Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

a raw baby!
#1

In a way, this was sparked off by earlier discussions about raw files in banded drake's hockey thread.
This is Alyssa(my friend's baby) taken at ASA 400 in natural light with my "always on" lens, the Tamron 90mm f2.8. As usual for (my!) portraits, I went wide open, knowing I could lose any edge fluffiness in my cropping....also as usual I just try to focus on the nearest eye then worry about composition afterwards: I can always simulate bokeh with the blur tool after all!
Here's where raw came in useful: the light was a bit contrasty and I knew that odd shadows would be lurking if I was not careful....therefore I overexposed slightly, knowing that digital sensors are better at retaining highlight detail than shadow details.
At the conversion stage I went for the lowest contrast so as to retain all the detail I could in the face. I opted for orange filtration in the mono, as this lightens skin. (By the way, for those not yet in the know about this, orange filtration is great for babies and ladies...really flatters and purifies the skin! If the subject is male, blue filtration does the opposite: brings out every blemish(er, sorry,...detail Wink such as wrinkles and rugged beards, etcWink
Right, at this stage I now underexposed slightly: this keeps the whites from blowing out if I then go on to add a touch of diffusion to simulate,say, some specific soft-focus portait lens(like Pentax, for instance).
A touch of blur on some extraneous detail, a touch of dodge-highlight and burn-shadow to bring the subject out from the background tones: then the final thing to do as it goes to 8-bit greyscale, some diffusion to soften the skin and allow the eyes to do their thing: I'd also run the burn tool over the eyelashes to help the contrast here(actually, I also usually dodge the eyeballs to get rid of any shadowed greyness)
And there you have it. It may sound a little long-winded but I do like the control I have all the way through the process....AND...I don't possess any flash at all(truthfully, I've never worked out how to do any flash apart from second-curtain stuff in landscapes).
The client was pleased too...and she(the mum) has commissioned me to do these monthly over the next year.
Just thought I'd share a technique that I find useful!

[Image: Alyssa-WEB.jpg]

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#2

Congratulations on the ongoing commission, and thanks for the great write-up.

Zig Wrote:At the conversion stage I went for the lowest contrast so as to retain all the detail I could in the face. I opted for orange filtration in the mono, as this lightens skin. (By the way, for those not yet in the know about this, orange filtration is great for babies and ladies...really flatters and purifies the skin! If the subject is male, blue filtration does the opposite: brings out every blemish(er, sorry,...detail Wink such as wrinkles and rugged beards, etcWink
Awesome tip!

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#3

Very beautiful picture Zig. I like your treatment in the picture.

Congratulations! .. Smile

You are right about the orange. What I have done in some of my bw treatments is to change my raw to grayscale and work with temperature to the yellow. Most of the times, it gives more light in the picture, at the end I can work a better contrast. I do all in LR... The problem here is that when I do it this way, my picture becomes very noisy... Sad

How is the way you applay the orange filter?

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#4

Thank you!
Well, Irma, I apply the orange filter when doing the conversion in the Canon Zoom Browser.
I find that noise can be reduced by: starting off the image with as low contrast as possible;
converting to a tiff;
keeping the image at a higher bit-rate for as long as possible;
keeping as much information/data within the file for as long as possible...by keeping it as RGB colour throughout: only converting to greyscale at the end;
I also found that channel mixing added noise, particularly when lowering the blue channel to darken the sky...so try to avoid this. I found that using a grey grad and burning in allows less noise...also using smart sharpening rather than, for example, unsharp mask.

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#5

Hmm - great shot and great tip - I have no feeling for portraits at all - so all tips appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Reply
#6

Thanks for sharing your methods! And great shot.
I was wondering if in the original you had the mother's face cut off? I wouldn'd mind seeing her.

Uli
Reply
#7

Ta, gang.
Yes I did, Uli. The thing is, I have a few nice shots of both mum and child but depth of field and composition ended up not quite right and reduced the Gurgle Factor in the infant. Tongue

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
Last Post by Don Schaeffer
Jul 18, 2013, 08:30

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)