A great video by my hero, Matt Nicolosi, on how to make the most of textures using Photoshop. You can do some of this stuff in Elements, but CS is far superior (sorry Elements users) and a working kowledge of layer masks is needed for the finishing touches.
For anyone with CS and struggling with layer masks, check out this video on the Totally Rad Actions site: (select the one titled Photoshop Layers and Masks)
Lots of views with no posts so I'll break the silence. Thanks much for posting your comments on your project photos and for these helpful resources. I'm going to be purchasing CS5 soon and am busily bookmarking many of your tips. Cheers!
@jinximages Thanks for the info! I have both of the TRA for Photoshop, but haven't gotten the textures because I didn't know how much I'd actually use them. Which TRA do you find yourself using most often?
@laburgett I use the TRA actions mostly. The Lightroom presets and the textures plugin I only bought recently (I always just did that stuff manually before) and have to say, they do save a lot of time. If you meant in relation to the actions (which ones I use most), I'd have to say that changes. I use almost every action in the sets (TRA take up almost half of my total actions). But regulars are: Oh Snap!, Yin/Yang, Claire-ify (for backlit shots especially), Good Vs Evil, Boutwell's Magic Glasses, Contrast (Luma), Acid Washed, Bullet Tooth, and the black and white conversions. I used to use Pro Retouch a lot, but I have the Portraiture plugin and that usually means Pro Retouch isn't needed. I tend to use a lot of the actions at very low % opacity, and several of them in combination, to get the looks I want. Sorry for rambling, I'll stop now! :)
I read this and another thread you had contributed to about photo editing programs and thought I would shoot you off a thank you for sharing what you've learned and know. Tomorrow I'm downloading two free trials (one you suggested and one that would upgrade my current program) to see what would be better suited for me. I wouldn't have probably looked had it not been for your postings. Thanks.
@hellcat You're most welcome! Any time I think something might be significantly useful to the community I'll be sure to post about it. :)
In regards to portrait Professional - no. I have used that add-on, but I'm not so keen on it. It goes so far as to automatically (well, semi-automatically) change a lot about a person - facial structure, eye shape, as well as the usual skin tones and blemishes. It does a sort of layer-mask and liquify tool thing, and I'm just not keen on that (for my own work). I very rarely change someone's shape - I might get rid of a double chin or such, or reduce a bit of a waistline bulge, but changing someone's facial structure to a preset of what someone has programmed as "ideal" bothers me a bit. That might make me a hypocrite to some people, but that's where I, personally, draw the line. I want my photos to look like the people who are in them, and not an approximated ideal version of them. I'd rather use lighting and posing to flatter my subjects.
All that said, Portrait Professional is a great tool. I know people who swear by it. But most of the pro photogs I know won't touch it (that is, the circle of photog friends I'm in - birds of a feather and all that). I and most of my colleagues use Portraiture, by Imagenomic. They are also responsible for the amazing Noiseware plugin. It is a skin smoothing and toning plugin, with a lot of built-in customisation, and very easy to use without making people into Barbie Dolls. http://www.imagenomic.com/
I also really like OnOne software. I have their plugins, but I bought their package specifically for what was then Genuine Fractals. It is now called Perfect Resize. It is the best commercially available resizing algorithm I have found, allowing upscaling of up to 1000% without any considerable degradation of image quality. I only know of one better, and that is a scripted algorithm (hard to use) made originally for NASA and their sat-telescopes - sync1024. http://www.ononesoftware.com/
lol, I'm glad you said it because that becomes the great debate doesn't it? I was concerned about their before and after photos because 1/ you could see the "mask" line around the eyes where the skin changes, and 2/ it seems inherently wrong to tell someone they aren't beautiful on their own merits. My husband had suggested downloading the trial too see if there was a way to not use it to the same drastically altered effects; however, since seeing this post, I don't think it is worth looking into further. My problem isn't really skin correction so much as eyes anyways. (although I could definitely use some mastering of the double chin minimizing technique...practice.)
If you wouldn't mind, could you look at this and let me know how to get that grain/noise out of the eyes? I don't post very many portraits on here as I'm looking at this as a place to learn editing skills, still life, light, and composure etc... Didn't make it into school this year, so I've sort of turned this project into an online classroom. http://365project.org/hellcat/365/2010-10-31 Granted... I opened up my lens as far as it would go to avoid using flash and was trying to use the lowest ISO that I could to avoid grain. This was a test shot. (Only meaning that the color was washed from being underexposed and trying to correct it, and that I would not have normally cropped the photo like I did for posting here.)
I've been doing the "old fashioned" way of masking the eyes, adjusting levels, then the red hues (in their own layers) and then of course the softening of the skin then resharpening.
I would appreciate it, but if you don't have time, I understand.
Thanks for the links and the response. I'll be looking at them today.
I have to caveat this by saying I'm not a master at removing things like noise, colour casts etc. Some of my friends are great at that stuff, but when I need to do it I usually rely on a plugin (Noiseware), or I go and follow step-by-step instructions (for colour casts etc).
