Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:

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.

I'd buy that, the eyes in that image don't partucularly stand out at all, so I'd believe you didn't do anything.  She's got pretty eyes, and you got plenty of light to them.....but there's no contrast at all and they certaintly don't pop.

They are closer to lifeless than they are to popping.

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

Its shit like this that makes me HATE mm some days. So you are just so effin perfect you can do it right 100% of the time and you never ever use any pp on eyes huh.. bullshit. How about answering a question on the forums instead of telling us all how good you are. Maybe you can make a thread about how you are wonderful and not waste the time of the OP.


Screen tool helps a bit... if you are looking for a fast easy way to brighten up the whites on those rare shots where you may need enhancement. Like 3-5% and try to get em close to white with maybe the selective color or something along those lines.

Alfiere wrote:
Screen tool helps a bit... if you are looking for a fast easy way to brighten up the whites on those rare shots where you may need enhancement. Like 3-5% and try to get em close to white with maybe the selective color or something along those lines.

An honest request for someone.

Can you take a set of eyes and run that screen tool, then run a curves layer, and then do a dodge/burn set, just to see what does what.

Not that it makes a bit of difference, but I'm sure someone is bored enough to do that today.


Then we could also do it with a gradient map set to soft light, or even a brightness/contrast layer would do the same thing.

Then maybe a hue/sat layer, just to increase the contrast a bit, that may do the trick.


Ok, back to fighting with windows on my desktop!


[edit] but personally I try my best to point a light at their eyes or something, and then since I'm lame and boring I just use a regular old curves layer to pop them out.

Alfiere wrote:

Its shit like this that makes me HATE mm some days. So you are just so effin perfect you can do it right 100% of the time and you never ever use any pp on eyes huh.. bullshit. How about answering a question on the forums instead of telling us all how good you are. Maybe you can make a thread about how you are wonderful and not waste the time of the OP.


Screen tool helps a bit... if you are looking for a fast easy way to brighten up the whites on those rare shots where you may need enhancement. Like 3-5% and try to get em close to white with maybe the selective color or something along those lines.

I never said anything about my abilities. So back off. Someone else brought that to attention.
Plain simple if you meter and light the subject correctly you won't have to worry about how am I going to fix this and that in Photoshop. Photoshop is a tool, not a catch all be all.

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:
Plain simple if you meter and light the subject correctly you won't have to worry about how am I going to fix this and that in Photoshop. Photoshop is a tool, not a catch all be all.

I don't think any of us have said anything about fixing, but more or less how to do something in post that's normal to do in post.

Nic wrote:
Whats wrong with the quick selection tool and then bumping the brightness in brightness/contrast? It's simple and works for me. (lol)

Because the model ends up looking like an alien.

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.

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.

AMEN.

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.

LOL... It appears as if people are trying to do that film noir lighting, which will not just light the eyes, but put a BAND of like across the model's face.  Why are some of these people thinking so complicated with regards to lighting an image?

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Because the model ends up looking like an alien.

Really? Wow so all the Models in my port look like aliens? Damn I knew I was doing something wrong. You are not going to call immigration are you? ROFLMAO!

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:

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

I don't enjoy saying this, but I think you are a liar. I've been working professionally with images since 1971, in all manner of capacity, be it photographer, engraver or electronic retoucher. No one is capable of that kind of pop without post process help, and the telltale signs of the work you did are all over those images.

Alfiere wrote:

Its shit like this that makes me HATE mm some days. So you are just so effin perfect you can do it right 100% of the time and you never ever use any pp on eyes huh.. bullshit. How about answering a question on the forums instead of telling us all how good you are. Maybe you can make a thread about how you are wonderful and not waste the time of the OP.

My avatar has about 2 keystrokes of PS done and none of it involved the eyes.  I had a catch light, she has pretty eyes and the lighting was right.  I used to think it was a smartass answer too.  I'm far from perfect and don't do a lot right, but this image does good with her eyes being the way they are.

I've seen screen work and sharpening work, otherwise I'm not much with PS and don't know of any other ways for this to happen.

Oh, and please...no personal attacks.

Nic wrote:
Whats wrong with the quick selection tool and then bumping the brightness in brightness/contrast? It's simple and works for me. (lol)

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Because the model ends up looking like an alien.

I usually run a curve on the whole eye. I bump the midtone of the curve up quite a bit, accept the curve and then close it. Yes the eyes do look alien. Then I turn the curve off and apply a luminosity mask to the curve layer, using the merged information from the image without the eye curve correction. When I turn the curve back on, the eyeball is slightly brighter, but its difficult to tell anything was done to it because of the gradual nature of the mask.

If our friend Tim, who says his work is done strictly with lighting, had used my technique, he wouldn't have left so many tell tale signs in the retouching of the eyes on this subject, and I wouldn't have had to call him a liar.



Note how normal the white of the eye on the left appears, as well as the right side of the eye on the right, but for some inexplicable reason the left side of the eye on the right goes to paper white. The distance from the left to the right side of that eye is probably less than and inch, yet somehow he was able to affect a two or three stop difference without leaving so much as the reflection of a mirror or black card anywhere in the eye. I suppose one last question is in order for Tim... why is the density of the catch lights in the eyes so much brighter in the eye on the right from the eye on the left? All things being equal, the catch lights are mere reflections of the light source, and both eyes would normally have about the same level of reflectance, so wouldn't they normally be about the same density level. In your shot they are stops apart.

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:

My avatar has about 2 keystrokes of PS done and none of it involved the eyes.  I had a catch light, she has pretty eyes and the lighting was right.  I used to think it was a smartass answer too.  I'm far from perfect and don't do a lot right, but this image does good with her eyes being the way they are.

