Wedding Portrait - PS'ed to create soft focus effect - please give your openion on...

[GerryDavid]

.....Please give your openion on how to improve this.

So how can I improve this shot? I was trying a photoshop technique I just read on here and I thought I would try it on a picture I took last weekend.

http://gerrydavid.smugmug.com/photos/35613288-M.jpg
http://gerrydavid.smugmug.com/photos/35613288-L.jpg

The photoshopping I did was:
* duplicated the background, renamed it faces, and using the healing tool I removed the wrinkles.
* I reduced the opacity of this level so the details werent totally done away with, just reduced.
* I selected just the eyes on the original layer and duplicated that selection, renamed the layer to eyes, and did an unsharpen mask. Then I masked it so its just the eyes.
* created a curves adjustment layer to brighten the picture for the next step.
* I duplicated the merged copy of the background and faces *ctrl alt c* and pasted this layer above the rest. I changed the layer mode to multiply, and did a guassian blur on this, at 20%.
* I then linked this guassian layer to the curves layer below it, and masked out the eyes so the original eyes show through.

I dont know if the eyes stand out to much or if I should mask some more stuff to show through.

Whats everyone's opinion on this picture? Be honest now please. :0)

It seems the linked picture isnt working right now but it should soon.

[pathfinder]

I like it - I might have cropped the faces a little more closely, but the PS'ing seems nicely done.

[Rob_Stewart]

Just my .02 but I would knock down the blur to 10-12 or less, so you can tell the eyes are sharper, but it's not so obvious. If the photoshopiness (OK I just made that word up) jumps out at you, I think it kind of takes away from the picture. Less is more in other words. Good start though, play with it and you will get that aha moment! Good luck.
-Rob

[mereimage]

Seems a little overdone, I think after the gaussian blur(which is a little strong) I would go over the faces with the history brush set to ~10%-50%(may have to do this trial and error to get it right) and selectively take off some of the blur from the faces. ....just m2cw............Mereimage

[XO-Studios]

I agree with the above, but I believe the main thing is, your technique works, although maybe a bit strong. The thing is, there are other things that need to remain sharp, and since they are not, it gives the 'secret' away.

Other items that need to stay sharp:

- start of hairline
- lips
- some of the nose
- and pending DOF, everything that is in the same focal plane as the eyes.

Things that look good soft:

- skin
- back ground
- thinks that are supposed to be outside the artificial DOF.

FWIW,


XO,

[GerryDavid]

I agree with the above, but I believe the main thing is, your technique works, although maybe a bit strong. The thing is, there are other things that need to remain sharp, and since they are not, it gives the 'secret' away.

Other items that need to stay sharp:

- start of hairline
- lips
- some of the nose
- and pending DOF, everything that is in the same focal plane as the eyes.

Things that look good soft:

- skin
- back ground
- thinks that are supposed to be outside the artificial DOF.

FWIW,


XO,
Thanks for the replies everyone. Ill work on the picture again to see what I come up with. :0)

[mereimage]

Right on XO......................Mereimage

[GerryDavid]

I played with it a bit. The original has a guassian blur of 7, this time I used 5. I also showed some more of the original hair line, mouth I think, and nose, 1/3 of the way to the original.

http://gerrydavid.smugmug.com/photos/35829835-M.jpg
http://gerrydavid.smugmug.com/photos/35829835-L.jpg

and now a closeup of the face

http://gerrydavid.smugmug.com/photos/35829829-M.jpg
http://gerrydavid.smugmug.com/photos/35829829-L.jpg

I didnt bother with the background yet. I originally tried to desaturate it but it made it even darker.