|
Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
why not looking skin texture my photo?
I can not see the pictures i took of texture. If your photos are raw textures significant. Where is the problem? My equipment: 6d-7d-5dMarkII 50mm1.4 and SIGMA 17-50 f/2.8 2x 400W Jinbei Flash 2x Softbox 1x Bowl What do i need? ex. http://j1306.hizliresim.com/1b/u/pmdhm.jpg f/20 1/125 ISO160 why is blurred? Thanks. Jun 26 13 03:25 pm Link Looks like it's not focused correctly... ...RAWS need to be sharpen Jun 26 13 03:41 pm Link umutyildiz0 wrote: I think you need to ask your question here.. Jun 26 13 03:49 pm Link At f/20 and 45mm focal length you should have depth-of-field to cover the entire subject. But you do not. The eyes are blurry, while the lips and the hair around the ears and the top of her head look OK. Much sharper than the eyes. I think your problem might be the f/20 on this lens. At such small aperatures, f/16 and greater, diffraction starts happening. Diffraction actually makes things less sharp. Make some test shots at different f-stops and compare the results. You will probably find that f/8 is the "sweet spot" on the lens, where sharpness is the best. Jun 26 13 04:41 pm Link Redcrown wrote: +1 Jun 26 13 06:10 pm Link hi this is Nitesh here there is solution 4yr image jst worked with clarity in camera raw filter it wll make yr image sharp plus it will create texture 2yr image... [email protected] Jul 02 13 05:59 am Link umutyildiz0 wrote: Theoretically, the closer the aperture, the more stuff you'll have in focus. Lenses are not perfect, so, also, the closer the aperture, the worse they perform, especially when we're dealing with non professional lenses like the Sigma (this also happens with the best and most expensive lenses though). Jul 02 13 08:25 am Link Peano wrote: I agree you are starting to get loss of detail from diffraction of the light from the small f stop or you somehow may have missed focus. Jul 02 13 08:31 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: Agreed. Diffraction. Jul 02 13 08:35 am Link I would also add that you should upload images in sRGB color space, so that they might be displayed properly. I snagged one of them and see that it is in a colorspace identified as "c2" which I've never heard of before. No one else can see the colors you see on your monitor because of that odd color space. To do that, be sure to "convert to" sRGB, rather than "assign to" sRGB. Jul 02 13 08:37 am Link First, the light is almost directly in front of the model (just to camera right). Straight-on lighting minimizes texture. Second, the photo is almost full-length. The "size" of the model in the photo isn't such that it would emphasize texture. Distinguishable pores in that size of photo would look phony. Third, the photo doesn't look sharp. Focus may have been off. Also, as noted, f/20 generally is one of a lens' least sharp f/stops. The sharpest f/stops are generally in the upper middle (meaning between the widest opening and the middle of the f/stop range) to middle of the range of f/stops. Depending on the lens you were using, I don't think the f/stop necessarily accounts for the majority of the unsharpness. I sometimes shoot in that range sometimes and get sharp photos. However, higher-end lenses are sharper overall and are likely to be sharper at f/20 than a lower-end lens would be. Jul 02 13 08:55 am Link Some degree of backfocusing plus diffraction limitation caused by using f/20. f/20 on a 7D is NOT going to give you pin-sharp results even if the picture is properly focused. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor … tion.shtml Just my $0.02 Ciao Stefano www.stefanobrunesci.com Jul 02 13 09:02 am Link umutyildiz0 wrote: For anything that related to Texture, I move away from Canon.. Jul 02 13 09:09 am Link ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: What? That makes absolutely no sense. Millions of images have been taken with Canon bodies with great detail. My AVI was taken with a 7D and a 70-200 and I can count the pores. Jul 02 13 09:15 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: Have both and shoot both and you will see. Canon's smooth out fine details. Jul 02 13 09:16 am Link ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: As I stated my AVI was done with a 7D, great fine details and really no different than my Nikon bodies Jul 02 13 09:17 am Link Does look unsharp for whatever reason, hence no texture. The Sigma 17-50mm isn't the highest scoring zoom lens in dxomark.com site either for sharpness. Somewhere below middle scale on sharpness. However, I did have a 5D II and the body had severe AF issues depending on where the 9 AF points were placed. Never really took a deep look into that until FoCal software came along and destroyed my thoughts on that body for good. You