Archive for Mikes Photography A Photography Forum for Beginners and Professionals alike. Why not become a Member and Join us.
You are accessing this forum with [trillian] as part of the url. This may be happening automatically following a move to a new server, or it may be something you are doing as part of a phpbb3 upgrade. If this is not part of an upgrade then be patient and do not bookmark the link, the old links will be working again shortly. If this is part of an upgrade then make sure the owner finalises it in the control panel and selects to redirect to this version of the forum, then once again the link will return to being the old one within 48 hours or so. NEVER BOOKMARK OR PUBLISH THIS LINK IT WILL NOT ALWAYS WORK.
Thanks. I couldn't really go wrong with such a beautiful subject. Here's another:
creators
It really doesn't get much better than that eh? I am in the delightful position of taking part in a study Leah is doing of a friends baby, Leah has to write an observation of the baby over three months for her nursery training course. Once a week I get to crawl around the floor at learning to crawl level and take shots, it's an absolute delight. As much as I would love to share some of the shots the parents have asked that none be published, but it is a real treat to do.
Gilly
Nice subject - the innocence is overwhelming, but in my opinion you have blown the highlights in both shots, and lost a bit of the detail in the skin texture as a consequence.
I'm thinking a softer light might have made a subtle difference.
Blue
Thanks for your comments, Gilly.
The light was actually just natural window light with a diffuser panel over it, so it was quite soft.
The highlights actually aren't "technically" blown (at least according to photoshops nifty blown highlight detector), but I did bump up the exposure and you're right about the loss of some of the skin detail. However, it was a conscious decision, as I liked the clean, pure look it gave, and the contrast with the black. BUT- to each his own. :D I value your opinion.
Blue
Does anyone else have any thoughts/comments on the lighting issue Gilly mentioned?
creators
Funnily enough, Yes. When I read Gilly's comment if kicked off a whole lot of thoughts because photographing babies is tricky. I almost always prefer Black and white studies of babies because their skin is often quite mottled and, er, well, messy, and converting them to B & W and playing with the exposure and channels allows for playing up the cuteness and playing down the skin tones. I like the render you've done and think you got it pretty much right.
I did a quick B & W shade thing to demonstrate because in converting to B & W you can do a great deal by which channels you emphasise or play down, which is what I assume you've done Blue, though here I've just applied quick filters.
derek
My initial thought was that the baby's face doesn't seem to match the body in skin colour and texture. The face colour looks natural but the body looks a little too white. On the second one, there appears almost a distinct line around the neck. However I do like the baby image against the black background and the face is gorgeous.
I've never taken any baby shots myself so I've no idea how tricky it is.
I'd love to see some more photos from this shoot if you have any Blue?
Blue
Keith- I actually just desaturated these. I do usually like Channel Mixer, though... especially the red channel for feminine portraits... that's what I did with my self portrait. It really washes away imperfections nicely.
It's interesting, because I used to completely avoid b&w, because there are so many ways to go about it in photoshop, I never could decide which path to take. But now I can just look at an image and have a pretty good idea which conversion will suit it best. It's to finally have a bit of a grasp of it.
creators
Blue wrote:
I do usually like Channel Mixer, though... especially the red channel for feminine portraits... that's what I did with my self portrait. It really washes away imperfections nicely.
Blue
derek wrote:
My initial thought was that the baby's face doesn't seem to match the body in skin colour and texture. The face colour looks natural but the body looks a little too white. On the second one, there appears almost a distinct line around the neck. However I do like the baby image against the black background and the face is gorgeous.
I've never taken any baby shots myself so I've no idea how tricky it is.
I'd love to see some more photos from this shoot if you have any Blue?
I see what you're talking about... although that was actually just the way the light was hitting the baby. I didn't process the back seperately from the face, just bumped the exposure a bit and converted to b&w. The window was above the baby's head, so her face was in shadow. That line is an actual crease in her skin (chubby little thing she's two weeks old, by the way).
I have more in this style, but not ready yet. I can post them when they are finished if you'd like. Here is another image, which was just a fun idea I had... and you'll find it completely different from the other two. The extraction is not great, but I didn't want to spend a tremendous amount of time on it... it's just a bit of fun.
Gilly
can't see the pic Blue...........
Could you (just for my interest and learning experience) show me (or us i guess) the original of the baby?
Then when you get a moment, could i be extra cheeky and ask for you to put together a mini tutorial on how do go from the original to what you ended up with?
Thanks in advance!
Blue
It should be there now.
Sure, give me a little bit, and I'll write something up.
Blue
Ok, this is the original as shot. As you can see, it's very underexposed. Please don't throw things at me- for all my bluster I am still very new at this photography stuff.
The image was taken RAW, and processed in Photoshop CS2 (I'm sure similar principles/steps could be applied with a jpeg, in most any editing program).
Open the image in the RAW editor.
Adjust Exposure. The Raw editor has a feature that will turn any blown-out highlights red. I bump up the exposure until I get red somewhere, and then back it off until it's gone (so basically, the exposure is as high as it can be without blowing any highlights). In this image, which was quite underexposed to begin with, I had to raise it 2.5 stops.
