Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
GoonsInDepth
Apr 10, 2006

by Peatpot
I have a picture that I'm having trouble in post with and I'm wondering if one of you can help me out. I'd really like to hear some advice or tips on what can be done with this one, as I'm pretty happy with the picture before processing!

This is the original.

Click here for the full 1000x668 image.


This is what I have done, but I'm not very happy with.

Click here for the full 816x520 image.


Does anyone have any suggestions?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mannequin
Mar 8, 2003
Kefka, great tutorial! I absolutely never bother sharpening my images because I never got into the habit of doing it, and now there are all these fancy features in Photoshop to help you do it better. Woops! Guess I should start.

GoonsInDepth posted:

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Err, what is it exactly you want to do? Is there a specific effect you're trying to achieve?

porcellus
Oct 28, 2004
oh wait, wrong chat window

GoonsInDepth posted:

I have a picture that I'm having trouble in post with and I'm wondering if one of you can help me out. I'd really like to hear some advice or tips on what can be done with this one, as I'm pretty happy with the picture before processing!

This is the original.

Click here for the full 1000x668 image.


This is what I have done, but I'm not very happy with.

Click here for the full 816x520 image.


Does anyone have any suggestions?
There's a lot of information loss on his hair and shirt. The subject's got the right exposure, try masking him out and giving only the background contrast. Post-proc aside, the second crop doesn't work as well as the first one. He appears to be hunched over, rather than leaning on something. Nice picture though, where's it taken?

Tziko
Feb 18, 2001

kefkafloyd posted:

By default, PS will not show the mask in the image. You have to go to the channels tab to enable it. Turn it on like any other channel and you'll see your affected mask areas light up like a Christmas tree.
You can also Alt-click on the mask icon in the layers dialog to achieve this.

Finally, the thread-making GBS threads is over and we can focus on post-processing again. Great guides on the previous page!

DanTheFryingPan
Jan 28, 2006

Tziko posted:



Feel free to offer improvement suggestions or ask questions. I'm still pretty much a Photoshop newbie and would love to hear of any shortcuts or better ways of doing the above.

Was the OP's image taken in Tapiola by any chance?

Toupee
Feb 6, 2008

by Tiny Fistpump
Thanks for that Kefka. But, if I'm in a bit more of a hurry / I'm feeling lazy -- could someone go through some of the sharpening stuff within lightroom? Specifically how much sharpening / detail is 'enough' (I generally have a hard time telling its even doing much a lot of the time). Also, could someone do a write up on the chromatic aberration correction sliders and the edging?

rigeek
Jun 12, 2006

kefkafloyd posted:

First, hey rigeek, good to see you. ;)


Ditto! I've been following along in here, but haven't posted much. Great tutorial for sure .. thanks for taking the time to posting it.

whaam
Mar 18, 2008

Toupee posted:

Also, could someone do a write up on the chromatic aberration correction sliders and the edging?

Yeah I would like to know a good anti-CA technique as well. My method of sponge tool and strained wrist is not sufficient.

kefkafloyd
Jun 8, 2006

What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses

jhoc posted:

Yeah I would like to know a good anti-CA technique as well. My method of sponge tool and strained wrist is not sufficient.

I can write up a detailed explanation in a bit, but here's a gist.

1. Lightroom's Detail panel has all of our relevant tools in one convenient place.

The sharpening tools behave similarly in their UI to the sharpening tools you've used before, except they're designed specifically to remove the softness applied by antialiasing filters.

quote:

Thanks for that Kefka. But, if I'm in a bit more of a hurry / I'm feeling lazy -- could someone go through some of the sharpening stuff within lightroom? Specifically how much sharpening / detail is 'enough' (I generally have a hard time telling its even doing much a lot of the time). Also, could someone do a write up on the chromatic aberration correction sliders and the edging?

In LR, you're basically sharpening for 1:1. You want to increase the differentiation between details and edges without introducing jagged edges, moire, excessive noise, or artifacts. "Enough" in my book is as sharp as you can get without revealing these nasties. You can't sharpen lens softness too much without reveailing said artifacts, for example. I tend to pick what I can see at baseline settings are pretty sharp and just tweak it from there. Often times I only adjust the masking slider.

The Noise reduction sliders in LR aren't that great. The real issue is that LR applies some kind of base noise reduction even if they're set at 0. It's a dirty secret that Adobe doesn't really want to address. It can cause blotchiness. Many people just set these to 0 and use a third party plugin after export to reduce the noise.