I've seen screen work and sharpening work, otherwise I'm not much with PS and don't know of any other ways for this to happen.

Oh, and please...no personal attacks.

I was with a new client the other day, and i was almost embarrassing myself by how I was staring at her. She finally asked me what was up because she had caught on to the attention. I very honestly answered that I had never before seen a woman that sparkled like she did. Her eyes were absolutely incredible. Fantastically bright and filled with life. There is no accounting for why that happens, but it does. You lit you avatar in a very nice, conventional manner. Absolutely nothing you did with regard to the lighting or metering would cause normal eyes to pop like they do on your subject. I would imagine your subjects eyes were very, very bright, and their response on your file had nothing to do with how well, or not, you lit the scene.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
So Bob,

what if I have a model who's eyes don't pop at all on camera, and the brown in their pupil just goes black and mixes with the black in their eyes.

Is there a way to take care of that more in camera (to get better colors, etc), or is it just part of the business?

Sounds like you are referring to someone of ethnically pure color. Getting separation of those tones is tough even on system, and I find that if I accomplish it, many times it just looks wrong. I know of no way to achieve the look in camera, and if everyone in here were honest, they would agree.

Robert Randall wrote:

I don't enjoy saying this, but I think you are a liar. I've been working professionally with images since 1971, in all manner of capacity, be it photographer, engraver or electronic retoucher. No one is capable of that kind of pop without post process help, and the telltale signs of the work you did are all over those images.

+1

Robert Randall wrote:

I don't enjoy saying this, but I think you are a liar. I've been working professionally with images since 1971, in all manner of capacity, be it photographer, engraver or electronic retoucher. No one is capable of that kind of pop without post process help, and the telltale signs of the work you did are all over those images.

I don't lie. Don't need to.

Robert Randall wrote:
Sounds like you are referring to someone of ethnically pure color. Getting separation of those tones is tough even on system, and I find that if I accomplish it, many times it just looks wrong. I know of no way to achieve the look in camera, and if everyone in here were honest, they would agree.

Yeah, well it's weird, and like this thread has shown - there are some people who don't really need much encuragement when it comes to popping their eyes, and then some who can't do it at all, in camera or out.



Just wondering if there was a trick!

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:
I don't lie. Don't need to.

If you haven't lieing then please address what Bob has said here.  I've learnt more reading his post that I have this entire day.  If you have something to contribute to that, a reason that he's not covering the full context of your shot please share.  I and I'm sure everyone else in this thread would be very interested to hear, and try.

If you can't then perhaps a quick apology would be in order.

Robert Randall wrote:
If our friend Tim, who says his work is done strictly with lighting, had used my technique, he wouldn't have left so many tell tale signs in the retouching of the eyes on this subject, and I wouldn't have had to call him a liar.



Note how normal the white of the eye on the left appears, as well as the right side of the eye on the right, but for some inexplicable reason the left side of the eye on the right goes to paper white. The distance from the left to the right side of that eye is probably less than and inch, yet somehow he was able to affect a two or three stop difference without leaving so much as the reflection of a mirror or black card anywhere in the eye. I suppose one last question is in order for Tim... why is the density of the catch lights in the eyes so much brighter in the eye on the right from the eye on the left? All things being equal, the catch lights are mere reflections of the light source, and both eyes would normally have about the same level of reflectance, so wouldn't they normally be about the same density level. In your shot they are stops apart.

mikedimples wrote:
This next trick gives the illusion of slightly bigger, more youthful eyes: lightly dodge the inner rim of the upper or lower lid. Don't overdo it. If it's a woman, you can give the illusion of more closed, sultry eyes by painting her eyeliner color onto this area.

I heard somewhere that the highlight in the eye should be opposite of the catch light. Have you heard that as well or am I just making things up that I thought I read?

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
I heard somewhere that the highlight in the eye should be opposite of the catch light. Have you heard that as well or am I just making things up that I thought I read?

Usually catch-lights aren't a strong enough light source to illuminate the opposite side of the eye, but they could be. Like I said, "When lightening the iris of the eye, give the illusion of added depth by primarily lightening the side opposite the primary specular highlight."

The part that you quoted was talking about the the SKIN of the upper or lower inner-eyelid.

mikedimples wrote:
The part that you quoted was talking about the the SKIN of the upper or lower inner-eyelid.

sorry, it's late and I'm putting up with a fussy pc.

mikedimples wrote:
No problemo. It's cool to see that you already know some of this painterly stuff. You're now part of the cool "artist-retoucher" club.

painterly stuff?

Is that's what this thread is about, and/or is that in the book Mr Randall told me to read that I haven't really read yet?


Also, and on the subject, what brightness of a light would create shadows in the eyes or whatever I was talking about before? Are we talking about a f16 exposure opened up to like f5.6?

mikedimples wrote:
I just meant taking techniques generally used by painters/artists and applying them to retouching. We all are essentially digital painters in a way, it's to keep your eyes peeled for new ways to add dimension to our work, which it looks like you already have; thus a member of the painter-ly retouch club.

yay!


You should see the product shots I did tonight! Makes my model stuff really look like more crap than it already is!

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.

How about those fibreoptic LED thingies?

mikedimples wrote:
I just meant taking techniques generally used by painters/artists and applying them to retouching. We all are essentially digital painters in a way, it's to keep your eyes peeled for new ways to add dimension to our work, which it looks like you already have; thus a member of the painter-ly retouch club.

Yep. Actually re-touching is very good for learing how to "paint" in PS or Corel - as in full digital painting the likes on IFX. Eyes are actually fairly easy to paint in if you do enough of them.