# Differently processed portraits - What do you think?



## yorgasor (Jan 13, 2015)

I've never been one that went for over-processed photos. I'm all for cleaning up an image to make it look better, but I've always preferred to stay true to the subject. That being said, as I was going through a recent batch of photos, I went a little overboard. These aren't techniques I would use on a regular basis, and the photos look a little surreal. But the processing does cause the elements to kind of fade away and the photos pull you in on their eyes.

This is the most blatant of the batch, but the eyes are the most striking:


5D3_8480 by yorgasor, on Flickr

This one could probably use a little more lightening around the eyes:



5D3_8466 by yorgasor, on Flickr

This one is a little more subtle, but I think has a wonderful effect:



5D3_8435 by yorgasor, on Flickr

I've never tried to pass a blatantly overexposed portrait off as art before, but I thought the emotion went well with it:



5D3_8242 by yorgasor, on Flickr


So, what do you guys think? Good? Bad? Trash? I've got thick skin, so lay it on, but if you don't like it, it would be helpful to say what you don't like.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 13, 2015)

YS, I think there's a lot of depth in the composition and mood of these images, and the PP might be distracting from these. I might be wrong, of course. Can you post a less processed (_and_ even unprocessed?) versions of the same?


----------



## aussielearner (Jan 13, 2015)

I simply find them terrible. They are too distracting and detract from the image too much. It simply looks like someone cut eyes out from a magazine and stuck them on some pictures.


----------



## TeT (Jan 13, 2015)

1,3 & 4 NO

2 though I can see something... 

its a tough balance... you are closest to hitting it on 2; less work through the area under the eyes for starters.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jan 13, 2015)

The last one I don't mind, the first three give me the willies.

Jim


----------



## MonkeyB (Jan 13, 2015)

aussielearner said:


> I simply find them terrible. They are too distracting and detract from the image too much. It simply looks like someone cut eyes out from a magazine and stuck them on some pictures.



afraid i agree with this. 

as a side - are these popular now? i've seen these being peddled by the "housewife turned pro" (especially with kids shots) and the eyes are just too fake. in color, it is alien; as if in post a brush was used to lift eye color saturation to the extreme.

bottom line: kitsch.

that being said, these things are purely subjective. some people must love the look if they sell.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 13, 2015)

MonkeyB said:


> aussielearner said:
> 
> 
> > I simply find them terrible. They are too distracting and detract from the image too much. It simply looks like someone cut eyes out from a magazine and stuck them on some pictures.
> ...



If you shoot soft bland images then heavy-handed post processing is your only salvation. 
I remember being pretty weak with watercolors- so I'd just draw the eyes and mouth with a ball-point pen in my art class when I was a kid.
(which is not the case in OP's images- I am looking forward to the unprocessed version)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 13, 2015)

My philosophy is that if people can tell that you're processing the image then you're not doing it well. On the other hand sometimes one tries to innovate to create a unique look so I respect your attempts at experimenting. At the end of the day it comes down to what you like personally and/or what your clients like and will pay for.


----------



## Kristofgss (Jan 13, 2015)

I actually like the way number 2 looks. It reminds me of the images of children from the second world war-era. It is not nice or sweet, but I don't think it has to be.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 13, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> I've never been one that went for over-processed photos. I'm all for cleaning up an image to make it look better, but I've always preferred to stay true to the subject.
> ...
> So, what do you guys think? Good? Bad? Trash? I've got thick skin, so lay it on, but if you don't like it, it would be helpful to say what you don't like.


Hi yorgasor!

I also prefer the "natural" or "true look" and just little PP. So it is really difficult with these pictures. 
First thought was: 
It is a kind of style that I don't like, but it's all about taste. And I would have moved on without any reply. 

But then at a second glance I found out, what was really annoying to me:
All these children totally lack any kind of texture of the skin in their faces. This is totally over-softening and makes them look like china dolls. (Something I absolutely don't like). 
And this china doll look doesn't get together with the expressions in their faces and the "stories" in the pictures, IMHO.

