, I also prefer her skin with slightly more magenta, but never having seen her in person, I'm just guessing, so I went with a slightly more yellow skin because that is becoming the de facto standard in commercial photography / advertisements.
2. Acronyms -> A good on-line guide to common Internet acronyms and abbreviations is:
http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/?
My guess is that all of these except "OOF" will be listed. "OOF" is photographer's shorthand for "out-of-focus". There are lots of other common photography acronyms such as "DoF" (depth-of-field or depth-of-focus), "AWB" (automatic white balance), etc. A good guide to these is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abbreviations_in_photography .
HTH,
Tom
Last edited:
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
Xversion, I should also point out that by making some small changes in the way this was photographed, the amount of post processing needed would be reduced to almost zero, no additional time is required when shooting the model, and the results would look much better. For example:
a) Shoot down from a slightly higher camera position and that annoying horizontal line in the background would disappear.
b) Use a bit of fill flash to illuminate her face (and to a lesser extent, her body), and we wouldn't have to brighten it artificially, after-the-fact. Always think about trying to obtain the optimal subject to background lighting ratio right in the camera.
c) If you had used a longer FL lens, and made slight LR changes in your shooting position, and (1) the background would be even softer (like I made it), and (2) you would be able to easily exclude annoying things in the background, e.g., the bright OOF blobs of light, the OOF trees, etc.
d) You used a Canon 85 / 1.8 lens at f/2.5. This is a very nice lens for head and shoulder type photos, but it can give a bit of a jittery look to the background at longer shooting distances like this. This quality of a lens is often called "bokeh". If it was me, I would have shot this with my 70-200 / f2.8 wide open at 200 mm. This would have given a much smoother background right out of the camera, saved a lot of post-processing effort, and looked better than my tweaked version. Unfortunately, good glass like the 70-200 / 2.8L is not cheap, but since you seem to be on the road to generating some very nice images, you should try to at least rent it for shoots like this.
e) Your 40d is capable of 3888 x 2592 pix, but the EXIF info in your cr2 file says that you shot this image at only 1936 x 1288 px (2.5 MP, 3:2), the lowest resolution setting on your camera. Why in the world did you do this? You are essentially throwing away perfectly good information. Storage is cheap - always shoot at the highest possible resolution your camera can provide. You can always down rez it later.
Best regards,
Tom M
a) Shoot down from a slightly higher camera position and that annoying horizontal line in the background would disappear.
b) Use a bit of fill flash to illuminate her face (and to a lesser extent, her body), and we wouldn't have to brighten it artificially, after-the-fact. Always think about trying to obtain the optimal subject to background lighting ratio right in the camera.
c) If you had used a longer FL lens, and made slight LR changes in your shooting position, and (1) the background would be even softer (like I made it), and (2) you would be able to easily exclude annoying things in the background, e.g., the bright OOF blobs of light, the OOF trees, etc.
d) You used a Canon 85 / 1.8 lens at f/2.5. This is a very nice lens for head and shoulder type photos, but it can give a bit of a jittery look to the background at longer shooting distances like this. This quality of a lens is often called "bokeh". If it was me, I would have shot this with my 70-200 / f2.8 wide open at 200 mm. This would have given a much smoother background right out of the camera, saved a lot of post-processing effort, and looked better than my tweaked version. Unfortunately, good glass like the 70-200 / 2.8L is not cheap, but since you seem to be on the road to generating some very nice images, you should try to at least rent it for shoots like this.
e) Your 40d is capable of 3888 x 2592 pix, but the EXIF info in your cr2 file says that you shot this image at only 1936 x 1288 px (2.5 MP, 3:2), the lowest resolution setting on your camera. Why in the world did you do this? You are essentially throwing away perfectly good information. Storage is cheap - always shoot at the highest possible resolution your camera can provide. You can always down rez it later.
Best regards,
Tom M
Last edited:
Thank Tom! I just bought a camera and start to learn photograph 
. I don't have 70-200 f/2.8L lens but I wonder if I use this lens and shoot at 200mm then I have to go far away from model to take entire her body. I also worry if I go that far, maybe background could be sharper (white the distance from model to background unchanged) because I read somewhere on internet that depth-of-field proportional with the distance from camera to subject.
. I don't have 70-200 f/2.8L lens but I wonder if I use this lens and shoot at 200mm then I have to go far away from model to take entire her body. I also worry if I go that far, maybe background could be sharper (white the distance from model to background unchanged) because I read somewhere on internet that depth-of-field proportional with the distance from camera to subject.
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
"...if I use this lens and shoot at 200mm..." - The EXIF data says that it was shot with a fixed focal length (ie, non-zoom) lens. Maybe u are thinking of another lens u have.
