Softer portraits ...on purpose

I'm trying to understand how to take portraits of people with an appropriate amount of softness. I'm not sure if I'm imagining things or there is just that much post work done anymore. People complain that some of my photos are too sharp - showing every little detail (I know, tough problem to have).


I've a 50mm and a 70-200. Both are plenty sharp. I know i could use a filter (either hardware/software) ...but those all seem to appear too soap opera-y.


Am I chasing a slightly out of focus photo? Or should I just be post processing to soften portraits?





ze

Could you post some examples on this thread of some of your work so we can see some that are being considered too sharp.


Thanks


Joel

Wish I could easily, I'm no pro and the samples I have aren't cleared for public consumption. I'll sift through some that fall into this category that I can post.


As long as I'm not missing some "oh yeah, tweak your make-it-soft switch" or "use this filter because it adds the slightest touch" or "post process or nothing".


One of the things that I've read and applied for folks with a bit more wrinkles than others is a surrounding light rather than directional (more lights, softer lights)... In some cases I find the exact texture of faces appropriate, in others it seems you really want a softer look. I can pull it off in post, but since I'm still sorting some of this stuff out I wanted to ping some folks and see what they may do - all really in hopes of getting to that eureka moment where some other seasoned photographer comes in and says "if you shoot through wax paper, then you get some magic here".


I'll read up and post process until then... I'll look around online too for some contrasting examples if I can find some.


I'm going to be doing some outdoor shots for friends. I typically have a straight enough setup where 'real' is fine. Corporate photos and honestly family photos are different than personal semi-formal photos. People look like they do when they are in suits - and it isn't thought of. Family shots ...well they happen when they happen. But in taking someone's xmas card or maybe some of the glamor type shots (maybe that's what i'm comparing to ...but still not the soap opera fog style) - there is some softness. I've seen some xmas cards that look like they have haze or excessive soft filter.


Soft filter - which one? Maybe that should have been the title post?


Pardon the book

Now that is deffinitly a dilema. Im no pro either, I just scanned Bryans reviews, and the only filters he has reviewed are UV and Circular Polarizers. Personally If I do a soft focus look I do it in post. Its my personal opinion that I have more control over the effect in post versus's using a designated "soft focus" filter, or smearing vasaline on a cheap UV filter (fortunately I was not a part of that generation).


Hopefully you can post some sometime soon.


Is this what you are going for in a "soft focus" look?


http://images.mpix.com/0/13/000/3080...largethumb.jpg

[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/600x900/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.61/IMG_5F00_5791tdp2.jpg[/img][img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/600x900/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.61/IMG_5F00_5791tdp.jpg[/img]


Maybe this is a better example...then again I could be completely wrong [:D]


Canon 40D 85 1.2 at 5.6


Thanks


Joel

Not all filters are "soap-opera-y." Movie studios use them all the time to flatter the actors, enhance a mood, change the overall tone of the scene, etc. Portrait photographers use them, as well.


Here's a page that explains a lot about the basic types of diffusion and softening filters and another about fog filters. There's an article by Ira Tiffen, of, you guessed it, Tiffen Filters. Tiffen filters are very popular in the movie industry. I don't like some of their filters (ND, for example) because they are made by sandwiching a film between layers of glass. (That's how all polarizers are made.) Tiffen's online "catalog" may also be useful.


The "king" of special effects filters is, of course, Cokin. While their filters are not terribly high quality (they are resin, but, then, so are the much more expensive Singh-Ray filters), they are very versatile. If you get a "P" size filter, you can use it on any lens up to about 82mm filter size. They're not expensive (compared to glass filters)--you can buy many on eBay. The Cokin User's Guide describes many of them.


I'd suggest going to eBay and buying a cheap set of the basic diffusion/softening filters (e.g., duto, irregular surface, tiny lenses). Try them out and see which you like (if any). Do note that different filters may be better for particular uses (people, nature, landscapes, etc).


You can also try an old trick: put a piece of nylon stocking over the lens. (Tiffen & Cokin both make "net" filters that do just this, but in a more controlled way. Tiffen's "Softnet" filters come in white, black, red, and "flesh," Cokin's in white and black, both in several densities.


Now for the heretical suggestion: since you want to do portraits, you might consider the Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus. (Link is to Bryan's review, which agrees with my experience--I have one.) It uses spherical aberration to give an overall softness to the image. While the lens is not cheap new ($550 at B&H), if you watch eBay, you may find one for much less. I just checked and there is one for sale with a starting bid of $195. I paid $270 for mine. At the time, I got it for shooting indoor horse shows. It worked OK, though it was a bit long and it doesn't focus terribly quickly. I later bit the bullet and bought the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (both used), though I also use a bunch of faster primes (35mm f/2, 50m f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2 and Sigma 30m f/1.4) with my 30D.

If you want to add effects in post-processing, check out Tiffen's Dfx Filter Effects software. The full suite sells for $149.95, but there is an "essentials" collection for $59.95. It has both a standalone application and plug-ins.

I do it all in post processing, then you can get the effect your after.
I use Photoshop CS4, its the Clarity setting from what i can remember...example:


More clarity:
http://portfolio.maleko.co.uk/images...rtraits_23.jpg


Less clarity:
http://portfolio.maleko.co.uk/images...rtraits_25.jpg





Obviously you can go inbetween those settings.

If this is what your after, hope it helps!

ZE,

I use a pluggin for Photoshop by Imagenomic called Portraiture 2 to smooth skin. What I like about it is you can select only the skin tones using the eye dropper to smooth and select the amount so that the rest of the image will stay sharp. They also have some preset settings for high key& low key images, etc. They have a 15 day trial download on there site Here. I'm including a few examples of shots I've used it on. Hopefully this helps with what you were looking for.

Fred~


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.52/Margo.jpg[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.52/Aubrie.jpg[/img]

I dunno, at first I was interested in the soft-focus effect too.


But giving it a closer look, the softness does something whacky with the highlights. They just lose all detail and look weird. It makes the bright part of an image look out-of-proportion brighter..
Might just be me though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

But giving it a closer look, the softness does something whacky with the highlights. They just lose all detail and look weird. It makes the bright part of an image look out-of-proportion brighter..

---

That's intentional. Not all filters do that, but some people really like it. There are many effects possible in a filter. One is to soften or "diffuse" small details. Another possibility is to lower global contrast (increase glare). Still another is to flare around the brightest parts, causing what is to you "whacky highlights". Some filters combine the effects, others just do one thing.

Yes yes, I realize. Your photos are very nice and accurately exposed! That's what I like about them.


I just - personally - don't like messing up a properly exposed photo by using a filter that blows out the highlights on purpose ;)
A slightly softer portrait is ok tho.

Do you have the originals for either of these? Contrast is what is helping me understand this. The 'fog' and pretty much every variation is not what I'm after. I've read up on several filter options (hardware wise) and I think I'm left with post process. I'll give the demo a try and see what I get...





Thanks all!





ze

ZE,

If you were refering to my images, yes I do have the originals and can post them later tonight when I get home. I just use thatpost processingformy web sized images and keep the original full size images for everything else. If you weren't refering to me I appologize. If anyone was refering to my images forany blown highlights they were blown out in the original and were intended that way.There shouldn't be any on the subjects themselves just in the background.

Fred~