So if that is reduced to more natural, only little softening maybe I could think about anything else.

I hope this helps you and get's you further on. 

And as others, I would be interested in unprocessed pics. Esp. #1 where this quizzical expression really caught me.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 13, 2015)

#3 is interesting. What lens did you use?

#1 gives me the heeby jeebies


----------



## Tinky (Jan 13, 2015)

no


----------



## yorgasor (Jan 13, 2015)

These are the original photos as I would normally process them.


----------



## yorgasor (Jan 13, 2015)

K-amps said:


> #3 is interesting. What lens did you use?
> 
> #1 gives me the heeby jeebies



These were mostly shot with the Canon 85mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 and f/1.4. The first one was actually shot with an old Zeiss 45mm f/2.8 Tessar lens.


----------



## chauncey (Jan 13, 2015)

Couple of things come to mind...the images aren't that good to start with. Eyes and iris's are not perfectly in focus, the children's expressions could be better (yeah, I know that's tough, but mom with some toys might help).
It just looks like you took some mediocre images and tried to "fix them" and in doing so, ya went overboard.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 13, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> These are the original photos as I would normally process them.


Thank you for sharing! 

I think turning them into b&w was good and some distracting background was well blurred out in the pictures in the OP. 
As I see the "original photos" I stay with the statement that too much softening in the face made them look like china dolls. rRduce this and I think I could familiarize with that style.


----------



## yorgasor (Jan 13, 2015)

The conditions were difficult. I was asked to take some pictures of the kids in a church nursery class to share with parents and so they could make a little slide show on an iPad for singing time. These weren't staged portraits, these were moving kids in a playroom with poor lighting and distracting backgrounds. The 85mm f/1.2L II has very slow focusing, so catching moving kids was very tricky to nail the focus just right. 

The B&W helped hide the mix of light temperature from the florescents on top and side window lighting, as well as the distracting colors of kid toys in the background. The wide aperture was needed for the low light as well as blurring out the background. Out of the entire set, these are the only ones I really went overboard on the processing.

I think this was my favorite photo from the set:


5D3_8552 by yorgasor, on Flickr

And for all the haters out there, I leave you with this 


Naptime? [email protected]#$ You! by yorgasor, on Flickr


----------



## Tinky (Jan 13, 2015)

Surely you mean... ;D


----------



## RGF (Jan 13, 2015)

TeT said:


> 1,3 & 4 NO
> 
> 2 though I can see something...
> 
> its a tough balance... you are closest to hitting it on 2; less work through the area under the eyes for starters.



agree, 2 holds some promise


----------



## DRR (Jan 13, 2015)

So my opinion is, yes the original batch are way too processed.

I think the source images were tough to really make anything of. And I fully sympathize with the conditions, and I know kids are damn near impossible to shoot. 

At the same time, I think you're mismatching equipment and expectations with the style of photography you can realistically achieve. If it were me, I would have approached shooting a nursery school as a run-and-gun, events-style photo shoot. I would have used a 35 primarily because I can get a little closer to the subject, and yet 35 is wide enough to still provide context for where they are and what they're doing.

Instead, you're using an 85mm with a razor thin DOF, and trying to capture more traditional head and shoulders portraits. In a nursery school setting, this would be damn near impossible! You probably have overhead, flat artificial light, kids running around, not taking direction (because, well, they're 4), really not the kind of environment to capture thin-DOF portraiture. The lighting available (unless you can supplement) does not match what it looks like you were trying to do.

I do like the shot that you think is the best of the bunch, in part because it seems like a quiet moment, it's a child focused on what they're doing. The portraiture in this case has a little context to it. It's a little wider than a head and shoulders portrait, but unlike the other photos, I feel like you've captured something there.

