I assume these are both the same shot, and the soft effect was something you added after the fact. I'm curious about which method you used to create that effect -- was it just adding some blur, or something else? I'd be interested in learning more.
Originally posted by alansfreed: I assume these are both the same shot, and the soft effect was something you added after the fact. I'm curious about which method you used to create that effect -- was it just adding some blur, or something else? I'd be interested in learning more.
The second photo was a simple mod... I duplicated the original layer and pasted it in on top of the original... I then added gaussian blur to the new layer and change the opacity of the new layer to about 35% or so.. I don't remember the exact numbers i used for the blur and opacity... i usually just play with it until it looks right...
I like the soft focus, but maybe a little less. Great lighting. You may want to shoot from a higher angle though, shooting below the subjects chin level can be a little unflattering.
Good choice of backgrounds. This is my favorite type of portrait.
Great lighting/framing, but there's something about her expression that seems strange. Will you tell us your set-up? Great way to apply a diffuse glow effect by the way.
Originally posted by Paige: Great lighting/framing, but there's something about her expression that seems strange. Will you tell us your set-up? Great way to apply a diffuse glow effect by the way.
There is not much setup on this one... This one was fairly impromptu... The camera is hand held for this one rather than on a tripod. I used aperture priority mode and a large aperture... about F2.8 or so... I used full optical zoom as well in order to help blur out the background...
Originally posted by Zeissman: I like the soft focus, but maybe a little less. Great lighting. You may want to shoot from a higher angle though, shooting below the subjects chin level can be a little unflattering.
Good choice of backgrounds. This is my favorite type of portrait.
Zeiss, thanks for the comments... I have this hangup about looking down on people with the camera... sometimes it works out, but I try to be on the level of the person when possible. I especially like to be on or below the level of children. I'm not very experienced with portraits and this was one of my first and few opportunities to do some like this. My mom wants some pictures of the grandkids for her livingroom wall and these were the first attempts...
I'd like a little less of the soft-focus look too. If/since these are not DPC submissions, I'd create soft-edged masks for the subject and selectively blur the background, or blur the background more than the subject. A graphics tablet (even a small one -- about $99) is extremely useful for both masking and any kind of touch-up editing, dodging, etc.
Very nice composition and location, I would prefer the softer version too. The knotted sweater is the only thing, which disturbs a little bit. IMHO it's too black and massive for the spirit of this shot and it distracts my first view from her eyes...
Originally posted by BigSmiles: Those are some nice portraits... I agree that the expression is off somehow.. the smile just looks forced.. a little unnatural. Very nice otherwise!
She looks 9-ish to me, and a lot of times kids that age go through a stage of not smiling with teeth. I think they're self conscious because their adult teeth look too big for their kid faces at that age. lol I think it's a very nice portrait, though. :-)
what about lighting? Did you use any reflectors? I don't think the effect that you applied is too much, it works well with this portrait. I assume that you used your digital camera, how are you going to print the shots?
Originally posted by Paige: what about lighting? Did you use any reflectors? I don't think the effect that you applied is too much, it works well with this portrait. I assume that you used your digital camera, how are you going to print the shots?
I didn't need a reflector... it was overcast and the lighting seemed ok to me as is... I will be printing these on my own inkjet printer...
I like the first one better...would get rid of the double limb in the upper right corner if possible. Lovely lighting and compositon and I think you caught the character of the age very well.
Originally posted by jmsetzler: Originally posted by alansfreed: [i]I assume these are both the same shot, and the soft effect was something you added after the fact. I'm curious about which method you used to create that effect -- was it just adding some blur, or something else? I'd be interested in learning more.
The second photo was a simple mod... I duplicated the original layer and pasted it in on top of the original... I then added gaussian blur to the new layer and change the opacity of the new layer to about 35% or so.. I don't remember the exact numbers i used for the blur and opacity... i usually just play with it until it looks right...
[/i] Thanks for the info, love photoshop techniques, made this one from your comments wadda think? I have a 9 year old and grandma wanted pics too this digital stuff is so much easier than taking slides and blowing the up (cheaper too)
without going into the specifics of the model's presentation, and just addressing the photography, i tend to prefer the first one. a sharp subject works better in this case, and you've used your DOF effectively to blur the bg.
If you want more BG blur, i'd mask just the bg and hit that.
alternately, if you want more 'soft focus' on the girl, more effective might be to mask her out with some feathering, copy that to a new layer, apply a diffuse glow to that layer and then blend it in at a much lower opacity with whichever blending mode you find most pleasing. I often use 'overlay' or 'soft light'.
Here's an example where I used that technique. WARNING: slight nudity ahead.
I like the first one much better. I would really try to get rid of the two heavy branches on the top right and center left. They are very distracting. I had done this one of my son. Is the focus too soft? It was inside, not enough natural lighting.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/13/2002 9:55:36 AM.