"...I also worry if I go that far, maybe background could be sharper (white the distance from model to background unchanged) because I read somewhere on internet that depth-of-field proportional with the distance from camera to subject. ..."
This is the topic that has probably confused more photographers than anything. There has been a huge amount written on this topic, but rather than wading through it all, let me offer just two comments:
a) "Depth of field" (aka, DOF) is NOT the same as the size of the blur circle for objects not in focus, and the two don't vary in the same way with respect to all the parameters involved. DoF is the range of distances over which an object will be almost in perfect focus. In other words, it describes a range of distances along the optical axis of the lens. Blur circle size is measured perpendicular to the optical axis. The rate at which the blur circle expands for subjects in front of, and in back of the optimal focusing distance depends linearly on the FL of the lens. The blur circles for a 200 mm lens will expand 2.35 times as fast (in radius) as an 85 mm lens, and 5.5 times as fast in area. This leads me to (b).
b) Probably the easiest way to remember this is to remember all the iconic baseball photos taken by pros you've seen. They typically use very long FL f/2.8 glass. If they are shooting wide open, the backgrounds are always beautifully blurred, not sharper. For example, see:
http://image.cdnllnwnl.xosnetwork.com/pics32/1024/EW/EWYRDZEATUMRUMQ.20130217205942.jpg
http://media.nbcbayarea.com/images/654*368/ny_baseball_sub.jpg
http://media.salon.com/2013/03/japan-world-baseball-classic.jpeg27-1280x960.jpg
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.town...1e1-908c-001a4bcf887a/5000e1ac18c23.image.jpg
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Chris+Robinson+World+Baseball+Classic+Pool+Tmr0_-5m9-Ax.jpg
HTH,
Tom M
"...I also worry if I go that far, maybe background could be sharper (white the distance from model to background unchanged) because I read somewhere on internet that depth-of-field proportional with the distance from camera to subject. ..."
This is the topic that has probably confused more photographers than anything. There has been a huge amount written on this topic, but rather than wading through it all, let me offer just two comments:
a) "Depth of field" (aka, DOF) is NOT the same as the size of the blur circle for objects not in focus, and the two don't vary in the same way with respect to all the parameters involved. DoF is the range of distances over which an object will be almost in perfect focus. In other words, it describes a range of distances along the optical axis of the lens. Blur circle size is measured perpendicular to the optical axis. The rate at which the blur circle expands for subjects in front of, and in back of the optimal focusing distance depends linearly on the FL of the lens. The blur circles for a 200 mm lens will expand 2.35 times as fast (in radius) as an 85 mm lens, and 5.5 times as fast in area. This leads me to (b).
b) Probably the easiest way to remember this is to remember all the iconic baseball photos taken by pros you've seen. They typically use very long FL f/2.8 glass. If they are shooting wide open, the backgrounds are always beautifully blurred, not sharper. For example, see:
http://image.cdnllnwnl.xosnetwork.com/pics32/1024/EW/EWYRDZEATUMRUMQ.20130217205942.jpg
http://media.nbcbayarea.com/images/654*368/ny_baseball_sub.jpg
http://media.salon.com/2013/03/japan-world-baseball-classic.jpeg27-1280x960.jpg
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.town...1e1-908c-001a4bcf887a/5000e1ac18c23.image.jpg
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Chris+Robinson+World+Baseball+Classic+Pool+Tmr0_-5m9-Ax.jpg
HTH,
Tom M
ibclare
Queen Bee
- Messages
- 11,033
- Likes
- 4,638
Forgive the off-topic post, but AAAAA stands for the American Association Against Acronym Abuse!
Who made that one up?
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
"...shows that you should finish off in ps..."
- - - EXACTLY ! ! !
That's why, in post #6, I said:
"...The only option one has for performing small area edits in ACR / LR are tools like the adjustment brush, and, IMHO, while good, they have their limitations, and it's silly not to make use the exquisite selection and masking facilities within PS..."; and,
"...I found it too confining to use ACR exclusively. I probably did a third of the work in ACR and the remainder within PS proper....".
T
- - - EXACTLY ! ! !
That's why, in post #6, I said:
"...The only option one has for performing small area edits in ACR / LR are tools like the adjustment brush, and, IMHO, while good, they have their limitations, and it's silly not to make use the exquisite selection and masking facilities within PS..."; and,
"...I found it too confining to use ACR exclusively. I probably did a third of the work in ACR and the remainder within PS proper....".
T
@Tom:
So, to sum up, the longer FL, the larger blur circle. But I still don't understand the concatenation between the blur circle size and distance. 200mm will make larger blur cirle if photographer stand at the same position of 85mm, but, actually, photographer have to go back further. Somehow, this go-back-further make effect to blur circle, downsize them (smaller), and I don't know this "downsize" is less or more than the "upsize"(larger) made by the longer FL.