The CA sliders work to resolve axial chromatic aberration (x/y red/cyan or blue/yellow) by expanding individual color channels anamorphically. It's actually pretty cool how it works but it can't correct all kinds of CA, specifically longitudinal CA (or bokeh CAs) where you get green/purple fringing in areas out of the focus plane. You basically just slide left/right to bias for the kind of CA you're getting (red/cyan or blue/yellow respectively) and 9 times out of ten it will resolve any CA problems I have with my kit.

The fringing command is meant to reduce purple fringing and moderate bloom from sensors. I use highlight edges by default because it actually works pretty well in concert with any CA corrections I need to do. Rarely I will have to set it to all edges because the threshold for highlight edges is too high. It would be nice if this had a slider instead of just two settings, but the All Edges is great for CA that the CA sliders just can't remove.

Worse comes to worse you will need to use the sponge tool in PS to correct anything this can't, but I have not had to do that since I migrated to LR for my RAW processing. These sliders are also available in Bridge and Adobe Camera RAW, btw.

I can write up something more detailed with screengrabs and such later.

whaam
Mar 18, 2008
^ Thanks. Without sounding too lazy, what are the big advantages of using Lightroom over Bridge->PS ?

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Tziko posted:

You can also Alt-click on the mask icon in the layers dialog to achieve this.

Or you can just hit |

kefkafloyd
Jun 8, 2006

What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses

jhoc posted:

^ Thanks. Without sounding too lazy, what are the big advantages of using Lightroom over Bridge->PS ?

Bridge sucks, that's a big reason to use LR. They all use the same underlying engine (ACR) so there really isn't image quality concerns as long as you're on the same versions across everything. The issue is that Bridge's workflow is just terrible. It's bad.

At least, for me it's bad. If someone uses it and it does the job, power to them I guess. It's just too cumbersome for me.

GoonsInDepth
Apr 10, 2006

by Peatpot

porcellus posted:

There's a lot of information loss on his hair and shirt. The subject's got the right exposure, try masking him out and giving only the background contrast. Post-proc aside, the second crop doesn't work as well as the first one. He appears to be hunched over, rather than leaning on something. Nice picture though, where's it taken?

Penthouse party in Vegas @ the AVNs. It's the best picture I have of me from the whole week so I wanted to do something nice with it and maybe print it. I don't usually have pictures of me taken, usually the other way around. :3:

quazi
Apr 19, 2002

data control

kefkafloyd posted:

Bridge sucks, that's a big reason to use LR.
The only advantage Bridge has over Lightroom is its Curves function. It's pretty much a copy of the one in Photoshop, rather than being limited to 3 points like Lightroom.

LampkinsMateSteve
Jan 1, 2005

I've really fucked it. Have I fucked it?

DanTheFryingPan posted:

Was the OP's image taken in Tapiola by any chance?

Clicking the image leads to the flickr page - this image is part of a Tapiola set, and is tagged Tapiola.

kefkafloyd
Jun 8, 2006

What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses

quazi posted:

The only advantage Bridge has over Lightroom is its Curves function. It's pretty much a copy of the one in Photoshop, rather than being limited to 3 points like Lightroom.

It's actually the ACR point curve function, which is not exposed in LR for some reason. ACR has two curves, a parametric one (the same one in LR) and a point curve. The Parametric curve actually works pretty well once you know what it's meant for. They both do the same thing in the end, but IMO the parametric curve is easier and faster to use. No futzing around, just move the shadow or highlight slider. This is speaking from someone who uses the curves tool in PS nearly every day.

You're using the parametric curve to basically restore the tone distribution that we expect in the image that isn't revealed in a RAW capture, since the RAW image is just a linear expression of the light that the sensor captured. You don't need to use it for crazy wacky corrections because the rest of the tools in LR do that for you. We expect light to behave in a logarithmic fashion, which is what that curve helps restore. Use the exposure/brightness sliders to adjust your overall exposure, for example. Use the contrast slider (which is not the same as PS' contrast tool!) to adjust the overall gap between shadows and darks. Use black point and highlight tools to accomplish moving the 0 and 100% points... and so on.

quazi
Apr 19, 2002

data control
What I means is you can't do this in Lightroom:



Which turns this,



..into this.



I did this long before I knew how to use masks to overlap two layers. Since then I've been trying to recreate it with other methods, and not a single one looks as good (and was as easy to create) as this one -- which I created in Bridge (actually ACR) (which is a program that apparently sucks, hrm).

