Stacy Leigh wrote:
I wish I knew what Colin's posts were...

I am all sorts of curious of what he could have possibly said that was bad enough to have it removed.


oh well,
S

I will post once more, I was teasing you for using 1/3 stop increments and asking if that sort of precision was really necessary.  I've never talked in or needed to use 1/3rd stops but as my rollei allows me any fstop I was interested if that sort of precision could actually noticeably help a shot (in respect to the subject of this thread or in any other respect).

apparently that wasn't furthering the discussion, but if you see thing before the mods decide this isn't furthering the discussion I am honestly interested.

ColinR wrote:

I will post once more, I was teasing you for using 1/3 stop increments and asking if that sort of precision was really necessary.  I've never talked in or needed to use 1/3rd stops but as my rollei allows me any fstop I was interested if that sort of precision could actually noticeably help a shot (in respect to the subject of this thread or in any other respect).

apparently that wasn't furthering the discussion, but if you see thing before the mods decide this isn't furthering the discussion I am honestly interested.

And I thought he may have said something ABSOLUTELY wicked... LOL.

Dallas J. Logan wrote:
No more techniques?

If I want to brighten up eyes really quickly I create a new empty layer. After selecting the main colour of the eye and making the shade a bit lighter, I simply paint the cornea in, making sure its darker around the outside and has lighter flecks of a second colour around the iris. Blurring the colours together if you were sloppy helps. I then usually set the layer to Colour Dodge, Overlay or Soft Light depending on the original lighting of the picture (I find this is the best for keeping the natural texture of the eye) and set the opacity to my taste. Sometimes you get the effect you want but the colour will go crazy, like brown eyes turning orange on Colour Dodge, but you can easily adjust the colour with a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer or turn the opacity down really low.

I tend to work on things like eye lashes and make-up in a different step of my work flow than the actual eye brightness or colour and use things like dodge and burn to fix it all up.

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:
Light them right in the first place.

Do you have any examples of this technique?

Robert Randall wrote:

Do you have any examples of this technique?

Mario Testino.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Mario Testino.

He doesn't have his images retouched?

Sean Baker wrote:
He doesn't have his images retouched?

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:
Light them right in the first place.


Robert Randall wrote:

Do you have any examples of this technique?

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:
Light them right in the first place.


Robert Randall wrote:

Do you have any examples of this technique?

And I'm asking why you think he's lighting them this way vs. having them retouched as the question in this thread bears on?

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Because he's a photographer. Unless lighting is'nt important anymore.

And photographers don't retouch their images?  I'm not questioning the value or importance of lighting right in the first place when it can be done and everything works; rather suggesting a lack of evidence that the photos presented represent 'properly' lit vs. heavily retouched photos.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
If your in Mario Testino league then you use a retoucher.
Do you think he has the time to retouch.

But to makes the eyes pop he uses lighting all that image manipulation can do is enhance it 'a bit'.

Any idea what that lighting technique would be. I ask, because in almost 40 years of doing this, the only thing I can think of that might come close to popping the eyes, is a snooted fresnel or a shaving mirror. And they would work only if the subject stays in place relative to the position of those modifiers. The notion that there is anything available to brighten just the eyes during a photo shoot is absurd, unless the only thing you are lighting is the eyes. While some modifiers might create more contrast than others, it is a global contrast, so the face is going to come right along with the eyes and equalize the effect. Hence retouching.

The reason I asked the question in the first place was to see if the guy I quoted was stupid enough to suggest any of his images would suffice as an example. All of the eyes in all of his pictures are unremarkable within the context of added sparkle. They pop no more than the surrounding face does. Basically, I was telling him to shut up with the unnecessary glib remarks, they just makes the author appear dumb.

Also, Super Mario falls under the same guidelines. I'm sure his subjects eyes are quite normal in the unretouched versions.

