# How to deal with half-open eyes?



## tirediron (Jul 8, 2012)

I'm part way through a portfolio shoot for a local dancer and have come up against an unusual (in that I have never seen it before) and annoying problem.  The client's eye-lids don't fully open.  Even if you walked up to her and pinched her butt, they'd only open about half-way, and despite my continued prompting (Read:  Begging & pleading) she really didn't seem to be able to do anything about it.  As a result, even though the images are reasonably well lit, in most of them, she appears to have serious racoon-eyes.  

I know that some of this can be dealt with by the application of different make-up (she had on fairly dark eye make-up to coordinate with a dark costume), but it still doesn't totall solve the issue.

Has anyone ever dealt with this, and/or have suggestions for work-arounds?  Is there a particular type/style of make-up that might help reduce the degree of "raccoon-ness"?


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 8, 2012)

I use liquify in photoshop for pretty much everything. Slimming, plumping, posture, and even eye visibility.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 8, 2012)

Post samples


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

Aaron, you are bit of a hypochrite arent you? You talk about using Photoshop to actually alter slimming, plumping, posture or to draw another eye in a photograph but say on another thread "I think editing is alright to an extent. There is a LINE where it's  basically a digital painting, and calling it photography is really a  disgrace to the trade." Its one thing to perhaps tweak for color correction, sharpness, or lens distortion, and quite another to build a new eye or change the shape of something that didnt really exist. So who draws the line defining what can and cannot be done in your eyes? I think changing an eye etc crosses that line. If the photograph is so drastically altered to a painterly look, then it doesnt matter what the creator calls it, we know what it is.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 8, 2012)

try some toothpicks tirediron.


----------



## MK3Brent (Jul 8, 2012)

I gotta see this...


----------



## pgriz (Jul 8, 2012)

Well, the question becomes, does your client want to be seen as she is, or as people think she should look?  Perhaps there is a neurological reason why her eyelids don't go any higher...  If this is true, you probably won't be the first photographer of her who noticed this.  Why not show her the images and just ask her what she thinks?  If she says that she doesn't like the look, then that's an opening to discuss the issue and see if she had anyone else who had done "acceptable" images.


----------



## KmH (Jul 8, 2012)

Some people got genetic code that prevents them fully opening their eyelids, so there is not a whole lot you can do about it in the camera.

As suggested, your only real solution is post process editing, and you'll be limited on what you can do post process too.


----------



## KmH (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Aaron, you are bit of a hypochrite arent you? You talk about using Photoshop to actually alter slimming, plumping, posture or to draw another eye in a photograph but say on another thread "I think editing is alright to an extent. There is a LINE where it's  basically a digital painting, and calling it photography is really a  disgrace to the trade." Its one thing to perhaps tweak for color correction, sharpness, or lens distortion, and quite another to build a new eye or change the shape of something that didnt really exist. So who draws the line defining what can and cannot be done in your eyes? I think changing an eye etc crosses that line. If the photograph is so drastically altered to a painterly look, then it doesnt matter what the creator calls it, we know what it is.


That's not a disgrace to the trade. That _is_ the trade. 

My job as a portrait photographer is to make the subject look better in the photographs I make than they look in real life. I accomplish that using both pre and post process methods. I use lighting and posing techniques to minimize any number of unflattering facial and body shape features, which isn't to different from using image editing software.

Do you do retail portraiture on a daily basis?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 8, 2012)

Maybe that's just how she is. Not much you can do about that without making her look weird


----------



## Dom6663 (Jul 8, 2012)

Take some of those Chinese collar pins (the ones that stick into your neck if you move your head down a little) and put them in her eyes! 

Or the liquify tool in photoshop too, that works...


----------



## tirediron (Jul 8, 2012)

Thanks all...


Schwettylens said:


> Post samples


As soon as I get them off of my editing machine.


pixmedic said:


> try some toothpicks tirediron.


D'ohhh... and I had some with me!!!!


pgriz said:


> Well, the question becomes, does your client want to be seen as she is, or as people think she should look? Perhaps there is a neurological reason why her eyelids don't go any higher... If this is true, you probably won't be the first photographer of her who noticed this. Why not show her the images and just ask her what she thinks? If she says that she doesn't like the look, then that's an opening to discuss the issue and see if she had anyone else who had done "acceptable" images.


 
I don't know that it's a neurological reason, it could be happen, or who know's what.  Regardless though, she's not a "as I am sort of person".


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Aaron, you are bit of a hypochrite arent you? You talk about using Photoshop to actually alter slimming, plumping, posture or to draw another eye in a photograph but say on another thread "I think editing is alright to an extent. There is a LINE where it's  basically a digital painting, and calling it photography is really a  disgrace to the trade." Its one thing to perhaps tweak for color correction, sharpness, or lens distortion, and quite another to build a new eye or change the shape of something that didnt really exist. So who draws the line defining what can and cannot be done in your eyes? I think changing an eye etc crosses that line. If the photograph is so drastically altered to a painterly look, then it doesnt matter what the creator calls it, we know what it is.



Please quote me where I said "Draw a new eye." 

Wait, that's right. I didn't 

Using the liquify tool to open your prospects eyes is *no different* than using the healing or spot healing brush to remove a blemish, wart, or pimple. I never said I create eyes that aren't there in the first place.

