Can anyone bring out the model's eyes?

[Rachel Foster]

Can anyone bring out the eyes in this portrait? They are lost in shadow, unfortunately. I think the model's face is interesting with strong features, but the "lack" of eyes renders it...ugh.

 

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

Much easier to work with a larger file and raw image, still hopefully this will get you started (photoshop, cs2)

Make sure you work on a copy of the original file!

1) make new duplicate layer (It will be named 'background copy')
2) use lasso tool, feather set to, say, 20 px, select eye area.
3) layer - new - layer via copy (this will give a layer (layer 1) with just the eye, fading to a transparent background
4) select layer 1.
5) Image - Adjustments - Levels and make the eye way too light (slide the small pointers towards left
6) adjust opacity in layer 1 to reduce its effect on the background

Above is the very brief explanation of the steps taken for a basic improvement. If you can't find the controls, then ask for more info. If the feather/area is wrong, just make another layer, and turn off the ones you don't need.
Maybe you decide to lighten the beard.

There are many, many other methods. If the original is a raw image, you will amaze yourself at the detail that can be recovered.

So, copy the image to 235a.jpg, say, edit it as above, or wait for other advice, and post your result. Leave the original image here for comparison.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Rachel Foster]

When I selected Layer-new-layer via copy, the lasso just disappeared and it did nothing. Don't know what I'm doing wrong.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Hmmm...it didn't do what I expected but I did something or another and this is what came out:

 

[Rachel Foster]

The original photo that was posted on the adjusted version looks awful...but I've got the steps to a new technique! I need practice, but. . .

I did this!

That's also bad, but now I have the steps!

 

[Don Lashier]

This is an interesting shot Rachel. Aside from the eye I think the entire right side might benefit from some light and might consider using HDR techniques - make a lighter version either in the RC (if the shot was RAW) or by applying levels and/or layers to a dup layer in Photoshop. Put the lighter on top and add a right to left gradient mask, adjust transparency etc. This would emulate the effect of a slight fill light from the right.

- DL

 

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

When I selected Layer-new-layer via copy, the lasso just disappeared and it did nothing. Don't know what I'm doing wrong.

I guess you've sorted it by now. if the area selected is less than the feather size -i.e. its all feathered, then what is selected will be 'all feathered' so not so easy to see. Is that what happened?

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[nicolas claris]

Can anyone bring out the eyes in this portrait? They are lost in shadow, unfortunately. I think the model's face is interesting with strong features, but the "lack" of eyes renders it...ugh.

Hi Rachel
My take…

opening-up the shadows with an action I did create, plus some local (around the eye) Light and Shadow filter. + a little 'sharp' as usual (for me)

 

[Don Lashier]

I just fiddled with the jpg a bit in photoshop and there's just not enough data in the shadows to bring much out at all. A raw might be a bit better but if the model is available I might just reshoot with a little fill from the right. It's really better to get the lighting right in the first place anyway.

- DL

 

[Rachel Foster]

Wow, Nicholas! And it does dramatically show how important it is to have the eyes in the photo.


I, ahem, have a little pull with the model. I think he'll sit for me again. (Spouses can be very persuasive!)

 

[Rachel Foster]

I reshot the model. This one particularly struck me. It has a very different quality from the first (and I would like to capture that quality again) but I'm liking this one.

The first shot

and tonight's shoot

 

[nicolas claris]

Wow, Nicholas! And it does dramatically show how important it is to have the eyes in the photo.
I, ahem, have a little pull with the model. I think he'll sit for me again. (Spouses can be very persuasive!)

It was only as an exercise, as you may know, I'm with Don on this, better work on the capture than in PP (post production)!

Yes I do know about spouses persuation (should I admiy that I like that?-)

The quality of you 1st shot was the pose of the model, very intriguing hence wondering… the last one may be better about the lighting (not so sure though) but not for the posing, the left "empty" part doesn't bring anything, framing should be as original, vertical and tight. I do like to have context in a photography, but in this case there's no context so let's tight the frame…

imHo

 

[Rachel Foster]

Yes, I see what you're driving at. However, as I look at the shot, I'm articulating what I liked about it. I need to PS the back drop a little and darken it, I think. But look at the model's expression. What is he thinking? Feeling? We have no clue, really. Is he angry? Wary? Concentrating? Pissed at having to pose so long two nights in a row? Suffering a touch of indigestion?