Robert Randall wrote:
Any idea what that lighting technique would be. I ask, because in almost 40 years of doing this, the only thing I can think of that might come close to popping the eyes, is a snooted fresnel or a shaving mirror. And they would work only if the subject stays in place relative to the position of those modifiers. The notion that there is anything available to brighten just the eyes during a photo shoot is absurd, unless the only thing you are lighting is the eyes. While some modifiers might create more contrast than others, it is a global contrast, so the face is going to come right along with the eyes and equalize the effect. Hence retouching.

I can think of one thing which would come close, and that would be to fill the family of angles opposite camera view (so, those which will reflect off the eyes into the camera) with a large light source 3-4 stops below exposure (capturing only the reflected light).  It requires a huge set (or lots of grips with reflectors) as well as a lot of planning, but you could do it.

And no, I'm not good enough (read: rich enough) to have been able to do it and offer examples; I've only got theory today.

JBL Photography wrote:
sorry if someone else posted this but it is great.

http://www.christyschuler.com/retouching.swf

Thanks for sharing.

Sean Baker wrote:

I can think of one thing which would come close, and that would be to fill the family of angles opposite camera view (so, those which will reflect off the eyes into the camera) with a large light source 3-4 stops below exposure (capturing only the reflected light).  It requires a huge set (or lots of grips with reflectors) as well as a lot of planning, but you could do it.

And no, I'm not good enough (read: rich enough) to have been able to do it and offer examples; I've only got theory today.

I would suggest in a practical sense, noting that no one is going to pay for such an elaborate theoretical test on a live shoot, that you stick to retouch.

tan510jomast wrote:
goodegg (stick them with a pin or needle), ...that would do, lol..

no en serio, they say that the eyes are the windows of your soul.
this is even more true with photography.

a model has to be able to smile with her eyes. my choice of model has that criterion way on top of my selection list.   if it's not in your photograph, you can add fake catch light
by spotting, but it will not look as good. a trained photography/retoucher can identify that it is fake simply by looking around the rest of the model's face.

smiling is not just grinding your teeth to make that pose. many modeling agencies train model to "grind their teeth" .  it's not that simple.
you don't succeed in modeling simply by using all these band-aid solution.

i prefer to drill  my models and make sure they live a healthy life, eat well, exercise, sleep 8 hours , etc..     this way, you don't spend too much time "resurrecting a model who is photographically dead"

easier to trash the session and shoot with another model

You are so full of it your eyes are brown. God, what is wrong with you people, have you all lost your minds. What in the world would possess you to write such utter nonsense? I'm just about positive your requirements for a model are that she is breathing.

This drilling thing you do, are you shouting out your inquiries to the models as they turn on the runway?

I can't take anymore, you people are nuts!

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
A good assistant and a daido light.

Difference is that the eyes have a gloss look to them if you ping a light into them with ps/retouching you don't get that gloss.

There isn't an assistant in the world that can cover the eyes on a moving models face, all you would wind up with are hot spots all over the face. You guys are all just dreaming.

Robert Randall wrote:
Do you have any examples of this technique?

Of course I do... what are you trying to say?
Natural light


Studio lighting

Robert Randall wrote:
There isn't an assistant in the world that can cover the eyes on a moving models face, all you would wind up with are hot spots all over the face. You guys are all just dreaming.

Who said anything about moving. Unless the models leaping like a gazelle all over the studio.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Who said anything about moving. Unless the models leaping like a gazelle all over the studio.

I guess the assumption was that since the subject was alive, movement would be in order.

Robert Randall wrote:

I guess the assumption was that since the subject was alive, movement would be in order.

The methods used in film as in cinema.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Because he's a photographer. Unless lighting is'nt important anymore in that case we can all use a soft box for everything and realy on retouching.

Maybe I'll start a thread on this, but you would be surprised at how much more effect retouching style has than different modifiers used.


As far as eyes, I like to make sure in some way that my light is pointed at them and hits them, after that I'll go though and lighten them up opposite to the catch light, or the whole eye.



That was some eyes that popped out a little in camera, and then I just helped out the bottom with a curves layer.



