Studio 317 Photography wrote:
The biggest complaint I get from other professional photographers is that my highlights are too muddy. Or that overall the images are too muddy.

Why not ask them that very question the next time someone tells you?

If anything from your MM port, I'd say that there's not enough variety. Meaning all your pictures feel the same. They're all "eh". There's nothing revolting (which is good) but nothing w/ that "this is really well thought out or beautifully captured or helluva impact statement or made the model look super hot or beautifully conceived."

Square Jaw Photography wrote:
LOL. Well I AM a premium member. Any chance you could enlighten me?

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
Actually, no. I'm sorry but since I'm not, I've never actually seen the controls to do that. I know on other boards, while your composing a post or reply there are additional tools near the "reply" button? A small toolbar similar to what you'd see in Word maybe. One of the buttons on that toolbar allows you to put an image inline.

I've never seen it on MM because I'm not a premium member so I can't say for sure.

Or, maybe I'm totally wrong and just don't know what I'm doing. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

Unfortunately, it is the latter, you are totally wrong.

Any member of any level can post images into the forums.

The account limitation is that basic members cannot post an image onto their profile page.

This site has no "tools" similar to Word, all it has is the link under the "reply" button that says "How to post photos, links, change font, etc".

Studio 317 Photography wrote:
The biggest complaint I get from other professional photographers is that my highlights are too muddy. Or that overall the images are too muddy. And  I can't figure out what my deal is. I'm a human light meter. I follow "mostly" all the rules of photography. I'm the guy to ask about photography. But... once an image is brought up into photoshop, I'm a real dee dee dee. I NEVER like my finished images. I'm my worst critic. Would anyone be interested in allowing me to post some sooc images and giving me critique, and then critique my final image post production as well? I've never posted a thread on here so I guess it's time to have my cherry popped.

Don't feel bad, I absolutely hate retouching, and those who are really able to get the most out of their images are most definitely digital artists, it is very impressive.

Good luck in your adventure, I think it is safe to say that photography sure ain't what it used to be.

Yum Yum Photo wrote:
And dont take criticism too too seriously.... If you dont get it and cant ask about it I would move on.....

I partially agree.  You should be VERY bothered by ANY criticism that any part of you feels rings true, regardless of how well you 'get it'.  But if you understand it, and don't agree, then politely smile, thank them, and then immediately forget whatever they said.

Unless criticism is from a paying client, you should only pay attention to what helps you make the images that you want to make.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Your lighting is controlled and pretty, but also rather flat and "portrait studio" looking (a kind way of saying boring). Your retouching is also heavy-handed (too much blur) and has an overall dulling and 'weighing down' effect on your photos.

Try moving your lights closer to the model for faster falloff and more 'pop', using smaller modifiers with grids rather than big softboxes or octas and don't be afraid of shadows or the occasional blown highlight. Try shooting tethered if you don't already and ETTR to give the greatest possibly dynamic range and least noise in the shadows. You'll be surprised how much you can "over" expose a RAW file with modern sensors and still retain detail in the highlights, especially if you're using LR4/ACR7 to convert the RAW file.

Ease back on the retouching - try just cleaning files up in lightroom or ACR (LR4/ACR7 have some great new features) - rather than always pulling them into PS and pummelling them with filters and gaussian blur. Also, make sure you have a properly calibrated monitor for retouching and don't set it too bright. It only needs to be bright enough to show you the full range of tones - any brighter will leave you squinting and subconsciously 'dulling' your images as you retouch them to make life easier on your eyes!



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I really like your advice! Keep it coming. I want to step out of my comfort zone. I shoot high school seniors. So I don't change anything up. It's always short light and poses that flatter. I get paid to stay in my comfort zone I guess. But I'm one of those people who really can learn anything. And I want to learn.

Jay Lee Studios wrote:
I have to agree with those who said over retouched. Your work looks plastic, and not real. You should learn how to actually edit photos instead of duplicating the layer and blurring the skin. Your work would look more professional and not so CGI.

Well I don't have many close ups either. I don't really blur the skin. I use portraiture. And lately I have learned to back it way down. I don't use guassian blur. A lot of people say that to me but I think that people use to soften skin with guassian blur before portraiture came out.  I don't know the term CGI. lol  I'm not picking a fight, but I don't do any of the things you just suggested I do. Just sayin.

Studio 317 Photography wrote:
Oh, and now another question! This image looks much cooler in photoshop than it does on the web and in windows? Any suggestions?

Easy answer.  Photoshop uses a much larger colour space than any common web browser.  Photoshop usually uses AdobeRGB (unless you've changed it), while web browsers use the much worse sRGB for faster loading.  The best way to 'fix' this is to convert to sRGB using Photoshop itself before uploading, as Photoshop does a much better job than the web browser will.

With the image open, select the 'edit' drop-down menu, and click on 'convert to profile.'  Select 'sRGB' as the destination space.  If it looks bad, mess with the image a little before you save it.  Do not use 'assign profile', as that won't be much better than letting the browser do it.

It's extra work, but I find that it makes a large difference.

As far as the jpg/RAW thing ... I used to shoot jpg a lot, but now I only shoot raw.  Raw images have no colour space, technically, and can theoretically support a better dynamic range.  They also have a much higher bit depth than jpg, and that helps a lot too.

If you don't make any changes to the image whatsoever, the only difference will be that the jpg will clip shadows and highlights a little sooner, even if that raw file was immediately converted to jpg without any changes.  But if you adjust exposure or colour even a little, the raw image will be less prone to picking up noise and banding during the editing process.

