soft focus on portraits -- c&c

Hi. Someone posted some portraits last week and the main commentary on it was the softness of the shot or the post-work. I'm posting two portraits with the before and after. My main post-work was in using Noise Ninja to soften the focus on the face, while maintaining sharpness on the eyes and teeth.

I'd like your opinion as to whether I went too soft -- which was the critique of last week's portrait that I noticed.

Shot with a D200 and 18-135 glass, using available light and flash.

Here's Model No. 1 in the original shot:



And here is Model No. 1 in soft-focus:



Here's Model No. 2 in the original shot:



And here is Model No. 2 in soft-focus:



Eager to hear what you have to say...

--
Ron

Let me preface my comments with this:

1. I'm no expert, only got my first DSLR (D200) two months ago, but I do think I have a good artistic eye.

2. I personally prefer a more natural look, but I like a little soft focus for portraits. That said, I hate when it looks plasticized or waxy. Or as my husband says, something that doesn't occur in nature. He's said that about some of my post-processed photos, particularly when I'm playing with HDR. ;-)

To me -- On the first model it's a tad too much softening. I'd reduce it by maybe 5-15%, but it's still probably quite passable and appealing to others as you did it. For the second model, I think it's quite overdone. I'd reduce it as well, maybe by as much as 25%. To my eye ... I'd try to find a happy medium between the originals and your samples for both shots.

Hope this helps. Maybe you'll get input from accomplished portrait photographers ... which I'm not. Don't even play one on TV.

--
Kelley

Kelley, thanks for your feedback. On the second model, I just felt her skin was so bad it needed that much of a blur. I agree, tho, that it's too much.

I actually only began applying the blur after someone (I shoot employee pics, that's what these are) mentioned that my camera was too good because it brought out every pore on their skin.

So now it's just a matter of finding a happy medium.

--
Ron

Try leaving the blur the way you did it, but erase the blur over the eyes. It may look like too much blur because the eyes are not sharp. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks,
Bob

Compare the eyes on the two pics (before & after) -- didn't apply the blur to the eyes.
--
Ron

Next time I need to look closer.

Thanks,
Bob

Beauty is in the eye of ......
I think your skin correction is just right in both pictures.
Good luck and kindest regards,
Tommy

Here is a quick correction. Hope you don't mind.



--
Grey

Yeah, yours is softer without going as far as I did. You definitely took away the skin blotches, which was what my intent was.

Thanks

--
Ron

Thanks! I actually showed the Before & After to the second model, and she was blown away. She was really happy with it.

--
Ron

If you want I can do the correction to the Hi Rez. Let me know and post a link somewhere so I can pull it down. I did notice you have some colors out of range of most printers. I love the shot. It is very well done and natural.

--
Grey

One comment on the first shot -- it looks as if your focus may be on the hair rather than the eyes. I think you are using a large aperture, which sometimes makes DoF tricky on faces.

Perfect, Grey. What s/w and tools did you use and at what settings?
--
Kelley

Hi Ron,

Your focus is spot on the first pic, you did a very good job softening up the portrait, very subtle and not overdone at all, I bet she was very happy with it. The second one was well recovered by Grey.
Well done
--
Roger
NYC 4 ever

Yeah, I'm not really happy with my focus at all so far. In a shot like that, with the background far away, I do try to shoot with as large an aperture as possible to give me a wider DOF and have more of the face in focus.

Does that make sense?

--
Ron

Thanks, but no need for you to do that. Through this, I'm simply trying to get a better sense of how far to go with the blur on a woman's face.

But you did bust me out here:

"I did notice you have some colors out of range of most printers."

I'm purely an amateur who really digs photography and just got back into it a few months ago when I purchased the 200. I hear people talk a lot about setting their monitors, and now you're talking about the color being out of range of most printers. How did you check that? Seems this is stuff I should get to know.

Thanks for the compliment on the shot.

Ron

--
Ron

FriscoRon said:

FriscoRon said:

But you did bust me out here:

Click to expand...

"I did notice you have some colors out of range of most printers."

I'm purely an amateur who really digs photography and just got back
into it a few months ago when I purchased the 200. I hear people talk
a lot about setting their monitors, and now you're talking about the
color being out of range of most printers. How did you check that?

Click to expand...

Struck me the same way, so I posted a thread on the topic. Hopefully we'll get some input. ;-)

--
Kelley

I think you're a little confused, a smaller opening say f11 will give you a wider DOF. Actually with the trees or bush behind the subject being far enough you could've used a wider stop say f4.5 or less depending on the distance you were from the subject the background would have been softer.

Or a smaller opening to make sure your subject is well in focused from nose to back hair say f7.1, but again depends on distance from you to subject and from subject to background.
Hope this helps.
--
Roger
NYC 4 ever

Sorry, I'm self-learned (scary in itself) and when I think aperture being wide, I'm thinking of the f-stop being higher. I know you're thinking of the actual size of the aperture itself that is letting light through. My mistake.

--
Ron

Hi Ron,
No need to apologize, we are all still learning thats the beauty of photography.

I was'nt thinking of light at this point we can take that up later on, for now lets keep it it simple lets think distance from point A to B everything will be in focus thats your DOF.

I'm making those numbers up so you can get the general idea, here goes say you use an opening (fstop) of f2.8 and your subject is a few feet away from you, you focus and shoot I'd guess (depending on distance) that from point A to point B we'll assume everything whithin about 2 feet is in focus ...

Now use an opening of f11 and from point A to B guess about 10 feet everything within that distance will be in focus thats your DOF.

I have'nt talked about the light yet if your beyond these explanation there's no need to go on, but if you wish to continue I and Lil, Bob Elkind and lots of other knowledgeble PPL will help you till its clear in your mind because its a subject that covers quite abit and absolutly an must know.

BTW there are charts that will give you exact distances of DOF related to distance and fstops if you wish some on this forum have them.

After almost 40 years of photography I have a pretty good idea of my DOF when I'm shooting in general but when I did it as a job I had to measure distances ect...
--
Roger
NYC 4 ever