This model's face is not clearly reflecting what he is thinking. I imagine there are a variety of emotions attributed to him by viewers. Now, that brings me to the empty space: It represents that unknown (especially if I darken it and make it more murky).

Now, my question is this: Am I engaging in "artsy-fartsy" flights of fancy that are nothing more than self-indulgent pretentiousness (which I've been known to do and I'll confess to finding a lot of fun) or is there something to it?

If pretentiousness it is, say so! One of things that always tickles me is my ability to easily slip into the Land of Pomposity and Pretentions. I'm good at it!

 

[Rachel Foster]

Rereading my last post, I guess I should say that my sense of humor is very dry and a bit unusual. I was poking a little fun at myself and will not be at all offended if anyone joins in and says, "Yes, you silly thing, that's ridiculous!"

 

[Tim Armes]

1) make new duplicate layer (It will be named 'background copy')
2) use lasso tool, feather set to, say, 20 px, select eye area.
3) layer - new - layer via copy (this will give a layer (layer 1) with just the eye, fading to a transparent background
4) select layer 1.
5) Image - Adjustments - Levels and make the eye way too light (slide the small pointers towards left
6) adjust opacity in layer 1 to reduce its effect on the background
Ray

I'd like to step in with this one. One of the problems with Photoshop is that there are always many ways to do the same thing. As a beginner, it can be overwhelming. As a teacher, it's very difficult to choose between teaching the better-but-harder approach or the worse-yet-easier approach - we don't want to teach bad habits yet we don't want to scare the learner off, either.

So I address this to those of you advancing with Photoshop, hopefully before the bad habits stick:

Where possible, use adjustment layers and layer masks to do as much non-destructive editing as possible.
​

Ray's suggestion is reasonable, but it can lead to complications later on since there are two layers with the same image. It also takes lots of memory up, which can slow things down when used excessively. Another approach based on the same idea would be this:

1) Create a levels adjustment layer, bring out detail in the area of interest.
2) Paint in black on the layer's mask anywhere that you don't want the adjustment to be seen

Beginners often take a while to understand layer masks, but I feel that they should be experimented with as soon as possible, since good photoshopping skills revolve around these little wonders.

P.M. me if you'd like me to start a thread about layer masks and/or adjustment layers. If there's enough demand I'll get to work.

Tim

 

[Giovanni Brembati]

My

Giovanni

 

[Rachel Foster]

Now that's real close to what I was aiming for in the shadows aspect. Nice!

 

[Tim Armes]

Hi Giovanni,

I'm not sure I like this change - for me, the effect doesn't fit well with the soft moodiness of the original.

However, personal opinions aside, what is sure is that the thread is drifting off topic from Rachel's question concerning the eye...

Tim

My

Giovanni

 

[Rachel Foster]

I think the moodiness and the eye may not be compatible. I'm not quite sure what the best way to shoot it is.

 

[Giovanni Brembati]

Hi Tim,
light is a powerful tool. Anyone can give a personal touch and any opinion is respectable, I think.
Dark tones give more dramatic aspect, generally. but Rachel said:

Now that's real close to what I was aiming for in the shadows aspect. Nice!

and Rachel is the photographer!

 

[Rachel Foster]

I think this model's face is made for moody drama (and NOT just because he's my husband)! I am trying to bring that out but find that if I highlight they eye, it tends to lose the mood. If I don't get the eye, it looks bland.

This is off the technical question entirely. Personal opinion is that learning how to light and frame are the critical elements. However, this is posed as a technical question so that's another discussion, maybe? The technical points have been nicely treated. Thanks, all!

 

[Tim Armes]

Hi Tim,
light is a powerful tool. Anyone can give a personal touch and any opinion is respectable, I think.
Dark tones give more dramatic aspect, generally.

Hi Giovanni,

You're quite right, any opinion is respectable. Please don't think that I'd like to suppress you're thoughts. However let's not mix up the forums or confuse the threads. Only Ray has responded to the question: "How can I bring out the shadow detail in the eye".

