Face Texture & Sharpness !!! How was it done?

[Kika Livno]

New AD for Sigma features two images that I would like to possibly decode how was it done, because to me they don't look manipulated & processed much through Photoshop but rather planning and the equipment maybe not even Sigma Camera but other perhaps better lenses and bigger chip or at the very end maybe Sigma with Genuine Fractals enhancement.

Here is the Link - It will show the face/eyes as a first picture and face/Lips as a second. If you go through the website and visit the examples gallery clearly there is not enough details in those images as there are enough texture on the AD it self. If you pay attention on the skin texture and the hair on the eyebrows is nicely divided there is something very appealing and the skin especially doesn't look like it was textured in Photoshop or Cloned because of the way skin brakes, perhaps some of the hair on the eyebrows were cloned and positioned for more appealing look.

Link » http://www.sigma-sd14.com/feature/index.html

Your Opinion/Advise/Thoughts are welcome!!!

PS: I realize it was sharpened selectively but there is not much noise so I thought maybe original image was enlarged to preserve more details using Genuine Fractals enhancement and therefore leaving the impression of the bigger more advanced chip, or maybe not? It would be nice to hear what others think how was it done?


Best Regards

[orangekay]

They just look like your average run-of-the-mill ridiculously over-sharpened close-ups to me. The amount of edge halation there is really just tasteless and unforgivable in this situation.

What exactly are you basing your statement that there's note enough detail in the original image on? Is there a copy of the un-retouched photos somewhere in that gallery that I'm missing?

[Kika Livno]

They just look like your average run-of-the-mill ridiculously over-sharpened close-ups to me. The amount of edge halation there is really just tasteless and unforgivable in this situation.

What exactly are you basing your statement that there's note enough detail in the original image on? Is there a copy of the un-retouched photos somewhere in that gallery that I'm missing?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104879\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To me images in the example gallery look un-retouched and ordinary and the ones I am talking about look more Fashion and Beauty like.

To respond to your first comment where you say

"They just look like your average run-of-the-mill ridiculously over-sharpened close-ups to me. The amount of edge halation there is really just tasteless and unforgivable in this situation"

Obviously I like these two images, you are probably surrounded by better images on daily basis but for me I have yet to get there. I thought not much noise and muddy look is involved in between the details like with hair and skin where the hair is nicely separated on the eyebrows, usually there I find a lot of noise in my images, perhaps they used a macro lens for more details in hair overall etc. However I never used macro on face.

Regards

[eronald]

Better sensor.

Edmund

[orangekay]

Obviously I like these two images, you are probably surrounded by better images on daily basis but for me I have yet to get there. I thought not much noise and muddy look is involved in between the details like with hair and skin where the hair is nicely separated on the eyebrows, usually there I find a lot of noise in my images, perhaps they used a macro lens for more details in hair overall etc. However I never used macro on face.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you expose properly there should be no discernible noise in an image that bright with a Canon Rebel let alone the model you have. I'm not trying to downplay the quality of the Sigma Foveon sensor as it is quite good, but that particular set of images displays nothing you could not achieve with just about any DSLR on the market today.

[eronald]

Kika,

 I know where you come from, I have a 1DsII too, all the skin textures look plasticky. I have never been able to fix this, and use an original 1Ds for people, and the 1DsII for objects. James Russell commented on the same effect. The Foveon looks good, but so do the digital backs, it's just that particular Canon model which has an issue.

Edmund

[Caracalla]

Kika,

 I know where you come from, I have a 1DsII too, all the skin textures look plasticky. I have never been able to fix this, and use an original 1Ds for people, and the 1DsII for objects. James Russell commented on the same effect. The Foveon looks good, but so do the digital backs, it's just that particular Canon model which has an issue.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree, and I too have muddy looking details instead of separated skin/hair detail on eyebrows regardless of how good exposure is but I will try it with macro and see if it helps.

I think Edmund is probably right bigger sensor will make a difference to separate the hair and skin nicely on the eyebrows.

[61Dynamic]

You know what good retouching is? It's retouching that you can't tell exists.

...but that particular set of images displays nothing you could not achieve with just about any DSLR on the market today.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bingo. If you know what you are doing, you can achieve such images as seen in the intro.

[Caracalla]

You know what good retouching is? It's retouching that you can't tell exists.
Bingo. If you know what you are doing, you can achieve such images as seen in the intro.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Obviously, but OP is asking for the assistance as to how?

[orangekay]

Obviously, but OP is asking for the assistance as to how?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The OP isn't going to get many years worth of studio shooting or retouching experience from an internet forum post. It's a well-lit but severely over-sharpened macro shot that does the camera no justice (if it isn't just some stock photo their marketing department licensed from someone else).

I am genuinely curious to see this "noise" that apparently obscures all detail from a 1Ds image, however. I've retouched images from these cameras before, and while the Canons are notoriously soft in comparison to other manufacturer's offerings, there's still plenty of edge data there to work with.

[Caracalla]

orangekay

The OP isn't going to get many years worth of studio shooting or retouching experience from an internet forum post. It's a well-lit but severely over-sharpened macro shot that does the camera no justice (if it isn't just some stock photo their marketing department licensed from someone else).

Maybe but your help can serve as a short cut and obviously OP will appreciate that.

orangekay

I am genuinely curious to see this "noise" that apparently obscures all detail from a 1Ds image, however. I've retouched images from these cameras before, and while the Canons are notoriously soft in comparison to other manufacturer's offerings, there's still plenty of edge data there to work with.

There's still plenty of edge data there to work with: Of course there is although not much in the shadows and probably requires some sort of work-flow where minimum guessing is involved.

You are curious to see this "noise" that apparently obscures all detail: It's not so much noise as much as the muddy detail that doesn't separate the skin from hair but as I said before I personally will try to achieve that separation with macro if I can.

[orangekay]

It's not so much noise as much as the muddy detail that doesn't separate the skin from hair but as I said before I personally will try to achieve that separation with macro if I can.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While different lenses can produce images of varying contrast and edge sharpness, it's unlikely that changing focal lengths is going to affect whatever this "muddy detail" is you're talking about unless your optics are of exceptionally poor quality. Does anybody have any actual examples of this? I've got a folder full of portrait shots from this same camera that look fine to me, but I don't think my client would appreciate my posting them without their permission.

[61Dynamic]

You are curious to see this "noise" that apparently obscures all detail: It's not so much noise as much as the muddy detail that doesn't separate the skin from hair but as I said before I personally will try to achieve that separation with macro if I can.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Another thing not being considered here is that of the laws of diffraction. On a camera such as the 1Ds MK II once you stop down past f/9 you gradually loose resolved detail. A recent article on the LL talked about this issue as it relates to absolute resolved detail of the sensor (in other words, not considering the effect of the lens).