One thing I confused, I've learned that wide open aperture make shallow DoF, so if we shoot at f/2.8 then we can have whole boby in DoF to make every details clearly?
@egosbar: Ps is good, but I don't wanna you Ps much because it take me a long time to finish an image, and hard for me to deal with hundred images that way. That's why I want to use ACR so I can Paste Develop Settings for all of the rest, and "BANG!", everything's done, just review and make a few tweak more.
BTW, your tweaked version is great, but I still like the skin tone more magenta than yellow.
My English is not good enough so maybe hard for you to understand me. I meant if I have 70-200 f/2.8L lens and use it. I wasn't taking about fixed 85mm lens.
So, to sum up, the longer FL, the larger blur circle. But I still don't understand the concatenation between the blur circle size and distance. 200mm will make larger blur cirle if photographer stand at the same position of 85mm, but, actually, photographer have to go back further. Somehow, this go-back-further make effect to blur circle, downsize them (smaller), and I don't know this "downsize" is less or more than the "upsize"(larger) made by the longer FL.
One thing I confused, I've learned that wide open aperture make shallow DoF, so if we shoot at f/2.8 then we can have whole boby in DoF to make every details clearly?
@egosbar: Ps is good, but I don't wanna you Ps much because it take me a long time to finish an image, and hard for me to deal with hundred images that way. That's why I want to use ACR so I can Paste Develop Settings for all of the rest, and "BANG!", everything's done, just review and make a few tweak more.
BTW, your tweaked version is great, but I still like the skin tone more magenta than yellow.
Last edited:
@Tom:
My English is not good enough so maybe hard for you to understand me. I meant if I have 70-200 f/2.8L lens and use it. I wasn't taking about fixed 85mm lens.
So, to sum up, the longer FL, the larger blur circle. But I still don't understand the concatenation between the blur circle size and distance. 200mm will make larger blur cirle if photographer stand at the same position of 85mm, but, actually, photographer have to go back further. Somehow, this go-back-further make effect to blur circle, downsize them (smaller), and I don't know this "downsize" is less or more than the "upsize"(larger) made by the longer FL.
One thing I confused, I've learned that wide open aperture make shallow DoF, so if we shoot at f/2.8 then we can have whole boby in DoF to make every details clearly?
@egosbar: Ps is good, but I don't wanna you Ps much because it take me a long time to finish an image, and hard for me to deal with hundred images that way. That's why I want to use ACR so I can Paste Develop Settings for all of the rest, and "BANG!", everything's done, just review and make a few tweak more.
you could try a plugin called perfectly clear , you can set it up for batch processing as an action , i have it set to f2 one push of f2 and they are all done , the default setting would be too your liking based on your colors in your original picture , ps doesnt take that much time the more you use it , and to be honest if you have a really nice image then ps is a must just too tidy up all the little things
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
#1: "...somehow, this go-back-further make effect to blur circle, downsize them (smaller), and I don't know this "downsize" is less or more than the "upsize"(larger) made by the longer FL. ..."
That's a very insightful question. However, in my previous explanation, I already factored that in as I was assuming constant subject size at the sensor. In other words, I included the fact that you have to shoot from further back with the longer lens.
Let me repeat, just look at the sports pages. You see this every day with the 400 mm and longer lenses that pro sports photographers use. Isolation of the subject from a busy background is one of THE main reasons pros buy really long, fast, expensive lenses -- it's not just the magnification factor. This effect is very well known and appreciated.
#2: If by any chance you are a math geek, I can point you to URLs that will derive exactly these aspects of lens performance. For example, the mathematical analysis, as well as decades of practical experience with long lenses say that you don't get ultra thin depth of field as you go to longer focal lengths, so long as you keep the size of the subject constant. It's just that the blur circles (aka, circles of confusion) of long lenses blow up faster once outside the range of good focus (aka, depth of field).
Cheers,
Tom
That's a very insightful question. However, in my previous explanation, I already factored that in as I was assuming constant subject size at the sensor. In other words, I included the fact that you have to shoot from further back with the longer lens.
Let me repeat, just look at the sports pages. You see this every day with the 400 mm and longer lenses that pro sports photographers use. Isolation of the subject from a busy background is one of THE main reasons pros buy really long, fast, expensive lenses -- it's not just the magnification factor. This effect is very well known and appreciated.
#2: If by any chance you are a math geek, I can point you to URLs that will derive exactly these aspects of lens performance. For example, the mathematical analysis, as well as decades of practical experience with long lenses say that you don't get ultra thin depth of field as you go to longer focal lengths, so long as you keep the size of the subject constant. It's just that the blur circles (aka, circles of confusion) of long lenses blow up faster once outside the range of good focus (aka, depth of field).
Cheers,
Tom