What am I doing wrong?

[sarahgirl777]

Yes, a fast lens is nice, but I don't think that alone will get you to where these photos are at. I think a lot of it is lighting and focus. Perfect focus on the eyes, well lit with great light and then yes some PP to bring out the eyes and smooth the skin. I can achieve that look even without using my prime lens so it's definately more than that. Do you have another example of your work we can see that doesn't have a texture over it. That automatically makes it look less "crisp" to me. Oh and you said you were using 1/30 shutter speed which could allow some camera or person movement keeping the photo from being as crisp too. Hope this helps.

[wlverenefan]

So using the supplied link and picture file I tried a little pp myself. I think I understand what you are going for and I tried to replicate that. (I hope you don't mind. If you do, I will remove it.) Please note that this may have turned out a little better had I used the original file. Actually I am sure it would have.

** I did not take this picture, credit goes to n2Hawaii**

Focus is alot of it, depth of field an equal part, white balance and tone I think can be done in post processing. I ran this through Lightroom 2.3, followed by CS4. In CS4 did an unsharp mask, followed by a light spot gradient with a bit of a lens blur. Nothing fancy, just trying to replicate what I think the lens should have done.

[FormElement]

1) Shoot with your 50 f/1.8 - a prime lens makes a noticeable difference. The magic range is somewhere between 1.8 and 4.0 depending on your distance to the subject and subject to background.
2) Lighting. 80% of a picture comes down to focus and light. Big soft white light from above generally makes people look good. Bright shade is nature's ready made photo studio.
3) Post processing. Most "professional" images have both a sharpen (on the eyes and hair) and a blur (on the skin) and then a dodge, burn, and saturate to bring out the iris. Pretty much every "professional" portrait you see has been processed. There are a long list of small magic tricks that can be done in post that don't look fake and make a portrait special.

wlverenefan did a very nice job showing the difference that PP can make.

[Benji]

Check out my posting http://digital-photography-school.co...685-kelli.html and if that is what you are trying to do, post a reply and I will tell you exactly how to get this effect.

Benji

[wlverenefan]

Hey Benji, I am interested in getting results like this also. That is a beautiful shot! Great work.

[Benji]

Originally Posted by wlverenefan

Hey Benji, I am interested in getting results like this also. That is a beautiful shot! Great work.

Thanks. Some would have you believe that you can slap a speedlight on your camera put it of full auto and blaze away and after a couple of hundred shots you will get one that with about three hours of Photoshop work will look good. Perhaps this works for some but not for me. I prefer twenty to twenty two good shots from twenty five captures every time I shoot. Beautiful images are the result of thinking and planning and getting it right in camera. Photoshop should be used to enhance not to rescue. Here is how Kelli was photographed.

Technical stuff. My fill light was behind the camera, a large softbox feathered and set so I got a meter reading of f/4 at the subject. Main light was a medium softbox about 20 to 25 inches away from Kelli's face feathered (as always) set at f/8 which is two stops more than the fill light. The camera aperture was also f/8. I shot in Raw. The camera was a hand held Canon 30D with a 28-105 zoom lens zoomed out to 105mm and was in manual mode. Background/hair lights were at f/4. Care was taken to pose her torso at a 45 degree angle, all her weight was on her rear hip, then I asked her to bring her face back past dead center toward the main light then I had her bring her eyes back toward the camera (1-3-2 posing technique.)

After capture. I opened the image in ACR and did a white balance from my grey card I exposed previously, then I backed off the Black slider to 3, boosted the sharpening to 60% then I saved it as a Jpeg. In Photoshop I opened the image and retouched the few blemishes she had, brightened her eyes a little bit, vignetted the bottom, fixed a seam on her jacket and sharpened the image 75% then I opened the image in Imagenomic (a software program for portraits) and softened the entire image, then I erased the softening in her eyes, mouth, eyebrows and coat, flattened the image and resaved it to yet another file.

Hope this helps!

Benji

[fortunato_uno]

even with all the speed lites and lens of what ever sort sometimes you're not going to get the shot you want. every one here has shot tons of images, and i'm sure that many started with film. so don't be disheartend.
i have an example of a shot taken by my brother who doesn't shoot at all. i gave him my camera to hold and he took this picture. it was one of the best shots of the day. so like they say, how do you get to carnige hall? practice, practice, practice.

p.s. i like the original.

[k9mom]

Originally Posted by n2hawaii

I just can't seem to figure out the "thing" I see so many photographers are able to do and I just don't know where to start looking for answers. Haven't gotten an answer from a book or person that will help, I am desperate!

It's on CLARITY in portraits... the kind of portrait that faces look so crisp and smooth almost like you can wrap your hand around it. I know adult skin has flaws, but these pictures' skin looks flawless...I don't know if its 1. my limited knowledge 2. My camera 3. my lens or 4. Post processing

With respect to the photographer whose website you linked to as an example (Brooke Ashley), I would venture to guess she's achieved the quality and clarity you describe via:

1) full frame camera
2) high end lens, e.g., "L" glass
3) light modifiers
4) some post processing to touch up or airbrush out imperfections (e.g., the healing brush in Photoshop)

[Chip]

Benji - Very helpful tutorial. Thanks.

[k9mom]

I emailed the photographer of the website the OP provided as an example (Brooke Ashley Photography) to inquire about her equipment and any other techniques (e.g., lighting) she uses to achieve such spectacular images. Her response:

Camera: Canon 5D MII
Lens: 50 mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8L, and the fisheye

Says she uses no light modifiers for outdoor shoots, just exploits the natural light.
Didn't say whether she uses post-processing, but I can't imagine her not doing so, even if just to tweak RAW images.