Just my 2 cents. You said you had a thick skin.. ;D


----------



## Pookie (Jan 14, 2015)

Hi Yorgasor,

I'm going to go a little different route with the critique. The images have already been discussed at length and to say the least, I agree. Sounds like difficult conditions and selection of the right lens and/or flash would have done you a better service. I own the 85L II and this would have been my least favorite choice in this situation. Slow focus paired with ridiculously thin DOF is a double whammy that most would struggle with. I do a lot of this work professionally for family based clients and event work like charity events,weddings, promotional shoots, etc. I've had a studio in the bay area for 12 years so I have lots of school of hard knocks shoot advice. Take it for what you value or not. 

The subject matter really matters not to me as you are always asked to take photos of people and places not of your choosing. Situations like you encountered... horrible available light, mixed light, no light, no room to shoot, etc seem to be the norm. First off, due to encountering the weirdest combination of mixed and natural light... I always carry a color checker card (currently a Passport - Colorchecker). A few shots early on and then develop a preset profile off a dual DNG profile and your color profile woes will be greatly reduced.

Second, I always carry at the very least a small white reflector and always a white not silver as it will bounce the mixed light more evenly. This can provide enough fill most of the time and require no batteries. You can also recruit or bring an assistant to help hold one for you or, you can do it yourself on the fly with a little practice. I rarely use speedlites these days but I still do... for this very type of shooting. Usually in ETTL so I don't have to worry about fiddling with manual adjustments. It is used at the very lowest power I can get away with while still providing fill. This allows me to shoot with a wide enough aperture to get the DOF I'd like with a good speed anywhere from 160-200th of sec. Stopping the action and still getting everything sharp. You can use the speedlite on axis for a very minimal fill, anything more powerful will start looking DMV'ish. If you need more power then go bounce or off-axis on an ETTL coiled cord with some type of modifier. I'm very partial to the small Lastolite Speedlite Ezybox myself. You can use a flash bracket or go free hand, which is my personal choice.

Regardless of having a flash or not, my personal preference when working this type of condition... the much maligned 50L. You get the DOF that you get with the 85L II but it's a hell of a lot faster in focus and accuracy. The 50mm gives the FOV of natural eyesight too which I find more pleasing for natural light portraiture, especially 3/4 to head shots if not right in the face. WIth the 1DX or 5D3, you have the ISO capabilities to compensate for lighting situations that might be pretty challenging. You can get away with f/2.8 too, and that brings me to the other two lenses that are superb choices for this situ. The 24-70 II and the 70-200 II, with a flash these two lenses are hands down the better choice. If you have the room and the lenses available... other top choices would also include the 35mm f/1.4 and 135mm for low light. The 85L II is a great lens but probably my least used lens unless I'm sure I can control the entire scene.

Just my two cents from being always dealt a shittey hand at most client shoots of this nature. Hate to say it but this is usually par for most courses. Hope that helps a bit.


----------



## MonkeyB (Jan 14, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> And for all the haters out there, I leave you with this




LOL!




Tinky said:


> Surely you mean... ;D




LOL! LOL! 




Pookie said:


> I'm going to go a little different route with the critique.



very informative writeup. agree with lens selection, as generally the preferable look would be to have the whole subject in focus with the environment blurred. having just a finger, eyes-nose, and curl of hair being sharp with the rest of the frame blurred is logically unpleasant to the brain. IMO.


----------



## martti (Jan 14, 2015)

All depends on who you are dealing with.
I made some snapshots of a Chinese lady and PPd them while she was sitting next to me.
She wanted the ones that looked like polythene to me. I preferred the ones where she looked like an intelligent, healthy woman about 5-7 years younger than she really is.
Some people like the plastic looks from PP. I prefer what you can do with lights and flirt and flatter.
There is room for all of us here.


----------



## martti (Jan 14, 2015)

Tinky, that's not funny!


----------



## tron (Jan 14, 2015)

I like the original color versions much more than the processed ones...


----------



## Tinky (Jan 14, 2015)

martti said:


> Tinky, that's not funny!



Ach go on, it is a little bit.