My overall point is since Lightroom is using the exact same RAW engine as Bridge, and is positioned to be its replacement, why doesn't it offer the ability to make a custom curve like Bridge does? It offers every other editing feature of Bridge, why is it missing this one?

quazi fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Jan 17, 2009

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Bridge sucks and Lightroom is not meant to be a replacement for PS for editing. Do what you can in LR and then do the heavy post or retouching in PS.

kefkafloyd
Jun 8, 2006

What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses

quazi posted:

What I means is you can't do this in Lightroom:



Which turns this,



..into this.



I did this long before I knew how to use masks to overlap two layers. Since then I've been trying to recreate it with other methods, and not a single one looks as good (and was as easy to create) as this one -- which I created in Bridge (which is a program that apparently sucks, hrm).

I said Bridge sucks because its workflow is bad.

You could do the same exact thing by opening up the RAW in PS in ACR and using the point curve in that. The reason LR uses the parametric curve by default is that it's to give a quick shortcut for the overwhelming use of the tone curve, and that's to restore the logarithmic tone mapping to make the image look good. It won't let you go to crazy extremes but honestly 99% of the time it's unnecessary to do so.

I still think that the point curve should be an option in LR but for whatever reason it's unavailable.

quazi
Apr 19, 2002

data control

kefkafloyd posted:

Bridge sucks ... opening up the RAW in PS in ACR...
AH HA! That's where I'm getting lost.. I thought ACR was Bridge! I never used it for its workflow anyway -- because it sucked. :v:

(feel free and replace every mention of Bridge with ACR)

kefkafloyd
Jun 8, 2006

What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses

quazi posted:

AH HA! That's where I'm getting lost.. I thought ACR was Bridge! I never used it for its workflow anyway -- because it sucked. :v:

(feel free and replace every mention of Bridge with ACR)

Well, Bridge uses ACR for its raw conversion, just like Lightroom. So, there you go. ;)

Mannequin
Mar 8, 2003
I guess I'm the only one who likes Bridge. I have a custom layout and everything. I see all my thumbnails in Bridge, see what the photo settings were down below (and even further will show me the lens and camera type), and then rate it or just open it.

Works like a loving charm.

I can make ACR adjustments and apply it to the RAW or JPEG or open it into Photoshop for further edits. I like Lightroom as well but I really don't use it that much except for some of the silly effects like the split toning.

Here's a screenshot I started working on but never finished writing the tutorial. (I ended up taking a ridiculous amount of screenshots and then realizing it was waay it overboard. Plus I shot in JPG - HUGE SIN! But this is an old picture before I cared about RAW.)

Speaking of tutorials I really will add one soon I promise. I've got lots of examples. The key is I want to keep it short.

Edit: actually if you're bored and want to page through the screenshots, just change the URL from "step01" to stepxx - up to step19. That way I don't actually have to write anything. :)


vvvv I've always wondered about this. How do you shoot tethered?

Mannequin fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jan 17, 2009

germskr
Oct 23, 2007

HAHAHA! Ahh Eeeee BPOOF!
Bridge is decent when you're shooting tethered to the computer- I use it to view my photos after every shot and use ACR to look at the histogram. Once I'm done, everything goes to Lightroom to be cataloged and probably never opened again. :v:

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Bridge is awful for shooting tethered compared to basically anything else (ie Capture One).

There is nothing in Bridge that other software doesn't do better. The only reason it still exists is because a ton of people are stubborn and still use it as a part of their crappy workflows.

germskr
Oct 23, 2007

HAHAHA! Ahh Eeeee BPOOF!

brad industry posted:

Bridge is awful for shooting tethered compared to basically anything else (ie Capture One).

There is nothing in Bridge that other software doesn't do better. The only reason it still exists is because a ton of people are stubborn and still use it as a part of their crappy workflows.

I mean Bridge is loads better than the proprietary software, and while yes that is obvious I've assisted 2 photographers who refused to use anything else. Haven't used Capture One so I'm :confused: when it comes to that.

What do you mean Mannequin?

Mannequin
Mar 8, 2003
^^ How do you shoot so the photo you take on your camera immediately loads onto your laptop screen? I figured that's what you meant.

brad industry posted:

Bridge is awful for shooting tethered compared to basically anything else (ie Capture One).

There is nothing in Bridge that other software doesn't do better. The only reason it still exists is because a ton of people are stubborn and still use it as a part of their crappy workflows.