I think this model's face is made for moody drama (and NOT just because he's my husband)! I am trying to bring that out but find that if I highlight they eye, it tends to lose the mood. If I don't get the eye, it looks bland.

This is off the technical question entirely. Personal opinion is that learning how to light and frame are the critical elements. However, this is posed as a technical question so that's another discussion, maybe? The technical points have been nicely treated. Thanks, all!

Hi Rachel. Yes, these are good questions. A good place to discuss them would be the Portrait forum. Once you know what you want to acheive, this forum can show you how to do it.

Maybe some of you will feel that I'm being strict, but I'm trying to ensure that the thread stay on topic for the benefit of our readers interested in retouching techniques. Forums that are allow to go astray tend not to recover, in my experience.

Regards,

Tim

 

[Asher Kelman]

Let me clarify the focus of this forum: it's just a technical forum for repairs or effects! We have a resource of talented guys, so lets focus:

1. For the basics: The nature and purposes of layers and masking I've started a thread here.
   
   
2. Esthetic effects of light and shadow: We'd welcome discussion here in Portraiture dealing with the effect of lighting on bringing out mood, purpose, motivations, character and so forth. Don't assume, for example that we even need to see the eyes!
   
   
3. This Forum: As Tim points out, in this Retouch forum, (he's after all, The "Boss", "Patron", Shop Steward" and "Captain") we only discuss how to deliver a requested technical effect or repair, so that it is seamless and does not look altered!

Let's present any technical solution to Rachel's question, the more the merrier.

Asher

Problem pictures of your own or something challenging? We'd love to tackle this in a new thread! Provide a decent sized file by yousendit.com, which is free!

 

[Rachel Foster]

I apologize for derailing the thread. I'm prone to getting carried away and will be more careful in the future.

 

[Ray West]

Hi Tim,

I did mention, (but you did not quote, but that is ok) that there are many, many solutions. I have found, as a beginner, that it is very easy to work directly on the image, screw it up, maybe even save it with the original name or something 'daft'. That is why I suggested making a background copy. If you decide to work directly on that, - if it is to do just a sharpen or clone or whatever, the effect of the changes are easily seen, simply by turning that layer on and off. In this eye example, there is then only one layer, other than that, with a very pale eye and the usual transparent (checker board ) area in the rest of that layer. In the steps I mentioned, for this quick fix, the background copy layer could be removed/not made. For this small jpeg image speed of rendering/size is not important. It was a quick and dirty fix which maybe does the job. I agree it may well start off bad habits, but maybe a bad habit is better than no habit??? I think your proposed adjustment layer masking thread would be very useful, I've seen a load of misinformation out there.

Anyway, glad to see you back in harness, so to speak. Now, how did Giovanni get to his image? I did not post the results of my quick fix, wanting Rachel to try the few steps for herself, to see how easy it is (it may have been a dismal failure in my ps instruction technique, I guess). How does she get to a similar result to that which Giovanni achieved, which overall she says she liked (even if not complying with the only the eye, but the eye detail is there)?

Oh, strict is good. domination may be better ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Rachel Foster]

Oh, Ray, I did work on it! I'm STILL working on it! Unfortunately, I have to do some real work tonight (the kind that pays the bills). And I'm in fact tickled with what I've learned already.

I'm still timid about jumping in with both feet due to past frustrations with PS but I can master it, and I will. Just gotta pay the darn bills first.

 

[Joe Dubberly]

Hi, I wasn't able to see the picture but I can tell you what I do sometimes. Might help you later on.

If the eyes are a bit dark, or flat and can be even more devistating IMO I like to use a very very soft brush with white and make a circle that has some angle around the eye.. "on a new layer of course!" Make sure the brush size is a bit bigger than the eye you are working on to get the even lighting effect. I then go in and tweak the part out I don't want around the eye. Set the color mode and opacity to something nice. Doesn't always work, but when it does it really does. I use it normally for silverback shots I do from the zoo where they are behind glass. This takes time, you won't get it on the first try normally. When it was taught to me I wanted to pull my hair out, what is left of it!

Hope that helps

Joe