Photoshop feedback please

[alef]

There's no way I can accurately focus manually when doing taking these fast portraits of strangers. But surely the DOF carries enough? Fair point on keeping the lens towards the middle. These days I'm thinking a bit about exposure and sharpness, which for me is a significant change. The vast majority of the photography I've done in the past twenty years involves setting to aperature priority on an Olympus XA or Rollei35 (both are compacts) and otherwise mindlessly shooting away. Still a newbie to SLRs, even most of my digital has been non-dSLR.

Some others from today in Brighton are here (still a few more to upload):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/_alef_

Also from the NEF I see it's very sharp, as you'd expect from the 50mm, but I think his moustache is sharper than his eyes. If you're not already, use (always for me) your own selected focus point and explicitly focus on the eyes. Finally, f/16's probably not the sharpest point on the lens - I guess that's somewhere between f/7.1 and f/9. Hardly any difference there though.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

mauvais

I agree about focussing on the eyes, that is standard practice in portraiture. However I think that alef has it right in using f/16. That has the greatest depth of field. He is working close with the equivalent of a 70mm lens so depth of field is important.

It is most unlikely with modern cameras that the smallest aperture will not be the one to give the sharpest focus - because of the greater depth of field. Possibly with older cameras capable of stopping down to f/22 or greater (smaller aperture) there might have been the risk of diffraction spoiling the image but certainly not with this Nikon lens at f/16.

 

[alef]

Italicising your fs for f-stops is a nice detail, Hocus.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Well spotted alef

 

[mauvais]

mauvais

I agree about focussing on the eyes, that is standard practice in portraiture. However I think that alef has it right in using f/16. That has the greatest depth of field. He is working close with the equivalent of a 70mm lens so depth of field is important.

It is most unlikely with modern cameras that the smallest aperture will not be the one to give the sharpest focus - because of the greater depth of field. Possibly with older cameras capable of stopping down to f/22 or greater (smaller aperture) there might have been the risk of diffraction spoiling the image but certainly not with this Nikon lens at f/16.

It's still true and always will be - it's physics, nothing to do with the camera. I take the point about portrait DOF though.

 

[mauvais]

There's no way I can accurately focus manually when doing taking these fast portraits of strangers. But surely the DOF carries enough? Fair point on keeping the lens towards the middle.[/url]

Not manual focus, just manual selection of one of the five AF points. I don't know if that's what you're already using - EXIF contains the useful value '17' - but if not then it's worth a try.

 

[Chorlton]

i have to agree with some of the others when they say that perhaps their is not enough in the original photo to work with - but i would definately remove the colour and work the tones, others have mentioned its flatness- the crop works well but the hi-vis throws it all over the shop for me...

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/6892/urban75pshoptestps4.jpg

just my tuppence

 

[cybertect]

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/6892/urban75pshoptestps4.jpg

just my tuppence

Best yet, IMHO. I was thinking b/w was the way to go and you've saved me messing about.

 

[alef]

The b+w version is interesting but I personally like the high visibility vest element, key part of making this portrait a bit different. The guy is a street cleaner who also dresses like a pirate, that's what caught my eye.

I am sold on the new tighter asymmetric crop, though it's not my usual style.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

It's still true and always will be - it's physics, nothing to do with the camera. I take the point about portrait DOF though.

Yes I agree entirely it is physics and nothing to do with the camera. Physics is dependent on numbers ie maths. f/16 on a 70mm lens will not be giving diffraction. Physics is also the basis of depth of field. The smaller the aperture then the smaller the circle-of-confusion. If the circle- of-confusion is smaller than the size that the human eye sees as a dot then the image will appear in focus. This means that the smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field.

This is limited by the fact that if you have a really small aperture you may get diffraction. This is still physics. Modern cameras tend to be designed so that the smallest aperture will not create diffusion. They have worked out where this occurs. I only mentioned Nikon because this happens to be the camera in use. At f16 on a 70mm lens the aperture is not small enough to cause diffraction.

The days when diffraction was a reason not to stop down fully are over. Camera manufacturers just don't give you small enough apertures to create this problem. It is designed out of the process.

 

[indigo4]

couldnt you blur

out that triangle..its bugging me! ahahah the second one though.

by the way out of all of them my favourite is the photographers gallery...LOVE IT.