For local noise, I used to use a small gaussian blur on a layer mask, and just softly paint it in where I want it until it looked right. You lose detail though. You can always apply a high pass filter afterwards to sharpen things up, and a curves layer (masked) to bring back some contrast and colour, but it is really, really hard to get right.
Personally, I lean towards a higher ISO, rather than underexposure. The thing with digital is you don't get noise where things are bright. Noise happens because the sensor isn't getting enough light to register properly - that's why noise happens in dark areas in a photo. It's basically static, because the sensor is charged and there is no electromagnetic energy to counteract it. With film, grain was mostly in the light areas, or all over. Of course, if you push the ISO too high you'll get noise everywhere anyway, and then you'll need software to correct it (albeit never perfectly).
Have you ever heard the term "shooting right"? It is in relation to your photo's histogram. Basically, the peak of the graph should be right-side of centre. That means the mid-tones are well exposed, and you have plenty of colour. If you graphs are always left of centre, they are more likely going to be noisy and lacking in colour.
I hope that kind of answers your question, and that I didn't give you a whole heap of useless information. I'm more than happy to discuss things further if you think I can help. :)
Jinx, thanks for looking. And it certainly means something that it isn't a total flop from the portraiture point of view.
I didn't think about a curves layer... so I'll try that on the next practice shot. I also didn't know that the noise only showed where things are darker... that might be another thing I'll have to practice.
As you can see, my camera is more of a learners camera, not a full frame, and it gets noisy at lower ISO's... 400 is where I start to see them... but I had thought about doing some shots at higher ISO's where I focused on learning how to make the noise work for the image. lol, that ought to be a challenge because I tend to like purposefully used blown out highlights.
I've just started reading about how to decipher the histogram, but hadn't gotten to the right part of centre part... just that the balanced photo is spread out and what the different colors on the histogram mean etc...
lol, none of it is a heap of useless info. I'm really trying to learn so critiques and advice are always welcomed. Tuition is going up (again) and I'm not sure I'll get into school, so learning where I can and from whom I can is essential. Thank you so much.
Do you mind if I follow you so that if I have a question I can direct it to you directly? I don't want to mess up your feeds/views/etc though, so if that is a problem, let me know.
Again thank you...
(BTW, I'm using Elements (cringe now if you would like) and have been double checking to make sure I know the go arounds to make it more similar to PS... just the price point was better and we weren't sure how far I would take this at the time of the investment.)
Elements isn't so bad if you are technically minded, because there are ways to do layer masks etc albeit with a few more steps involved. Had you thought about Lightroom 3? It has some fairly good noise reduction built in, that you can simply adjust with sliders. And with student ID it costs around $130 (here in Australia, anyway).
Quite a bit of what I've learned has been from workshops and, perhaps ironically, not photography workshops but rather fine art printing workshops. Due to the nature of printing, they tend to delve more into the technical side of everything from CMOS through to Photoshop and plugin algorithms. If you ever have the opportunity to get on one, that is one where those running it have a lot of technical knowledge, don't hesitate to book. I probably only retained 10% of what I was shown, because there was simply so much to take in (lucky I have course notes), but I've been able to put into good use all that I do remember.
And no - of course I don't mind if you follow me, even if it is just so you can ask questions when you need to. :) For me, that's what this community is about, more than popularity and viewcounts.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
@robv Glad I could be of some help! :)
@laburgett I use the TRA actions mostly. The Lightroom presets and the textures plugin I only bought recently (I always just did that stuff manually before) and have to say, they do save a lot of time. If you meant in relation to the actions (which ones I use most), I'd have to say that changes. I use almost every action in the sets (TRA take up almost half of my total actions). But regulars are: Oh Snap!, Yin/Yang, Claire-ify (for backlit shots especially), Good Vs Evil, Boutwell's Magic Glasses, Contrast (Luma), Acid Washed, Bullet Tooth, and the black and white conversions. I used to use Pro Retouch a lot, but I have the Portraiture plugin and that usually means Pro Retouch isn't needed. I tend to use a lot of the actions at very low % opacity, and several of them in combination, to get the looks I want. Sorry for rambling, I'll stop now! :)
I read this and another thread you had contributed to about photo editing programs and thought I would shoot you off a thank you for sharing what you've learned and know. Tomorrow I'm downloading two free trials (one you suggested and one that would upgrade my current program) to see what would be better suited for me. I wouldn't have probably looked had it not been for your postings. Thanks.
In regards to portrait Professional - no. I have used that add-on, but I'm not so keen on it. It goes so far as to automatically (well, semi-automatically) change a lot about a person - facial structure, eye shape, as well as the usual skin tones and blemishes. It does a sort of layer-mask and liquify tool thing, and I'm just not keen on that (for my own work). I very rarely change someone's shape - I might get rid of a double chin or such, or reduce a bit of a waistline bulge, but changing someone's facial structure to a preset of what someone has programmed as "ideal" bothers me a bit. That might make me a hypocrite to some people, but that's where I, personally, draw the line. I want my photos to look like the people who are in them, and not an approximated ideal version of them. I'd rather use lighting and posing to flatter my subjects.
