DP2 Quattro skin repro

Marek L · Oct 11, 2014

Same shot of my daughter from SPP 6.0.6, no sharpness reduction; set at 0

first image normal SPP conversion and a second with neg -0.8 fill-in light to smooth out the skin.

Neg fill does a great job in skin texture improvement

DP2Q portrait mode

DP2Q portrait mode -0.8 fill light

HBowman · Oct 11, 2014

I'm sorry Marek but, despite the fact that the original shoot can't be identified as a foveon shoot (at all), you wasted your portrait with this damn fill light. The original shoot was ok and doesn't needed any skin structure modifications.

It is a good portrait

Marek L · Oct 11, 2014

HBowman said:
I'm sorry Marek but, despite the fact that the original shoot can't be identified as a foveon shoot (at all), you wasted your portrait with this damn fill light. The original shoot was ok and doesn't needed any skin structure modifications.

It is a good portrait

--
Kind regards - http://www.hulyssbowman.com
Mean Southern Cassowary

I also thought the oryginal photo is Ok, but we're not womans. She complains when there is too much details and wrinkles shown and she's not the only one. She likes Fuji skin detalis washout , so I've imitated this effect for her. It might be useful to somebody

HBowman · Oct 11, 2014

Marek L said:
Marek L said:

I'm sorry Marek but, despite the fact that the original shoot can't be identified as a foveon shoot (at all), you wasted your portrait with this damn fill light. The original shoot was ok and doesn't needed any skin structure modifications.

It is a good portrait

Click to expand...

Meuh · Oct 11, 2014

The first shot looked fine, the second with the fill light looks wrong.. its like a dark glow (if there is such a thing) is creeping into her face.

Here's a quick shot of one of my kids using the dp2q and a softbox (testing how far I can push the flash sycn with my radio triggers).

and a 100% crop (shot wide open)

Hornbrille · Oct 11, 2014

Neg fill is not needed. Tell your daughter she does look younger/better/more alive in the first image ;-)

Shadow roll-off is much better than Merrill. Skintone looks OK. What I don't like is the artificially looking hair. Maybe there is some noise reduction going on or it's a JPG artefact but the hair looks a little bit painted.

Uwe

maceoQ · Oct 11, 2014

Hi

I prefer the first sample. A very nice natural portrait. She has a great skin, no need to soften it.

Speaking about image quality i'm not so convinced. I agree with Hornbrille there must be some luma noise reduction washing out the details. And there are slight indications for "green/magenta foveon blotches".
The latter applies to Meuh's shot also.

Johan Borg · Oct 11, 2014

Hornbrille said:
Neg fill is not needed. Tell your daughter she does look younger/better/more alive in the first image ;-)

Shadow roll-off is much better than Merrill. Skintone looks OK. What I don't like is the artificially looking hair. Maybe there is some noise reduction going on or it's a JPG artefact but the hair looks a little bit painted.

Uwe

I quite like the Portrait noise reduction defaults in SPP 6.0.6 since Quattro rendering in the other modes now returned to Merrill style micro contrast. Setting Chroma NR to -2 and Luminance NR to +1 in the other color modes will give you the same skin rendering as Portrait mode. This explains why some detail is lost in the hair, but also why skin is more flattering. Be careful with negative fill light, it's easy to overdo it ;-)

xpatUSA · Oct 11, 2014

Marek L said:
Marek L said:

H Bowman wrote: I'm sorry Marek but, despite the fact that the original shoot can't be identified as a foveon shoot (at all), you wasted your portrait with this damn fill light.

Click to expand...

What ?! . . . I guess Hulyss' browser is broken:

--
Cheers,
Ted

D Cox · Oct 11, 2014

This is the effect of Surface Blur in Photoshop:

Meuh · Oct 11, 2014

I boosted the shadows a bit on mine.

Anyway I didn't realize the new version of spp6 had a portrait mode, I didn't see anything wrong with them in the versions I did use, Time to update I guess?

Scottelly · Oct 11, 2014

xpatUSA said:
Marek L said:

xpatUSA said:

H Bowman wrote: I'm sorry Marek but, despite the fact that the original shoot can't be identified as a foveon shoot (at all), you wasted your portrait with this damn fill light.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What ?! . . . I guess Hulyss' browser is broken:

Ted, now you know why I call him crazy H. lol

xpatUSA said:
--
Cheers,
Ted

Scottelly · Oct 11, 2014

Thank you for your demonstration Marek. I like the affect of the negative fill light. Nice work!

How does it look if you adjust the exposure up 1/2 a stop or so, after applying the negative fill light?

maceoQ · Oct 11, 2014

Meuh said:
Anyway I didn't realize the new version of spp6 had a portrait mode, I didn't see anything wrong with them in the versions I did use, Time to update I guess?

There has always been a portrait mode in SPP, but with the newest version it make finally sense because the processing seems to be different. It's softer with less micro contrast. But for your son's skin it is probably not necessary :-D

Johan Borg · Oct 11, 2014

maceoQ said:
Meuh said:

Anyway I didn't realize the new version of spp6 had a portrait mode, I didn't see anything wrong with them in the versions I did use, Time to update I guess?

Click to expand...

There has always been a portrait mode in SPP, but with the newest version it make finally sense because the processing seems to be different. It's softer with less micro contrast. But for your son's skin it is probably not necessary :-D

To be precise: Portrait mode in SPP 6.0.6 is nearly identical to Portrait mode in earlier SPP versions, but all the other color modes in 6.0.6 now has higher micro contrast with the Quattro.

nudibranches · Oct 11, 2014

I too prefer the first one. On a different tack completely, if your daughter isn't happy with the result I would suggest she refrains from frowning? I suspect it would be a more pleasing result for her - and overall - if next time she relaxes her face and avoids the deep parallel lines on her forehead.

jande9 · Oct 11, 2014

nudibranches said:
I too prefer the first one. On a different tack completely, if your daughter isn't happy with the result I would suggest she refrains from frowning? I suspect it would be a more pleasing result for her - and overall - if next time she relaxes her face and avoids the deep parallel lines on her forehead.

Tom Schum · Oct 11, 2014

Marek L said:
Marek L said:

I'm sorry Marek but, despite the fact that the original shoot can't be identified as a foveon shoot (at all), you wasted your portrait with this damn fill light. The original shoot was ok and doesn't needed any skin structure modifications.

It is a good portrait

Click to expand...

HBowman · Oct 12, 2014

xpatUSA said:
Marek L said:

xpatUSA said:

H Bowman wrote: I'm sorry Marek but, despite the fact that the original shoot can't be identified as a foveon shoot (at all), you wasted your portrait with this damn fill light.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What ?! . . . I guess Hulyss' browser is broken:

--
Cheers,
Ted

My browser is not broken... I said it show no attribute of a foveon shoot.

--
Kind regards - http://www.hulyssbowman.com
Mean Southern Cassowary

DP2 Quattro skin repro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

maceoQ

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

maceoQ

Guest

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts