Stern Look

[Peach]

I was taking photos earlier, trying to learn more about exposure and whatnot while working in the best lit room in my apartment (the bathroom). Initially, I was going to chuck this picture but I wanted to see if it could be saved. Please, let me know: a) Have I saved it? and b) the picture itself, any critiquing on it.

To be honest, this picture was an 'accident'. I hit the shutter button while toying with the focus and didn't actually intend to take the picture.

Here's the before:




And here's after:



I know the 'after' is a little grainy - that's due to sharpening it. I'm trying to work out how to smooth it a bit without losing the detail.

Any comments/critiques are appreciated.

The EXIF data for the original is:
Metering Mode: Center Weighted Average
Light Source: Tungsten (incandescent light)
Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 53/10 = F5.30
Focal Length = 420/10 mm = 42.00 mm
Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 10/130 second = 0.07692 second
ISO Speed Ratings = 200

[clockdoc]

I don't think the sharpening helped as it brings out too much detail in the skin. This may work for a more rugged male complexion. Nice job of cleaning up the stray hairs on the face. What do you feel you learned from this exercise about lighting?

[Peach]

Keep your finger away from the shutter button LOL I was actually fiddling with the f stop and shutter speed or.. whatever. The two little numbers you fiddle with on Manual. Was trying to get pictures to turn out close to how I saw them with my own eyes. This one, was one of the shots that was not properly adjusted.

As for the skin texture. Im working on it. It had to be sharpened.. the original, in my opinion, was way - way too blurry to be satisfactory.

Another thing I learned is to look closely at what I'm taking pictures of. I had a picture where I'm standing by the bathroom door and the everything else was really well lit and adjusted except the door - which was completely blown out. I caught that, and learned to adjust it to make everything, including the door, be properly lit and balanced.

Thanks for the post clockdoc! If I can get the skin texture to a more acceptable level, I'll repost. As it is though - this is my favorite self portrait to date. But.. always learning.

[Peach]

Ok - here's a softer one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2217/...0f777575_o.jpg


And here's it in B&W

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/...6478d9cc_o.jpg

Does the skin have a softer feel to it than before?

[clockdoc]

Of the two, I prefer the black and white version. The skin looks softer but has a somewhat "blotchy" appearance. Tellme about the light source used when you took the photo. The catchlight looks to be somewhat rectangular. How close were you to the light source?

[Peach]

The light source is simply the bulbs that are above the mirror in the bathroom. I was facing the mirror. I think this one was taken when I was just, JUST inside the bathroom. The bulbs are not those spiraly fluorescent lights but regular bulbs so they give off a kind of yellowy light. I was about.. a foot and a half to two feet from the counter, which is about 2 ft wide. So four feet from the wall or so.. and the lights are higher than I am and I'm 5'6. I'd say.. they're about 6.5 feet up the wall.

[Nicole]

I'm happy to post an example of what I would do to this to make the skin a bit smoother. But what I found worked pretty well was to use a combination of smart filters. Mainly smart sharpen and smart blur. Smart sharpen gets the details without doing too much to increase the grain, and smart blur lets you get rid of some of the noise, etc which smooths the skin just a little. Then a masked layer using the high pass sharpening method for just the eyes, hair, and lips, and it's pretty much there. It's a good portrait though, so that's good because it means you have something to work with. Try out those filters though and see if that helps you get the sharpness that you want, where you want it.

PS, I second the thought that you did a good job removing the stray hairs.

[clockdoc]

Thanks for the info. You will find that the closer you are to the light source, the larger it becomes in relationship to you as the subject and the more "wrap" you will get from the light, not to mention increased light intensity as a whole. I checked your EXIF data and it showed ISO 200 with a +5 EV. Is that true? Light falls of in the same relationship as whole f/stops. For example, visualize yourself at the following distances from the light source, 4 ft, 5.6 ft., 8 ft, and 11 feet.As you move to each progressive distance, you lose one full f/stop of light. Conversely if you moved from 11 feet away to 4 feet away from the light source, you would gain 3 f/stops of light. I see the shutter speed was 1/13 sec. Did you shoot on a tripod? If not, it is very steady for handheld.

[Peach]

Yes, it was hand held - arm length away, supported by the door jam. I'm not sure about the EV thing. All I know is I adjusted the 2 things you adjust in manual so that nothing was majorly 'blown out' (namely the door I was standing infront of). The rest, I am still clueless about.

It's getting quite frustrating too. Taking picture after picture. Adjusting. Repositioning. And still turning up crap. Makes me wonder why I even bought the darn camera, sometimes. *sigh*

Thanks for your help clockdoc.. the whole light thing has been explained to me time and time before - I didn't understand it then and I still don't really understand it. I get it that light gets fainter the farther away you are from it. But that's as far as my comprehension goes. F-stops and increasing or decreasing contains too many numbers and figures which I can't understand. Oh well. Maybe I'm just not meant to be any good at this LOL.

[clockdoc]

You don't have to understand all the numbers to be a good photographer but it really does help. The key number to remember is 1.4. Starting with 1.0, you can calculate whole f/ftops just by multiplying the next number by 1.4. Check out this site for a great explanation and visual tool.
http://training.sessions.edu/design-...sure-wheel.asp