If you think that isn't considered photography, I dare you walk into the editing directors office of Vogue magazine or Victoria's Secret and tell them that they didn't hire photographers, rather graphic designers. I'm sure that will blow over real well...:roll:


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

Hey after you saying there is a line to be drawn regarding photo manipulation I was just wondering where that line is and who sets it? I know all about liquify and how its used deceptively by photo editors. Im just confused after you manipulate an image so its not the same as the original, just how far can you go? Its just that you sounded a bit sanctimonious when you said photo manipulation was a disgrace to the trade. Some would say what you do is too much. When it comes to Photoshop I love it and I dont really think there is a line that has to be drawn. After all if a photo stops looking like a photo then its obvious to all who see it and no deception. Your slimming with liquify might still look like a photo but its done deceptively. When I look at a photo/painting at least I know what Im looking at instead of getting screwed around by a deceptive image created with a Photoshop plugin.

Tirediron there is a software called Perfect365. I dont know if it will help you but it does amazing things with faces and eye manipulation is one of the things it does really well. Subtle yet well done and all automatically.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Hey after you saying there is a line to be drawn regarding photo manipulation I was just wondering where that line is and who sets it? I know all about liquify and how its used deceptively by photo editors. Im just confused after you manipulate an image so its not the same as the original, just how far can you go? Its just that you sounded a bit sanctimonious when you said photo manipulation was a disgrace to the trade. Some would say what you do is too much. When it comes to Photoshop I love it and I dont really think there is a line that has to be drawn. After all if a photo stops looking like a photo then its obvious to all who see it and no deception. Your slimming with liquify might still look like a photo but its done deceptively. When I look at a photo/painting at least I know what Im looking at instead of getting screwed around by a deceptive image created with a Photoshop plugin.
> 
> Tirediron there is a software called Perfect365. I dont know if it will help you but it does amazing things with faces and eye manipulation is one of the things it does really well. Subtle yet well done and all automatically.



I'm glad you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that _photomanipulation_ is a disgrace to the trade.

I said altering a photo to a point where you're adding elements that didn't exist in the first place is a disgrace to the trade. 

What I am speaking of is simply modifying a photo to appease the viewers eye. In other words, if the stomach of your model is pooched out too far because she didn't suck in strong enough in one photo, but it's a great pose, tuck it in with Liquify.

If you got the wrong angle on her arm and it makes it look fat, adjust it to look proportionate. 

I'm not replacing her arm with one that's not hers, or putting someone else's stomach on her, I'm simply fixing the image. Once more, the same as you would remove pimples, moles, or scars, and the same way you would whiten teeth and enhance the whites in someone's eyes.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:
			
		

> Hey after you saying there is a line to be drawn regarding photo manipulation I was just wondering where that line is and who sets it? I know all about liquify and how its used deceptively by photo editors. Im just confused after you manipulate an image so its not the same as the original, just how far can you go? Its just that you sounded a bit sanctimonious when you said photo manipulation was a disgrace to the trade. Some would say what you do is too much. When it comes to Photoshop I love it and I dont really think there is a line that has to be drawn. After all if a photo stops looking like a photo then its obvious to all who see it and no deception. Your slimming with liquify might still look like a photo but its done deceptively. When I look at a photo/painting at least I know what Im looking at instead of getting screwed around by a deceptive image created with a Photoshop plugin.
> 
> Tirediron there is a software called Perfect365. I dont know if it will help you but it does amazing things with faces and eye manipulation is one of the things it does really well. Subtle yet well done and all automatically.



All hail...oh...wait...who are you?


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

When you digitally alter an image it is to make it look better. In other words, its to deceive the viewer into believing a different reality. At what point is too much digital altering? You havent stated where the line is and who draws that line. And shape shifting is far different than just cloning over a mole. A mole sticks out if it was left on. With it off nobody is going to say there should be a mole there. But altering someones shape is producing a fake reality because its done so as not to be noticed. Over processed images are just that and obvious to anyone who looks at them so how are they a disgrace to the trade. I think deceptive advertising is a worse crime. I think there should be a whole thread about this because its on a lot of peoples minds. Sophia Loren was my dream girl most of my life. I once had to Photoshop her neck which showed very prominently for a portrait of her wearing the advertisers glasses. It was 11 hours before final approval. Now when it was finished you couldnt tell she looked like a turkey. Was that photo still a photo or was it digital art? How much is too much?

Following people around David is called stalking. I dont like it.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 9, 2012)

Bynx said:


> At what point is too much digital altering? You havent stated where the line is and who draws that line.



The line is where the artist believes it should be, and the artist alone decides where that line is unless under commission in which case the client decides. But this is all moot. I wonder if you would still have this same opinion if you painted the eyes half closed of aristocrat back in the 1600s, just as your head topples off the guillotine. 

Photo manipulation is common, it is a mainstay of the industry. We are the people who make the others happy by giving them what they want. What they want 99% of the time is a picture of themselves looking pretty and not some excuse about photo manipulation when they point out the photo has a fat roll hanging out from under an unfortunately positioned bra or because they couldn't open their eyes for some reason. 

If you work for the police and want a forensically authentic image, go your hardest, but the supposed trade which we "disgrace" is mostly full of people likely to disagree with you.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 9, 2012)

Garbz have you followed this from the beginning or are you just stepping in not knowing what has been said previously?


----------



## Forkie (Jul 9, 2012)




----------



## tirediron (Jul 9, 2012)

Okay, before this gets any further out of hand...


----------