Adjust Shadows in the same way (the editor will turn them blue when they blow out.) To 5 on this image
Adjust Brightness until it looks good. (+71 here)
I also set the Sharpness to 0, and set the tone Curve to Strong Contrast.
The image now looks like this:
Note: this doesn't look so good, either, and if I was to leave it in color I wouldn't have exposed it so high.
---Now Open the Image in Photoshop.
Crop the image.
Fix the little protruding bone area. I used the lasso tool, you could also clone it.
Check the levels histogram. It was fine in this instance. Run Auto Color.
Using the Magnetic Lasso, make a selection around the baby. Inverse the selection and lower the exposure until the background is pure black. Deselect.
Desaturate.
Change mode to 8 Bit (I always work in 16 bit until the end). Save as a jpeg.
Finished Product:
Hope that was clear enough. I've never written a tutorial before, and I wasn't sure how much Photoshop you already knew, so if I need to clarify anything let me know.
Gilly
Blue wrote:
Ok, this is the original as shot. As you can see, it's very underexposed. Please don't throw things at me- for all my bluster I am still very new at this photography stuff.
The image was taken RAW, and processed in Photoshop CS2 (I'm sure similar principles/steps could be applied with a jpeg, in most any editing program).
Open the image in the RAW editor.
Adjust Exposure. The Raw editor has a feature that will turn any blown-out highlights red. I bump up the exposure until I get red somewhere, and then back it off until it's gone (so basically, the exposure is as high as it can be without blowing any highlights). In this image, which was quite underexposed to begin with, I had to raise it 2.5 stops.
Adjust Shadows in the same way (the editor will turn them blue when they blow out.) To 5 on this image
Adjust Brightness until it looks good. (+71 here)
I also set the Sharpness to 0, and set the tone Curve to Strong Contrast.
The image now looks like this:
Note: this doesn't look so good, either, and if I was to leave it in color I wouldn't have exposed it so high.
---Now Open the Image in Photoshop.
Crop the image.
Fix the little protruding bone area. I used the lasso tool, you could also clone it.
Check the levels histogram. It was fine in this instance. Run Auto Color.
Using the Magnetic Lasso, make a selection around the baby. Inverse the selection and lower the exposure until the background is pure black. Deselect.
Desaturate.
Change mode to 8 Bit (I always work in 16 bit until the end). Save as a jpeg.
Finished Product:
Hope that was clear enough. I've never written a tutorial before, and I wasn't sure how much Photoshop you already knew, so if I need to clarify anything let me know.
Dude that rocks!
I actually found that really easy to follow (i'm a PS2 newbie too), so totally appreciated the 'laymans' terminalogy!
I am now going to go photo something totally pointless, and follow your instructions and see what I come out with!
PS - did anybody else think turkey dinner when they saw the second picture in your tutorial? (don't tell Mam and Dad i said that!!)
Blue
Sweet! Glad it was useful to you. Please post your results, I'd love to see them.
Umm- turkey dinner... unfortunately, yes, I do see the resemblance. It just makes her look all the more vulnerable to me, though- like I want to protect her.
Blue
Another Easter one.
downwards
fantastic, the B&W/colours contrast very well & the baby looks interested in whats going, which deffiantly adds to the feel of the photo
Leo.
derek
Blue wrote:
Another Easter one.
That's a great photo. Any parent would love to have a photo like that of their baby.
derek
Blue
Thanks for the comments.
downwards wrote:
the baby looks interested in whats going, which deffiantly adds to the feel of the photo
Leo.
Haha- in actuality, the baby couldn't have cared less about what was going on, LOL. She had her eyes open for about three seconds- luckily I caught it. :D It's interesting how photographs can sometimes create their own reality... which is vastly different from the actual reality of things... hmm, trippy.
Gilly
Blue wrote:
Another Easter one.
I love this concept (you might have noticed i try to do some pics like this too!!), but my eye is drawn to the bottom of the yellow egg, and the blue egg near it - the lines are wiggly.
In my nosy nature (or desire to learn, I might argue), why is this? I'm guessing you have coloured the eggs in using PS, and if you did they are amazing, as you got awesome pastel colours but retained the light and shadows - please show me how you did this! Thanks, and sorry for asking lots of questions
Blue
Sure- I'll explain it just as soon as you post the pics you made using my last tutorial. (yes, I'm slightly evil, but sometimes it's necessary, LOL)
Gilly
Blue wrote:
Sure- I'll explain it just as soon as you post the pics you made using my last tutorial. (yes, I'm slightly evil, but sometimes it's necessary, LOL)
its a deal - gimme a few days (working this weekend, but will try to follow your homework when i get a moment!)
I couldn't really go wrong with such a beautiful subject. 
to finally have a bit of a grasp of it. 
(don't tell Mam and Dad i said that!!) 
(yes, I'm slightly evil, but sometimes it's necessary, LOL)