Critic this!

[ice7]

Source image has some soft-focus (so it may still be visible in the crop)
image was not retouched at pixel-level as it was just for practice but I added a crop to show some detail so you can critique more :P

so... critique away

[ME_wwwing]

2nd image

take the winkle off her nose
her head is shifted to my right. maybe caught her in the middle of moving her head to her left.
chin is blown out - needs recovery in RAW
hummmm - 2 catch lights in her eyes. not sure if only one would work.

too soft as you said so the hair doesn't look good and would be hard to edit.
her top is to black and lost its detail


would have liked to see her head at a different angle with the head tilting a bit.

i'm into PS. not a photg.
but i know what i like. hehe

[ice7]

Originally Posted by ME_wwwing

2nd image

take the winkle off her nose
her head is shifted to my right. maybe caught her in the middle of moving her head to her left.
chin is blown out - needs recovery in RAW
hummmm - 2 catch lights in her eyes. not sure if only one would work.

too soft as you said so the hair doesn't look good and would be hard to edit.
her top is to black and lost its detail


would have liked to see her head at a different angle with the head tilting a bit.

i'm into PS. not a photg.
but i know what i like. hehe

actually I think the creases/wrinkles in her nose make the picture
her head is like that to show attitude, I bet it was the model's idea.. she's kinda "different"

nothing is blown-out, but a few reflections in the eyes and tongue (check your monitor calibration )

the softness is a result from shooting at high F and high MM, so on top of that there's a very shallow DOF

the clothes don't show much texture as it is out of the focus filed and looks like velvet anyway...

but you can make a case that I didn't fix the shadow under her nose (it's quite harsh)... and maybe the skin is a bit too hot

actually I quite like the image, too bad it's a bit soft and has too shallow DOF

btw, the image was taken backstage of a couture show (not in a studio)

[flexmanta]

High F-stop and shallow DOF? dunno, for out of focus ears and in focus eyes, either you're shoot with a big ass tele, or you're using too low an F... but still, you need to get decent glass man. Zooms are supposed to get sharper and less aberrant when zoomed it.

That skin needs fixing, but not blurrring or degrunge or whatever, just good old healing and dodge and burn. I also like the wrinkles as they are, they are the whole point of her expression, and her head position is not a problem for me at all. The hair might need to be recovered from the RAW. The D&B light shaping you did, spot on. I really like the skin tone as well.

[ME_wwwing]

>

Originally Posted by ice7

actually I think the creases/wrinkles in her nose make the picture

they need to be lighter

>her head is like that to show attitude, I bet it was the model's idea.. she's kinda "different"

its still distracting "to me".

>nothing is blown-out, but a few reflections in the eyes and tongue (check your monitor calibration )

never use the stuff. old school. i check the RGB Values.


>the softness is a result from shooting at high F and high MM, so on top of that there's a very shallow DOF

yes thats the reason.

>the clothes don't show much texture as it is out of the focus filed and looks like velvet anyway...

yes thats the reason

but you can make a case that I didn't fix the shadow under her nose (it's quite harsh)... and maybe the skin is a bit too hot

hey it was a quick - looking again the shoulders should have a tilt.
i'm looking for the shot. not the shot you took.

>actually I quite like the image, too bad it's a bit soft and has too shallow DOF

yes - i see its your MM avatar.

>btw, the image was taken backstage of a couture show (not in a studio)

so you shoot - but says your a retoucher. do you do both?

[ice7]

ME_wwwing, yes I shoot, but I'm not the photographer of that image
it's Benny's image
but I did the retouch

flexmanta, I meant to say high speed F, ie wide open aperture (yes, low F number )

when you use zoom lens and you zoom usually you have to get the F down to keep the image sharp (not talking about CA)

I want to get away from the usual d&b retouched skin... for some reason they all started to bother me a lot... especially the "high end" retouched images lose something of the realistic look, and all look like have the same skin, with no HF skin texture...
but... that said if it were a paid assignment I would have smoothed the med-frequency of the skin a bit to be less coarse... maybe get something like this:
http://www.sostav.ru/articles/rus/20...ational-01.jpg

[ezprod]

Most portraits should be lit for at least f8. I try to shoot most portraits around f11. If you use good glass and good equipment it will be very sharp. What you dont want is the nose to be in focus and the eyes out. Shooting f2.8 will do that. Yes it is great when you are shooting low light situations, concerts etc or really trying to create a "look" but then you must always focus to the eyes. I know this is a retouching forum, but GREAT photography is the key to good and "easy" retouching

[flexmanta]

ice7, i think you are a little confused. With a zoom, you need HIGH F to keep the whole subject in focus. And f/11 is a lot of light, and considering it will kill available light indoors at 250th, it's not something you can pull off without a good couple of strobes.

In the studio, at f11 250th, we burn backgrounds with FOUR profotos.

[ice7]

not confused.. yet
and you are correct that you need high F to keep the DOF wide enough when shooting at high mm... but as you see you also have a shallow DOF in the image

from the raw:
exposure 1/100 at f:8 , 154mm
Lens 28-300mm
(Flash did not fire)

he must have been shooting at f:8 28mm as there would have been very little space in the backstage, and only zoomed for this one very quickly (and not changing the F), but I do see two reflections in the eyes as someone pointed out, so there must have been enough lighting

maybe that zoom lens is soft at 150mm...
some Canon's have sharp wide and zoom, but dip in the middle

[ME_wwwing]

ice7 - i'm not a retoucher by any means. i've shot landscapes for 10 yrs and have sold a lot. right now i'm knee deep in reediting ALL my photos. down to the final 3000+ with $1500 in paper and ink waiting. LOL.
i haven't tried the big galleries yet. its what i'm hoping to do in the next 10 months.
lately i've been thinking i could get into this high end retouching. so many questions and not really great at all things. i'm sure i could handle the easy photo's. but to step in and go against those that have been doing this work for years. no way.
been over on dpreview for 10 yrs. and watched from afar. that's why i signed up here. hope i can learn and get tips from the people that come here from MM.
i got no photos to sign up for MM and give it a go. maybe someday soon i can hire a model and photg.

enjoy

[ice7]

You probably already have seen it, but most retouchers don't give out their "tricks", yet there are a lot of techniques available if you go through the forums. And there are a few good tutorials here too, so don't forget to check them out.
http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/

[flexmanta]

ice7, at f/8 and 28mm, depth of field starts at 3m or so and extends almost to infinity, so i don't think he shot at 28mm. Unless the subject was at less than 1m of the camera... but then she would totally look distorted. DOF increases with small focal lenghts.



Check the exif and find the focal length used and the focus distance.

[ice7]

the rest ot the images are quite sharp, and at 28mm
as I said before, only this one is 154mm

distance appears that is not reported

[ME_wwwing]

so were enemies here.

[ezprod]

I think basically the answer to this is buy better glass. I used to have the same problems with my zoom lenses always being slightly soft until I spent the money and bought L lenses. The difference is night and day. An f8 1/100 shot should be crisp from nose to eye. Lenses are more important than camera. I did a test years ago with a rebet xt and the old 1DS MK2. They both had the same MP approx and other than durability and 1.6x magnification, the colors, balance crispness everything was identical. You get differences when you want to shoot multiple exposures at once. Or bump the ISO to extreme numbers etc, but for ISO 100 well lit single shots, there is not much difference between cameras of the same manufacturer.