Oh, and don't convert to CMYK.  That's silly, and is probably causing a lot of your problems.  Every browser, and every photo printer, is designed to accept some form of RGB input.  Even though your inks are CMYK, the printer is looking for an RGB source.  If you feed it something different, it gets confused.

Generally, CMYK is only used for offset printing, and some banner/merch printers.

Crack The Sky wrote:
Do you mind if i have a go at adjusting one of your images?

Shoot me your email.

Zack Zoll wrote:

Easy answer.  Photoshop uses a much larger colour space than any common web browser.  Photoshop usually uses AdobeRGB (unless you've changed it), while web browsers use the much worse sRGB for faster loading.  The best way to 'fix' this is to convert to sRGB using Photoshop itself before uploading, as Photoshop does a much better job than the web browser will.

With the image open, select the 'edit' drop-down menu, and click on 'convert to profile.'  Select 'sRGB' as the destination space.  If it looks bad, mess with the image a little before you save it.  Do not use 'assign profile', as that won't be much better than letting the browser do it.

It's extra work, but I find that it makes a large difference.

As far as the jpg/RAW thing ... I used to shoot jpg a lot, but now I only shoot raw.  Raw images have no colour space, technically, and can theoretically support a better dynamic range.  They also have a much higher bit depth than jpg, and that helps a lot too.

If you don't make any changes to the image whatsoever, the only difference will be that the jpg will clip shadows and highlights a little sooner, even if that raw file was immediately converted to jpg without any changes.  But if you adjust exposure or colour even a little, the raw image will be less prone to picking up noise and banding during the editing process.

Oh, and don't convert to CMYK.  That's silly, and is probably causing a lot of your problems.  Every browser, and every photo printer, is designed to accept some form of RGB input.  Even though your inks are CMYK, the printer is looking for an RGB source.  If you feed it something different, it gets confused.

Generally, CMYK is only used for offset printing, and some banner/merch printers.

You misunderstood my process. I did not convert to CMYK. I only converted the  RGB readings to CMYK so that I could view them as percentages. A lot of people do this just to gain information (if they are color blind) like me.  Well I'm not color blind, but I feel like I am.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I guess I don't understand, no.  So you're moving sliders in CMYK, even the image is still RGB?  I was under the impression that the sliders/curves were all RGB and CMYK at the same time.  Red and Cyan, Green and Magenta, and Blue and Yellow.  If you want to think RGB, you treat it as adding/removing red.  If you want to think CMYK, you treat it as adding/removing cyan.  It's still the same control, and the numerical readout is the same.

What am I missing?

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
it appears to be more about the direction and quality of lighting and number of lights employed than about photoshop.  Forget using "fill" for a while.  Don't be afraid of shadows - these define form and texture.  And let me suggest that unless the light is high and almost on axis, it needs to be *at least* 45* off axis to become interesting.....

Unfortunately I am afraid of shadows. Only because I want everything to be printable. I think I know what you mean by the 45 degree angle. But wanted to double check. I basically always have my light at 10 or 2. I have the light feathered towards camera and I don't angle it down. I place the bottom of my softbox at shoulder level. So the top half of it is lighting up the hair. Would you have a different approach?

Zack Zoll wrote:
Oh, okay ... now I'm with you.

If I'm honest, I never learned to correct skin that way.  Did you start off colour correcting in a colour darkroom?  Because that very much sounds like the sort of process I went through for that.

Are you using a colour chart?  Because if you want to work numerically, it would make your life a lot easier.  All you need to do is set some WB targets on the photo of the chart, and then adjust from there.  I find that tanned people could usually use a little less green (or more magenta) in the shadow areas, and a little less yellow overall.  I do that in two separate curves layers; one for the overall image, and the green one where I've just tweaked the skin's shadow areas.  If it messes up the rest of the image too much, I mask it off.

Then again, if you've seen my portfolio you know that I'm not exactly concerned with super-accurate colour

I'm more concerned with color than I am a WOW factor. I don't shoot for art. I'd like to. I think it would be fun. But I've never done it and wouldn't know where to start because my photoshop skills are so very limited. I did also just learn today about color correcting using LAB color. I found that to be very interesting as well. I think everyone just doesn't like that my shots are boring as far as "WOW" factor. Just think of me as that guy who learned photography without having access to a computer.  Then you might understand why I shoot the way I do.

Studio 317 Photography wrote:

I'm more concerned with color than I am a WOW factor. I don't shoot for art. I'd like to. I think it would be fun. But I've never done it and wouldn't know where to start because my photoshop skills are so very limited. I did also just learn today about color correcting using LAB color. I found that to be very interesting as well. I think everyone just doesn't like that my shots are boring as far as "WOW" factor. Just think of me as that guy who learned photography without having access to a computer.  Then you might understand why I shoot the way I do.

Oh and yes I want to white balance numerically. Could you explain what you mean by setting points on a chart?

Studio 317 Photography wrote:
Unfortunately I am afraid of shadows. Only because I want everything to be printable. I think I know what you mean by the 45 degree angle. But wanted to double check. I basically always have my light at 10 or 2. I have the light feathered towards camera and I don't angle it down. I place the bottom of my softbox at shoulder level. So the top half of it is lighting up the hair. Would you have a different approach?

Vastly different approach.

With the exception of shooting beauty work or the occasional use of a ringlight, my main light is always at least 60 degrees off camera axis either vertically or horizontally and never less than 30 degrees off axis in any dimension.  Often 45-60 degrees in elevation.

You would be surprised how often my main is a full 90 degrees off camera axis.

I use small tightly controlled modifiers for the most part as well -   very frequently a 10 x 36" strip box or a Mola Demi or Setti beauty dish with grids. 

My images print just fine in magazine publication.....