----------



## yorgasor (Jan 14, 2015)

Some excellent advice on improvements. I've got 2 more Sundays to try and get pics of all the kids, so I've got time to go back for improvements. As I said, the final product is really just for singing time on an iPad. The kids can see themselves and point to the person who's picture appears on the screen, so the final requirements are low. It's an interesting challenge to come out with good shots though. 

I had the 24-70mm f/2.8 II in my bag with me, but I didn't pull it out. I should've at least played with it to see how it compared to the other photos. I've used the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II before when I did some shots last year. I had an EX600-RT flash I used a portion of the time in ETTL mode and bounced it off the wall. Sometimes it was overpowering, sometimes it wasn't enough. I didn't try directional at its lowest settings though. I don't have a flash bracket to set up the flash off-axis, I'll have to do some research and find out a good system for that. For the most part, I wanted to be discrete and less disruptive. A big flash going off all the time makes that difficult. 

I recently picked up a Nikon D3s, and I have an 85mm f/1.8 and sigma art 35mm f/1.4 coming this week. I'm going to try those this Sunday and see how they do. The EX600 flashes will fire from that, only in manual mode though.


----------



## Pookie (Jan 14, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> Some excellent advice on improvements. I've got 2 more Sundays to try and get pics of all the kids, so I've got time to go back for improvements. As I said, the final product is really just for singing time on an iPad. The kids can see themselves and point to the person who's picture appears on the screen, so the final requirements are low. It's an interesting challenge to come out with good shots though.
> 
> I had the 24-70mm f/2.8 II in my bag with me, but I didn't pull it out. I should've at least played with it to see how it compared to the other photos. I've used the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II before when I did some shots last year. I had an EX600-RT flash I used a portion of the time in ETTL mode and bounced it off the wall. Sometimes it was overpowering, sometimes it wasn't enough. I didn't try directional at its lowest settings though. I don't have a flash bracket to set up the flash off-axis, I'll have to do some research and find out a good system for that. For the most part, I wanted to be discrete and less disruptive. A big flash going off all the time makes that difficult.
> 
> I recently picked up a Nikon D3s, and I have an 85mm f/1.8 and sigma art 35mm f/1.4 coming this week. I'm going to try those this Sunday and see how they do. The EX600 flashes will fire from that, only in manual mode though.



The reflector would be the least obtrusive and still provide the fill needed. I cheap small Chinese knock-off is a good alternative. I do like the smallest tri-grip from Lastolite the best and you can get it in a 5-in-one.


----------



## DRR (Jan 16, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> Some excellent advice on improvements. I've got 2 more Sundays to try and get pics of all the kids, so I've got time to go back for improvements. As I said, the final product is really just for singing time on an iPad. The kids can see themselves and point to the person who's picture appears on the screen, so the final requirements are low. It's an interesting challenge to come out with good shots though.
> 
> I had the 24-70mm f/2.8 II in my bag with me, but I didn't pull it out. I should've at least played with it to see how it compared to the other photos. I've used the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II before when I did some shots last year. I had an EX600-RT flash I used a portion of the time in ETTL mode and bounced it off the wall. Sometimes it was overpowering, sometimes it wasn't enough. I didn't try directional at its lowest settings though. I don't have a flash bracket to set up the flash off-axis, I'll have to do some research and find out a good system for that. For the most part, I wanted to be discrete and less disruptive. A big flash going off all the time makes that difficult.
> 
> I recently picked up a Nikon D3s, and I have an 85mm f/1.8 and sigma art 35mm f/1.4 coming this week. I'm going to try those this Sunday and see how they do. The EX600 flashes will fire from that, only in manual mode though.



IMO, the two lenses you listed at the end (85/1.8 and 35/1.4) should be all you need for this situation. If you're comfortable with flash, I would definitely use that too, or at least a reflector as someone else had suggested. Should give your light a little more direction, and should help avoid flattening out faces under the artificial lights.

Last tip, if it were me, I'd do a google images or getty images search for preschoolers in the classroom - pull some reference for what you like, dissect why you like it, and then try to replicate.


----------