 

[Pie 1]

I'm on a mac with a cinema hd monitor. For general use I keep the brightness all the way or mostly down, but then pump it all the way for sitting back on the sofa watching films.

I've set the new calibration to match PCs more, makes quite a difference.

You should buy or borrow an Eye One calibration tool if you have monitor of that quality.
It sets the brightness on my Apple HD to about 1/4, and then lock of the controls

 

[mauvais]

I'd recommend the ColorVision Spyder 2. The basic version is about half the price of the EyeOne, but it's the same hardware as the expensive version - so you can upgrade... or 'upgrade'... the software later if you desire.

 

[alef]

Are there good reasons for calibrating a monitor if you're not printing? My photos pretty much only live online. I try to look at them on variety of screens as and when I have access to different computers but have never been too fussed over subtle shades.

 

[mauvais]

Fewer, but it's definitely worth doing IMO. You'll be getting the best out of your display for everything, not just photography.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

I prefer him with a bit more colour.

My monitor is crap and isn't calibrated so it might look shite on a proper one.

 

[Pie 1]

Are there good reasons for calibrating a monitor if you're not printing?

Well, If you've shelled out the dosh for an Apple HD, then you should want the best out of it.

 

[alef]

I prefer him with a bit more colour.

My monitor is crap and isn't calibrated so it might look shite on a proper one.

It looks very good to me, we share visual taste on this one.

 

[alef]

Well, If you've shelled out the dosh for an Apple HD, then you should want the best out of it.

Colour isn't about a measurable "best", it's subjective. My reason for shelling out on such an expensive monitor was so we could ditch the TV and use this screen with a tuner card and with DVDs.

I suppose I would like the colours to most accurately match what the film director and their lab or telecine controller intended. But my gut feeling is that the current setting cannot be far off and I don't have the spare cash available to correct subtle shades that aren't currently bothering me.

 

[Pie 1]

Colour isn't about a measurable "best", it's subjective.

Yes it is, and no it's not. But that's from a professional stand point.

 

[Structaural]

I just did 20 mins on your RAW file and photoshop CS3 crashed when I went to save. So I'm not doing all that again. It looked pretty good though - one tip - mask out the face (he's pretty easy to do - no hair). Bring up Selective Colour - bring up yellow and take all the yellow out - switch to reds and add yellow back in - this will remove the yellow cast on his skin from the flackjacket.
Other than that - I tried to get the image as good as from the RAW import (using a bit of fill light) and worked in 16-bit and gave it a bit of an S-curve in curves (only slightly) and improved gamma slightly so nothing was blown out. Dodged the eyes a bit. 1 sharpen on 80%, 1.5 and 4 threshold.
i might do it again after lunch....

 

[Structaural]

Are there good reasons for calibrating a monitor if you're not printing? My photos pretty much only live online. I try to look at them on variety of screens as and when I have access to different computers but have never been too fussed over subtle shades.

You need the gamma especially calibrated in RGB otherwise all your mids in all channels are wrong. You can calibrate these Apple monitors in the Display control panel - you don't need all these calibration tools - they are more specific to CRT anyways. Just go to colour calibration and put it on expert and make sure you work to a gamma of 1.8. It will give you tips on brightness/contrast. (high contrast, mid brightness is usual).

 

[alef]

Thanks for the various tips, but do I like the yellow cast on his skin from the jacket, part of what makes this minor photo vaguely unique.

The more I mess about in photoshop, the more I see pictures a bit differently. Essentially my taste is to manipulate them without their looking manipulated, for some reason I started to go far overboard on this one which prompted this thread. Subtlety is the key.

Despite my deep routed sense that colour calibration is subjective (good reply, Pie1) I have just gone through the display calibrator in expert mode. However, at the end it offers a gamma of 1.8 (Mac standard) or 2.2 (PC standard). Although on a mac, I'm thinking 2.2 makes more sense as I want to see my photos as they appear to others online, the vast majority of whom are on PCs.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Alef

I agree about the yellow on his face. It is not a 'cast' in the photography sense of the word, it is a reflection from the 'hi viz' jacket and is part of the picture. I don't know why it causes problems for some viewers.