What does other software do better? I mean, it loads thumbnails, shows previews, displays EXIF, lists folders, allows you to run batch processes and actions created in Photoshop (love this), it filters results by ratings or labels (standard) and it works all the time.

What does other software do better? I am just curious, not trying to sound defensive. I really can't think of much else I need from a workflow program other than maybe tagging things (which I probably wouldn't do anyway).

Mannequin fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jan 17, 2009

germskr
Oct 23, 2007

HAHAHA! Ahh Eeeee BPOOF!
Oh. I use Canon's software to control the taking of photos and I'll admit, it's somewhat clumsy although nowhere as lovely when it comes to UI as Nikon's "Camera Control Pro 2" or whatever it is.

kefkafloyd
Jun 8, 2006

What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses
Bridge has only become semi-usable because they made it more like Lightroom in CS3, and much more so in CS4. It's like some crazy file browser on steroids, while Lightroom is meant to really keep you organized and apply edits across many images at once.

mcsuede
Dec 30, 2003

Anyone who has a continuous smile on his face conceals a toughness that is almost frightening.
-Greta Garbo
Yeah the Bridge improvements in CS4 are pretty good, it's at least worth a second look for certain things (or for people who don't have Lightroom for some reason).

Mannequin
Mar 8, 2003

mcsuede posted:

Yeah the Bridge improvements in CS4 are pretty good, it's at least worth a second look for certain things (or for people who don't have Lightroom for some reason).

How is Bridge like Lightroom? You mean organizationally or in that you can apply curves and sharpening, etc? Because my version of Bridge is strictly an organizational tool. Sorry to rant so long about Bridge, I feel like I'm derailing the thread here.

mcsuede
Dec 30, 2003

Anyone who has a continuous smile on his face conceals a toughness that is almost frightening.
-Greta Garbo

Mannequin posted:

How is Bridge like Lightroom? You mean organizationally or in that you can apply curves and sharpening, etc? Because my version of Bridge is strictly an organizational tool. Sorry to rant so long about Bridge, I feel like I'm derailing the thread here.

As an organizational tool. Obviously much more lightweight than Lightroom but the improvements have made it a lot more tolerable/useful for those without LR. It's also quite a good product for all of us Adobe users who have workflows related to a lot more elements then just photography (I'm in this thread because I prep images as part of my duties as a print designer and photographers know good tricks).

quazi
Apr 19, 2002

data control
Bridge is clunky.. like two retards loving. While Lightroom is a room full of well-oiled pornstars who know what the hell they're doing.

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Mannequin posted:

^^ How do you shoot so the photo you take on your camera immediately loads onto your laptop screen? I figured that's what you meant.

Get a really long Firewire cable and some software - I have EOS Utility send everything to a watched folder for Capture One.

quote:

What does other software do better? I mean, it loads thumbnails, shows previews, displays EXIF, lists folders, allows you to run batch processes and actions created in Photoshop (love this), it filters results by ratings or labels (standard) and it works all the time.=

What does Bridge do that Lightroom doesn't do better/faster/easier/more streamlined? Nothing. Bridge was good before Finder and all that poo poo had decent image/RAW support but now it's just a giant kludge of features added on at random in a desperate attempt to make it useful. Lightroom was basically built in response to how lovely Bridge is for your workflow. I'll admit I haven't used the CS4 version yet but if you still use Bridge go get Lightroom and use it for a while, the benefits are obvious. I haven't seen a need to even open Bridge in a looooong time.

ferdinand
May 14, 2003
lo stupire me

mindphlux posted:

I am not sure if this is really a 'post processing' question, but -

I took this picture :

http://i39.tinypic.com/iegx3n.jpg

I like it, for the most part, except the obvious eye is red as poo poo part. I have had several photographs like this in the past where just one area is an odd color - but I think the actual image data is still all there - IE, it's not completely blown out. How would I go about correcting this in photoshop?

You can copy and paste the good eye to the other side, transform it and mask it to fit

TsarAleksi
Nov 24, 2004

What?
Every once in a while I'll accidentally open bridge by hitting "browse" in photoshop when I meant to hit open. :(

I'm still working on optimizing my workflow but right now I start with stuff in Photo Mechanic, where I tag my picks and also tag anything that is a black frame, photo of the floor or whatever for deletion. Everything goes in a master folder with the shoot name and date, then I put the picks into a "picks" folder and pull them into Capture One. The processed images go in a "processed" folder. If that's all I need then I'm done, if I need to do retouching in photoshop or whatever, the final images go in a "final" folder. The idea is to make sure that I have everything in one place and easy to find. I have master folders to separate the different kinds of shoots I might do-- personal, client, and for the newspaper.