might want to invest in FoCal Pro and have it run through your body and lenses and glean some info from it. Can't hurt, or maybe it will. Fwiw, I sold the Canon 5D II and moved to Nikon. The AF points are better overall with the Nikon bodies I have over the 5D II, aside from the damn backfocusing issue that pops up with the Nikon's at times since they do not allow me to calibrate the fine-tuning at each end of their 'Gold Trinity' set of zoom lenses I have where Canon did. Nikon needs to fix that issue in their AF menu, or do a bit better job on their Q.C. out of the factory. The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 II I have seems to need a -15 at extremes to correct for backfocus, but +1 in the middle zoom range - Ugh!  Jul 02 13 09:18 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: I have 70-200mm f2.8L II as well and anything related to fine texture, Canon isn't that great. Jul 02 13 09:19 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: You can't compare retouched image with unretouched image. Also, the AVI is web version. You need to compare the images directly from camera untouched. Jul 02 13 09:21 am Link Get better lenses (Canon 85mm F1.8, Canon 135mm F2 L, Canon 100mm Macro for example...),shoot between f8 / f11, use the appropriate lighting, make sure you don't have any back/front focus issue and you'll get sharper images. Jul 02 13 09:46 am Link One key element that needs to be present for texture to show up is "cross lighting". In your sample picture you have a small point source of light... coming directly in from the front of the model... according to the eye catch lights. This shooting style is made to minimize skin pores. If your lighting is straight on...the light will hit the top part of the pore...and then the light will also equally illuminate the bottom part of the pore. This gives NO DEPTH and NO CONTRAST to the skin pores. "Straight in lighting" always minimizes surface texture. If you were to light from the top or the side of the models face you would be lighting "across the skin pores". There would be a high point of the pore to catch the side lighting...but then the bottom of the pore would not be lit as strongly...and it would appear darker. You would then see much more differentiation between the light top part of the pore and the darker deep part of the pore. Now the skin pore can pop...and you can clearly see the craters. Try this experiment at home: Use a flash light and shine it directly at a wall or directly into an orange peel. Notice how little visible texture you see...NOW...move the flash light to the side of the wall and aim it "across the wall". Now you will see all the texture clearly shown. You will see textures in the wall that you have never ever seen before! BIG TEXTURES! The same thing with the orange skin. Shine the light straight onto the orange skin and you will see very little texture...shine the light from the Top or Across the Side of the orange...LOTS and LOST OF BEAUTIFUL TEXTURE! This is a photographic principle: Side lighting emphasizes texture... straight on lighting minimizes texture. Many of the very glamorous and beautiful images you see were shot with beauty dishes coming from the side of the models face or from slightly above...and you will see great skin pore texture in the face. In many of the images you love...you can definitely see the characteristic beauty dish highlight right in the eye catch lights. In your sample image...your image looked slightly out of focus...in addition to being lit from straight on...these are TWO great skin pore killers! Also, not every model has crisp visible pores...some models dont like big visible skin pores...and sometimes unsuspecting makeup artists clog up and jam liquid foundation into the bottom of the all the skin pores...and rub in the foundation hard with a sponge... and make the bottom of the pores fill up... and become even less visible. To emphasize great skin pore textures in Photography... I use this check list: 1. Get a Good Model: Does my model have good skin pore textures to begin with... that are already clearly visible? "Cast Appropriately and Specifically" if you want a model with visible skin pores...not every model wants or has clearly showing skin pores. Ask for "Visible skin pore texture" in your casting call description. If you dont specifically ask...you may not get what you are after. 2. Makeup Artist: Does my makeup artist know how to keep makeup visually clean for a Photographer? Some MUA's just smoosh and glob on the foundation and fill in the pores depth. This is great for a smooth, even complexion...but NOT for showing skin pores. 