All that said, Portrait Professional is a great tool. I know people who swear by it. But most of the pro photogs I know won't touch it (that is, the circle of photog friends I'm in - birds of a feather and all that). I and most of my colleagues use Portraiture, by Imagenomic. They are also responsible for the amazing Noiseware plugin. It is a skin smoothing and toning plugin, with a lot of built-in customisation, and very easy to use without making people into Barbie Dolls.
http://www.imagenomic.com/
I also really like OnOne software. I have their plugins, but I bought their package specifically for what was then Genuine Fractals. It is now called Perfect Resize. It is the best commercially available resizing algorithm I have found, allowing upscaling of up to 1000% without any considerable degradation of image quality. I only know of one better, and that is a scripted algorithm (hard to use) made originally for NASA and their sat-telescopes - sync1024.
http://www.ononesoftware.com/
If you wouldn't mind, could you look at this and let me know how to get that grain/noise out of the eyes? I don't post very many portraits on here as I'm looking at this as a place to learn editing skills, still life, light, and composure etc... Didn't make it into school this year, so I've sort of turned this project into an online classroom.
http://365project.org/hellcat/365/2010-10-31 Granted... I opened up my lens as far as it would go to avoid using flash and was trying to use the lowest ISO that I could to avoid grain. This was a test shot. (Only meaning that the color was washed from being underexposed and trying to correct it, and that I would not have normally cropped the photo like I did for posting here.)
I've been doing the "old fashioned" way of masking the eyes, adjusting levels, then the red hues (in their own layers) and then of course the softening of the skin then resharpening.
I would appreciate it, but if you don't have time, I understand.
Thanks for the links and the response. I'll be looking at them today.
Love this shot, first of all!
I have to caveat this by saying I'm not a master at removing things like noise, colour casts etc. Some of my friends are great at that stuff, but when I need to do it I usually rely on a plugin (Noiseware), or I go and follow step-by-step instructions (for colour casts etc).
For local noise, I used to use a small gaussian blur on a layer mask, and just softly paint it in where I want it until it looked right. You lose detail though. You can always apply a high pass filter afterwards to sharpen things up, and a curves layer (masked) to bring back some contrast and colour, but it is really, really hard to get right.
Personally, I lean towards a higher ISO, rather than underexposure. The thing with digital is you don't get noise where things are bright. Noise happens because the sensor isn't getting enough light to register properly - that's why noise happens in dark areas in a photo. It's basically static, because the sensor is charged and there is no electromagnetic energy to counteract it. With film, grain was mostly in the light areas, or all over. Of course, if you push the ISO too high you'll get noise everywhere anyway, and then you'll need software to correct it (albeit never perfectly).
Have you ever heard the term "shooting right"? It is in relation to your photo's histogram. Basically, the peak of the graph should be right-side of centre. That means the mid-tones are well exposed, and you have plenty of colour. If you graphs are always left of centre, they are more likely going to be noisy and lacking in colour.
I hope that kind of answers your question, and that I didn't give you a whole heap of useless information. I'm more than happy to discuss things further if you think I can help. :)
Jinx, thanks for looking. And it certainly means something that it isn't a total flop from the portraiture point of view.
I didn't think about a curves layer... so I'll try that on the next practice shot. I also didn't know that the noise only showed where things are darker... that might be another thing I'll have to practice.
As you can see, my camera is more of a learners camera, not a full frame, and it gets noisy at lower ISO's... 400 is where I start to see them... but I had thought about doing some shots at higher ISO's where I focused on learning how to make the noise work for the image. lol, that ought to be a challenge because I tend to like purposefully used blown out highlights.
I've just started reading about how to decipher the histogram, but hadn't gotten to the right part of centre part... just that the balanced photo is spread out and what the different colors on the histogram mean etc...
lol, none of it is a heap of useless info. I'm really trying to learn so critiques and advice are always welcomed. Tuition is going up (again) and I'm not sure I'll get into school, so learning where I can and from whom I can is essential. Thank you so much.
Do you mind if I follow you so that if I have a question I can direct it to you directly? I don't want to mess up your feeds/views/etc though, so if that is a problem, let me know.
Again thank you...
(BTW, I'm using Elements (cringe now if you would like) and have been double checking to make sure I know the go arounds to make it more similar to PS... just the price point was better and we weren't sure how far I would take this at the time of the investment.)
Elements isn't so bad if you are technically minded, because there are ways to do layer masks etc albeit with a few more steps involved. Had you thought about Lightroom 3? It has some fairly good noise reduction built in, that you can simply adjust with sliders. And with student ID it costs around $130 (here in Australia, anyway).
Quite a bit of what I've learned has been from workshops and, perhaps ironically, not photography workshops but rather fine art printing workshops. Due to the nature of printing, they tend to delve more into the technical side of everything from CMOS through to Photoshop and plugin algorithms. If you ever have the opportunity to get on one, that is one where those running it have a lot of technical knowledge, don't hesitate to book. I probably only retained 10% of what I was shown, because there was simply so much to take in (lucky I have course notes), but I've been able to put into good use all that I do remember.
And no - of course I don't mind if you follow me, even if it is just so you can ask questions when you need to. :) For me, that's what this community is about, more than popularity and viewcounts.