sharpening/skin softening technique...

[KristinaM]

does anyone know the method you use to achieve a sharpened portrait, but the skin is still soft and even? similar to this photographer (sorry, it's the only examples i could find off hand).

i see a lot of people using this technique, perhaps there's a quicker way to do it than what i usually do.

thanks!

[pierresplace]

If I'm seeing to what you refer I'd say that I achieve that look with my airbrush.

...Pierre...

[vapour]

http://www.christyschuler.com/retouching.html

[pixelzombie]

that page doesn't want to load...

[0lBaldy]

Originally Posted by vapour

http://www.christyschuler.com/retouching.html

OOPS! dead link (or it would not load on my puter)

[Verywierd]

I just want to be sure about the nature of your problem.

a) Is your skin softening technique making your pictures look unsharp, or

b) Are you running a sharpening process on all your pictures as a rule and this is making the skin look pixellated, clumpy, uneven etc. If so, why do your pictures need so much sharpening. Are they unsharp coming out of the camera?

c) I have completely misunderstood what you are saying and you have a different problem altogether.

[0lBaldy]

Adjust your lighting to utilize the smallest aperture setting your lens can get (A good quality lens should give you a F/32 as a starting point)

If you are shooting with a lens that has a range of only F/3.5 (Wide) and F/5.6 (Tele) or less, your depth of field will be very limited

[vapour]

Odd she must of took it down... that was one of the best techniques. Look it up on Google I guess.

Christy Schuler... she had a video tutorial. It was awesome.

[dlew308]

Perhaps something is wrong with her webhosting provider.

[skydog]

what do you mean by airbrush when it comes to digital? is this the same as smugging?

[Hendrik]

I can't find the Christy Schuler tutorials anymore. Even Google cache doesn't help.

If someone has her old page saved or her video tutorial ... please share! I'm interested what she does.

[transoptic]

If I understand correctly, you want to sharpen globally, but keep the skin from getting "crunchy"

yes?

[JavierT]

Originally Posted by Hendrik

I can't find the Christy Schuler tutorials anymore. Even Google cache doesn't help.

If someone has her old page saved or her video tutorial ... please share! I'm interested what she does.

I am very intereste too and, after hours looking for it, every links doesn´t work. If somebody have a copy, please, share it. Thanks in advance

[cskn0125]

Christy Schuler is having web problems. No she is not gone, and hopes to get the site back up soon.

Not that it helps the given situation, but at least you guys know she will still be around and can access the site (hopefully) soon.

[JavierT]

Originally Posted by cskn0125

Christy Schuler is having web problems. No she is not gone, and hopes to get the site back up soon.

Not that it helps the given situation, but at least you guys know she will still be around and can access the site (hopefully) soon.

Thanks a lot. I will check it.

[Gt_max]

Originally Posted by 0lBaldy

Adjust your lighting to utilize the smallest aperture setting your lens can get (A good quality lens should give you a F/32 as a starting point)

If you are shooting with a lens that has a range of only F/3.5 (Wide) and F/5.6 (Tele) or less, your depth of field will be very limited

Oh so you mean the smaller the aperture the better ?! for example on a 70-200 f/2.8 what would be an appropriate aperture to capture sth similar to those shots using studio flashes ? is there any specific logic behind it ?! :/

[tjhanlon]

Christy Shuler is still having problems with her website.

**sigh

tjh

[0lBaldy]

Originally Posted by Gt_max

Oh so you mean the smaller the aperture the better ?! for example on a 70-200 f/2.8 what would be an appropriate aperture to capture sth similar to those shots using studio flashes ? is there any specific logic behind it ?! :/

GT_max, Sorry it took so long to get back to you with a reply.

Unfortunately, the answer is "no." As the light rays passing the lens tube and the diaphragm, some may be diffracted. (This is where the quality of your glass/lenses comes into play) When the diaphragm is small (i.e., a small aperture), the amount of light that can pass through the diaphragm is reduced and hence the proportion of the diffracted and non-diffracted light becomes significant. As a result, the quality of the image is also reduced. Therefore, closing the diaphragm (i.e., using small apertures) all the way down to the smallest aperture may not increase the quality of an image. In general, the quality of a lens increases as diaphragm closes down. This improvement will reach certain point. After this, quality goes down because of the impact of diffraction.

But on the Bright Side! (pun intended)

The zone of acceptable sharpness is referred to as the depth of field. While changing the aperture (f-stop) will not have a striking effect on the depth of field for a distant subject or a wide angle (short focal length) lens, it can make a great deal of difference in a close-up or a photo taken using a telephoto or zoom lens like the 70-200 you mentioned. Thus, we can use smaller apertures for increasing the depth of field and by increasing the depth of field, increase the sharpness of an image.

A wider aperture (smaller f-stop number.. f/1.6, f/2.8) will result in a shallower depth of field. You can use this to keep either the foreground or background out of focus while maintaining the subject in focus. When changing the aperture setting, you will need to also adjust the shutter to maintain the correct exposure.

In addition to closing down the diaphragm (i.e., smaller aperture.. f/22, f/32, f/64), we can also focus at the hyperfocal distance. If a lens focuses at infinity, the depth of field starts at somewhere in front of the lens and extends to infinity. More precisely, from that point on, the scene appears sharp, and subjects between that point and the lens are out of focus. The distance from the lens to that point is referred to as the hyperfocal distance.

It looks like some of the shots presented were taken with the lens wide open at f/2.8, some at f/5.6 and others may have been stopped down to f/22 or smaller. For your 70-200 in the studio I would go no larger than f/5.6 or f/8 depending on the focal length used and might stop down to as little as f/32 or f/64 depending on your needs and desires.

This article F o c u s P o c u s may shed some light on making a Depth of Field Calculator.

Does that sound logical?