3. Camera and Lens: Does my camera have at least 12-16-20 mp of resolution... and am I using a good quality prime lens that is sharp and contrasty? Lower resolution cameras and variable lenses will emphasize skin pores somewhat less. Will I shoot at an f-stop to emphasize good depth of focus and have both the nose and the cheek in good focus. 4. Cross Lighting: Will I be using a light that can be controlled with a front grid to avoid excessive light spillage all around the studio (this excessive light spillage makes the contrast of the pores less). If you can have a somewhat hard contrasty light source (beauty dish) ...it is better than a wide soft source like an umbrella for skin detail. Can I light from the side or from slightly above the models face? I want to shoot across the models skin pores to emphasize them...but I also want creativity and beauty to be part of the shot too. Plan to do both! 5. Post Processing: Do I know how to do non-destructive retouching so very little of the skins pore detail is lost? Will my Photoshop skin smoothing technique be overly strong and become opaque and will it cover over and obscure the underlying pore detail? The use of high pass + high frequency techniques and selective sharpening will enhance the skin pores detail and visibility. Ray Jul 02 13 10:21 am Link Interesting note: in magnified mode there is a seam clearly visible starting at her right armpit. The [i]stitches start out sharp[/b] but get less and less sharp as one scrolls upward. Although the change in lighting might explain some of this, the lighting near the top of the garmet matches that below yet by the topmost point the sharpness is mud. Jul 02 13 10:23 am Link Yes, Shooting Canon is the problem  Jul 04 13 01:53 am Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: +1 Jul 04 13 02:01 am Link ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: Thousands of other photographers do not have that problem using that same equipment. It must be very disappointing to you that you are unable to get those results. Jul 04 13 03:18 am Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: If anything, shooting with 35mm DSLR toys is the problem. Jul 04 13 04:25 am Link umutyildiz0 wrote: This is normal thing with Canon. Jul 04 13 05:00 am Link Sharpness is overrated. I intentionally add noise and blur to all my images for delivery. Lots of blurry noise over an already blurred stamp of the image... lots. Jul 04 13 08:40 am Link Your answer is LIGHTING!!!! Direct hard light = lots of texture. Soft light = not that much texture. Flat light = no texture.  Jul 04 13 09:01 am Link FLEXmanta wrote: Horses for courses. As a retoucher I generally do what I'm asked. Jul 04 13 07:05 pm Link  Sorry, just couldn't resist.. Jul 04 13 11:08 pm Link Wow, there is some great advice in this thread......and some of the most ridiculous statements ever made, by a couple of very stupid people. You will have to work out for yourself which is which....shouldn't be that difficult. Jul 05 13 08:19 pm Link  Moderator Note!R.EYE.R wrote: Try. Jul 06 13 02:19 am Link ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: ...?? serious?? Compare apples with apples so take a 1DX to a D800...they will both give a great result when properly focused.... Jul 12 13 09:37 am Link ST Retouch wrote: Amazing statement you are making.........., I only use Canon with or a 24-70L, a 24-105L or a 70-200L...never having problems with skintexture..the sweetspot is mostly between 8 and 11 but it is not a rule that works every time. Jul 12 13 09:42 am Link ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: As you continually post in every thread, regardless of whether relevant to the conversation or not. Jul 12 13 10:00 am Link You can't blame the camera or the manufacturer if you are doing it wrong. Those of you who can't get a sharp image with a Canon need to get your eyes checked. Jul 12 13 10:01 am Link yeah it looks blured,out of focus? Jul 12 13 12:52 pm Link Funniest post, yeah Canon Sucks ... LOL - Need Triple Facepalm There is enough advice here to fix the problem but it was happening to me I'd do the following: 1. Adjust Microfocus : http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/arti … tment.html 2. Do not go over f16, most lenses have the best sharpness around f8/f11 3. Make sure there is no motion blur or camera shake (try an IS lens for shaky hands) 4. Skin texture, like any texture requires light at an angle to appear, light coming straight will eliminate most of the texture (good for problem skin, bad if you want to capture the skin texture) I shot Canon, and I had a backfocus issue with a rental 24-70 one time (with both 7D and 5DM2) which caused softness like yours, so potentially a microadjustment should fix your problem if it is an equipment issue. Usually though I spend a lot of time to soften the texture my 135 f2 captures cheers Jul 16 13 06:13 pm Link Where is the OP owner gone? Jul 19 13 03:53 pm Link |