I'm not a huge fan of going outside that often for headshots, but again I just bumped the eyes just a tad - I'm not a fan of really poppy eyes or anything, nothing wrong with them other than it's just not my work.



Again, just bumped up the eyes just a tad, although in this case only some of the eyes were visible.



That one the lights hit her eyes and they popped out pretty much in camera.



Where as with her, the eyes didn't pop at all, and I'm not sure if I did anything to bring them back, however I'm pretty sure they don't bother me as dull as they are.



As far as "proper lighting" - this was shot with a huge ass octabox and it looks silimar to the rest of my work, and her eyes popped a little, so I think it has a lot to do with the model rather than just lighting or post work. But, I'm not a professional like Tim, so maybe it can all be done in camera.

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:
Of course I do... what are you trying to say?

That's awesome, you know enough to post some images! That national guard - one weekend a month - training must still be fresh!

Do you care to go on about how you treated the eyes with the lighting, what you did, what you could have done, and point out specific things? Rather than just post a bunch of regular images up for us to make up our minds about them.

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:

Of course I do... what are you trying to say?
Natural light


Studio lighting

I was saying that I felt your comment was out of order and that you can't produce images such as you've shown in your latest post without the aid of retouch. While your lighting is fine, good lighting has nothing to do with the OP's question, since the desired results cannot be achieved by lighting alone. I would suggest that everyone knows good lighting will lead to superior results, but you did not achieve the results in your pictures directly from the camera. So when you posted your answer as simply "good lighting", I felt you were being yet another in a long line of arrogant, useless posters.

That is what I was trying to say. If I was wrong in my assessment of your post, I apologize. If you try to tell me you did all that work you just posted without the aid of retouch, I'll rescind my apology.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

That's awesome, you know enough to post some images! That national guard, one weekend a month, training must still be fresh!

Do you care to go on about how you treated the eyes with the lighting, what you did, what you could have done, and point out specific things? Rather than just post a bunch of regular images up for us to make up our minds about them.

F@ck off Andrew. I was never in the guard. Do not insult my military training. Especially online. It's something you won't do in person.

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:
F@ck off Andrew. I was never in the guard. Do not insult my military training. Especially online. It's something you won't do in person.

Robert Randall wrote:

I was saying that I felt your comment was out of order and that you can't produce images such as you've shown in your latest post without the aid of retouch. While your lighting is fine, good lighting has nothing to do with the OP's question, since the desired results cannot be achieved by lighting alone. I would suggest that everyone knows good lighting will lead to superior results, but you did not achieve the results in your pictures directly from the camera. So when you posted your answer as simply "good lighting", I felt you were being yet another in a long line of arrogant, useless posters.

That is what I was trying to say. If I was wrong in my assessment of your post, I apologize. If you try to tell me you did all that work you just posted without the aid of retouch, I'll rescind my apology.

All of that was without retouching the eyes. Some peoples eyes just pop with proper lighting.

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:
All of that was without retouching the eyes. Some peoples eyes just pop with proper lighting.

So this was all done in camera?

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
So this was all done in camera?

Is that one of the images I posted?
Matter of fact that is from a entirely different profile.

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:
Is that one of the images I posted?

No, that's one I have a question about. I didn't know you're knowledge was just limited to the select images you posted.

Stacy Leigh wrote:
Not that anybody asked, but here is my penny worth of an opinion...

I use a curves layer (bringing up the middle of the curve by about 5 or so) with a mask- fill it in 100% black, and then paint out the eyes to reveal the lighter whites... then I tweek the opacity of the layer.

sometimes I will clean up a few blood vessels...

So simple and easy it takes one minute or less.


Stacy Leigh

I don't do a lot of this eyeball stuff so when I do, it's something along what Stacy said here. Maybe increase the saturation of the iris some, too. But very subtly.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

No, that's one I have a question about. I didn't know you're knowledge was just limited to the select images you posted.

I fixed the fake eyelash that was not properly attached. I might have lightened them slightly, but my assistant she says she remember that I didn't do anything to her pupils.