I've never done much retouching before recently, but it's been a big part of my internship that I'm doing now-- the way I've learned people retouching is pretty simple but it works well-- making an edit layer that is a dupe of the base, cleaning up using the clone and healing brush, then backing it off using a mask so it looks realistic.

Fidel Castronaut
Dec 25, 2004

Houston, we're Havana problem.
I'm also going to go ahead and request someone do tutorials for digital cross-processing and proper clonestamping. this is a really informative thread and i appreciate everyone that has taken the time to do step-by-step tutorials.

Mannequin
Mar 8, 2003
Well, I've gone against my rule of making this short, but hopefully it's helpful.

. . . . . .

Beginning sometime over the summer, I started faking skies. It helped make pictures more dramatic and it was fairly easy to do. The below pictures incorporated fake skies. (Some of them are repeated, too. :ssh: )



Of course I don't always do it, usually only when there is a vast blankness up above or I think it just might compliment nicely. It's a pretty simple procedure so I will sum it up below:

Every now and then I'll go outside when there are interesting formations in the sky, look upwards, and take pictures of clouds. Maybe 2-3 times a year. I'll take a few hundred shots, normally at narrow apertures (f/11) to capture details that might escape larger apertures. The majority of the clouds used in these photos were taken after a storm, where I was able to net pictures like these:



In fact, the one on the left is a composite as well. The moon and gradient were added in separately during a shoot of the lunar eclipse with my D200.



. . . . . .

Here's a quick overview of what I do to composite in skies and other things:

1) My starting image, before I have done any adjustments except basic cloning out of lens dust and slight cropping:




2) Clouds are brought in from a separate image and pasted on top. I create a mask and using the airbrush, quickly erase the part of the clouds that hit the tree branches. It's supposed to look seamless:



In fact, the clouds are duplicated and layer modes are changed to Overlay, because this helps them blend into the background more.


3) Unfortunately, as you can see, the hue of the new clouds is a little bright and too cyan in color, so adjustments have to be made. A Hue/Saturation adjustment layer is added to desaturate the cyan, and alter the hue to a deeper blue color. The combination of removing saturation and altering hue is effective, but the clouds lost some punch, so a Levels adjustment layer was added to bring back brightness and some darks. The key is that it's supposed to look natural.




4) As the skies typically work in nature, the further up you look the darker they get as they reach closer to the outer edges of the atmosphere. Makes sense, right? Knowing this, I often introduce black gradients to my images to help emphasize this technique. I did it recently with one of Luk3's pictures here, somewhat dramatically. But you can also see how I've done it in the image below (compared to the above screenshot). It's subtle, but it compliments the overall feel.



I also added a Color Balance adjustment layer to color correct some of the loss in blue from my previous hue/saturation. A minor adjustment there.


5) At this point, I'm basically finished with the sky. I add a quick Levels adjustment layer with a mask to lighten the darks in the foreground, and a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer boost the saturation of the golds and the greens. Nothing crazy or complicated here:




6) Birds from prior shots of this same scene are pasted in and masked into the image with relative ease. And then I'm done.



Total processing time was probably 30 minutes.


. . . . . .

A few things to note:

Some of you might think doing this is a lot of work and a pain in the rear end. I actually enjoy doing post work. When I'm happy with a picture, I immediately start thinking about ways that I can improve it - sometimes with very little adjustment, and sometimes with heavy adjustment like in the image above. To me, it's a form of creative expression, and since I like being creative it's fun. There are no rules and really, no right answers. If you're happy with it, then your goal is accomplished. Nevertheless, I find making these changes easily. It helps that I've been using Photoshop for over 15 years now (since version 2.0!) I know all the shortcuts and generally how everything works. That makes it easier. I would say, if you have trouble with post-processing because you don't know how to do it and you want to improve, you have to want it. You have to have a natural curiosity for it and that desire to be creative. If you don't, then it becomes strictly educational and in my opinion, harder to soak up. I've taught a few Photoshop and Illustrator classes and found that the people who benefited from it the most were those who wanted to be creative and have that extra control over their images - whatever they may be.

Photoshop is a bit of a mystery. When I first started using it I was pretty baffled because the interface was really nothing, especially back then, and I was confused at how people could generate such beautiful things with this software. Remember, it is really first and foremost a photo editing tool. Although it can be used to make something out of nothing beginning with an empty canvas, it helps to bring something in that already exists, and then to start experimenting with the filters and layer types. (Sorry if that was painfully obvious.)

