A few years ago I posted these images showing how capable PhotoLab is when you push it to go beyond its intended use. I am reposting it for all the new members who have joined us since I originally posted it. The image was processed in PhotoLab 4 Elite. No other software was used. This project was the result of a challenge from another forum in March of 2021. The original raw file of the foam head was captured by the author of the challenge with his Nikon D500.
Mark.
I still hold myself as a new member.
But…, I didn’t get the goal, the images, and the point of your post.
Could you please elaborate?
The challenge from another website was to do something creative with the foam head, My goal was to make it as lifelike as I could using only PhotoLab. PhotoLab has a much more limited tool set than pixel editors such as PhotoShop and is usually used just to enhance captured images rather than turn the original image into something else entirely different. It’s limited tool set is often criticized. My point is that PhotoLab is capable of accomplishing things that most users would not consider. It was just an exercise.
Mark
How did you “invent” the eyes with PL?
I’ve never expected PL to be anything more than a raw development software with some limited RGB capabilities. For fine-tuning and printing, I export TIFF or DNG and let others work. Printing is the hardest part, it seems…
Almost everything was done with local adjustments,. All LA edits were control points except for one automask for the eyebrows. You can see that the pupils were control points. All the shading and the black background were also control points as were the initial skin tones . Keep in mind this was created with PL 4. The tool set has changed very significantly since then and if I were going to recreate this today I would do this a bit differently.
I added global adjustments for Smart lighting, and a small bit of contrast and sharpening. I used the global HSL Color wheel to fine tune the exact “skin” tone I was after. (There was no local color wheel back then and the Local adjustment HSL tools were difficult to fine tune).
I used the old Repair tool, (now Retouch) to remove the seam at the top of the head. The Repair tool back then was much less capable than the current Retouch tool. The job would be much quicker and easier today.
Mark
Mark, thanks for the details. Funny, initially I thought that the first image in OP was the original, since there was no table on the second one. Silly me.
I’m not sure what you mean. The first image with the table was the original image. I removed the table and the rest of the background by minimizing the Local Adjustment Exposure, Black, and Shadow sliders using control points. I used negative control points to protect the foam head from being affected by them.
As I said, the purpose of his whole exercise was to use PhotoLab in a way that it is not normally used in order to create a finished image that might usually be done in other software better suited for this type of task.
Mark
Oh dear me, what a confusion.
So you probably used a round sharp mask with decreased exposure to get the “new” eye pupils.
I used tiny control points with exposure set to its minimum value.
Mark
Thanks. I got sort of unconfused at last 
.
If I may join in with an example of a real world use in fine tuning a portrait.
My subject was very shy and conscious of showing her teeth. She also managed to glance away for the (otherwise) best shot of the session…
So, I used the repair tool’s sophisticated manipulations…
… to give me a much more agreeable end result…
Don’t you agree, at least a little, that doing things like that is going “too far”? How much manipulation is “going too far”? How about replacing the eyes completely? Acceptable? Not that anyone else cares, but to me, you end up with a Photographic Illustration, not a Photograph.
I get the feeling that nobody else cares about this, other than I. So be it. Of course, you can call it a “portrait”, in which case anything goes.
I love “photographic illustrations”, as I can do whatever I want, but I wouldn’t want people to think that that final image came right out of my camera.
To be honest, I prefer the real image, right from your camera. That was “real”. The edited image makes her look like she has “diplopia”.
That depends on the purpose of the image.
In this case, I am creating an image that emulates a painting “American Gothic” by Grant Wood…
Photography emulating art or a painting created with light? If a painter can manipulate what they see to create a “work of art”, why can’t a photographer with the same goal in mind?
But that’s exactly what it is. It is only your assumption that it is a documentary photograph.
But it is in B&W, so it can’t be “real” because I took it in colour. You have never seen what you would call the “real” image. All you are seeing here is a tiny detail, as an example of how to use the repair tool.
How do you know she hasn’t? She normally wears glasses and is conscious of her appearance. Even if she hasn’t, are you suggesting we shouldn’t take photos of such folks?
A few years ago, I was asked to make a group shot at a home for the elderly mentally infirm.
With thirty two residents, it was impossible to get everybody looking in the right direction at the same time. So, from half a dozen images, I borrowed heads from the best to create a beautiful picture that was very appreciated by both management and relatives.
Sometimes photographic “truth” can be cruel, so the job of the portrait photographer is to create an image that reflects a memory.
And, you’ve already seen the finished image Gothique Breton and never even noticed.
In the original image, her eyes looked normal.
They were working together.
In the edited image, the eyes are looking in two different directions, which is a good sign of diplopia.
I’m not suggesting anything, other than if you’re going to give her fake eyes, at lease have them looking in the same direction.
I know diplopia.
I have diplopia, and have had it since I was a small boy.
That’s why I could never catch a ball. No depth perception.
And it’s also the reason I spent most of my free time at summer camp in the darkroom they had, learning how to develop and print - rather than with all the other kids playing with balls. So, I can’t complain - that “problem” resulted in a change in my life.
That I have been volunteering in an eye hospital in India since 1984 means I’m familiar with a lot of issues with eyes.
Besides, we’ve already had our discussions on “what is a photograph”, and regardless of what anyone else in this forum may think, when you do things like what you did to this image, it is no longer “a photograph”. It came from your computer, not from your camera.
But back to your edit - if you’re going to edit her eyes, why make them into an eye disease, in this case, diplopia?
Enough; we’ve already been through this.
Because in your original image, her eyes looked normal, both looking in the same direction.
Except, this is not a photograph, it is an artistic image that has been created. Nobody said it has to reflect a real person
The best advice I’ve read on that problem is:
When trying to avoid teeth, I tell my subject to purse their lips and then just open then enough so that they can blow some air out. That provides a pleasant look, where the lips are not squeezed together too hard, but hides the teeth.
Hmmm. Interesting. I’ll have to give that a try.
@mikemyers here’s a challenge for you. Can you fix the eyes?
If I can figure out how you moved them, and if PL6 can do that, I can try over this upcoming weekend. If I can figure out how you moved them the first time, probably. I didn’t know PhotoLab could do that, and got very curious when I saw your post about how you did it. I used to think I needed Photoshop to do that.
I would start with the original image, and replicate what you did, but would try to get both eyes looking “the same”.
Can you please explain how to move “just” the eye, or tell me where I can find out how to do this?
I believe she used the Retouch tool. There is a leaning curve requiring lots of practice to do something like moving the pupil while retaining its shape and increasing the white on one side while reducing on the other. It takes experience and experimentation with the tool to get it right. She may also have used the Retouch tool to remove the pupil altogether and replaced with a LA mask, perhaps using a control point.
Mark
Most interested myself.