The point is, if you know this, then it starts to get easier. Once something is brought in, start playing with the filters and the adjustment layers. I never read a Photoshop book or took a class, I learned by experimenting. I feel this is one of the best ways because you learn from your own mistakes.

  • Don't damage your work. Create duplicates of things and save your PSDs intermittently so you don't lose your work.

  • Experiment with layer modes like Overlay and Multiply.

  • Know masks. If you know nothing else, get to know these. If you know how to use masks effectively the rest will be an experiment in your own creativity. Want to switch heads on people? Fine no problem. Need to make something in one corner dark and something in the middle bright? Easy. Hue/Saturation in the sky and not in the foreground? Simple.

Sorry if this sounds horribly rudimentary. I'm just trying to sum up key things that will help you grow if you're really starting from nowhere. I guess I'll shut up now.

. . . . . .

I guess what would help me and possibly others is if you had specific questions on processing techniques. That way it's less of a shot in the dark.

I have a question for people like LuisX and Zoowick on how they achieve the uber-smooth airbrushing of skin on portraits. That's sort of been a weak point for me.


Fidel Castronaut posted:

I'm also going to go ahead and request someone do tutorials for digital cross-processing and proper clonestamping. this is a really informative thread and i appreciate everyone that has taken the time to do step-by-step tutorials.

Since I rarely do excessive cloning and I'm not sure what digital cross-posting is, I'll leave this to the other pros. :) I'll try and find some examples of heavy cloning though if I can.

johnasavoia
Jan 9, 2006

^^^
Not that I have any problems with photo-manipulation or photo-illustrations but thats really not a photograph any more.

Mannequin
Mar 8, 2003

johnasavoia posted:

^^^
Not that I have any problems with photo-manipulation or photo-illustrations but thats really not a photograph any more.

I hear you. It's definitely manipulation but I am okay with it. Just about everything I do is a form of manipulation, though. If you look at the last things I shot recently you'll see very strong black and white conversions (to the point of it exceeding the look of film) or alterations to hue and saturation and layer modes to the point where images take on a completely different feel.

Your photography is quite different, though. You are more or less trying to imitate the effect of unprocessed film - or rather, film processed through a dark room with little to no manipulation. It's hard to compare.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ferdinand
May 14, 2003
lo stupire me

Mannequin posted:



I have a question for people like LuisX and Zoowick on how they achieve the uber-smooth airbrushing of skin on portraits. That's sort of been a weak point for me.


Since I rarely do excessive cloning and I'm not sure what digital cross-posting is, I'll leave this to the other pros. :) I'll try and find some examples of heavy cloning though if I can.

Since you keep all of your cloud work in it's own group it might be easier for you to just put the mask of the clouds into a layer mask on the group, then you wouldn't need to repeat it so often.

For skin a lot of people just clone and heal, really to give it a nice clean tone you want to dodge and burn.

for ex

I'm not allowed to post a before but you know Kate Moss doesn't look like that obv. What I find is healing is good for zits, unwanted freckles. Cloning is the tricky one, you can quickly get mushy fast. I use cloning mostly for little hairs on the face, zoom in with a very tiny soft brush on darken at 70% or so and take them out. If the model is shiny you can use a bigger soft brush at 30% and just sample and dot, sample from a new spot and dot again.

I haven't used cs4 so I'm unsure of the new dodge and burning stuff I'm hearing about but for 3 I'll stick with it on dodge at 2% (or 1 if its too strong) and start blending the little shapes of blotchyness on a face. For non beauty you can do this zoomed out, 16%, 33%, 50 etc with a big and small brushes then zoom in if necessary to blend smaller blotches. This is a great tool for changing shadows on skin too w/o having to liquidify (as with the shadow/highlight tool), but you have to be careful to keep it natural.

You can click other dynamics in the brush palette to help with sensitivity, but I have a very light touch with my tablet and don't prefer it.

If you go overboard use the history brush (set it after you dupe your original layer) and brush things back in at like 20% or so.

Helpful things you probs know but others might not:
When dodging/burning press option to switch without having to use the toolbar.
[ and ] to quickly switch brush sizes
"shift [" and "shift ]" to switch hardness of the brush

I can try and explain this better with pictures if anyone is interested but I'm on a new laptop and haven't really set much up yet

ferdinand fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jan 18, 2009

  • Locked thread