# clear eyes that stand out



## Elly

hiya. I've looked at portrait photos made by canon and nikon cameras and many times the nikon portraits make the eyes look more sharp and stand out more than the canons. why is this? my friend said it is because of better autofocusing or lenses with more contrast. Is this true? has anyone else noticed this on both cameras?


----------



## robertwsimpson

because nikon cameras are uberleet!

it definitely has NOTHING to do with the photographer.


----------



## Moonb007

Well without knowing what you are comparing it to it could be for several reasons.  Canon and Nikon DSLR camera will always produce sharper images compared to a point and shoot.  Also it depends on what kind of lens you are using.  If you have a $10,000 camera with a $100 lens you just are not going to get a wonder image.


----------



## SpeedTrap

I am willing to bet it has more to do with Photoshop and Post Processing than Nikon or Canon.

I have seen sharp photos from both.  But if it was a difference between them, Nikon would be better just because.......


----------



## IgsEMT

Elly, not to come of as a complete @$$____ but by your friend saying this means he/she doesn't seem to know much about this topic. Both Nikon and Canon bodies and glass can give you result you're looking for IF you know how to #1 shoot it and #2 post process it.
I always compare Nikon and Canon to ice cream, Nikon is my chocolate, b/c I LOVE chocolate, while Canon is my vanilla. I rather have chocolate but when it isn't around, I'll take vanilla. Again, both brands GIVE *outstanding* results.


----------



## Elly

i was looking a lot through flickr and looking at slrs with the same lenses. I just wondered why i noticed that eyes seemed to be more noticable and detailed and stand out with nikon more than canon usually? here is an example of one with nikon :::Ania O::: on Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## SpeedTrap

Elly said:


> i was looking a lot through flickr and looking at slrs with the same lenses. I just wondered why i noticed that eyes seemed to be more noticable and detailed and stand out with nikon more than canon usually? here is an example of one with nikon :::Ania O::: on Flickr - Photo Sharing!


 

Because the photographer uses photo shop or some other software to retouch thier photos.

That is not what the image looked like straight out of camera.


----------



## FarrahJ

that image has been processed.  The only way you could even begin to make that argument is if you take the same photo with both a Nikon and a Canon and post the SOOC version.


----------



## Elly

but i could not find ones with canon using the same settings.i did look a lot. most of them are not as clear with the eyes as this. but i saw quite a lot of nikon pictures like this. canon can use software too?can you find me one?thank you if you can.


----------



## FarrahJ

Seriously dude...you have no idea what you're talking about.  I'd say that 99% of the good shots you see are processed.  PP software is completely independent of the camera.


----------



## FarrahJ

BTW...how do you know the settings for that photo?  The EXIF data is stripped and no where in the comments does it mention the settings.


----------



## Elly

i dont know lots about photography thats why i asked a question about what i see when i look at the photos. in flickr you click on the button that says more properties to see the details


----------



## FarrahJ

> in flickr you click on the button that says more properties to see the details



aha...thanks for the info =)


----------



## ClickyPicky

Hehe.

I feel kind of funny posting this as it's my first post on the entire forum - just joined today.

But well, you asked for a Canon photo with eyes that stand out - so here you go. (taken with Canon )







Also, a lot to do with whether the eyes stand out actually has 80% to do with the person's natural eye color.  Blue and green eyes with a large array of dynamic coloring makes eyes pop out and show all the detail of their eye.  Whereas, a person with dark brown eyes, not so much - the detail isn't there, so the "pop" isn't, either.

Not saying you can't make dark eyes pop, but a set of dark brown eyes will never pop as much as a set of light blue or green ones (at least, not without lightening the dark brown eyes to a lighter brown).

I can guarantee you - 100% of the photos you see where the eyes really "POP" (including the one I posted above) have been enhanced in photoshop.

I hope this isn't a bad first post to have made 

Edited to add - eyes "popping", other than the dynamic range of color in the eye itself, has a LOT to do with catchlights, as well.  They are what makes an eye appear lively and sparkly.


----------



## Elly

thank you clickypicky.i feel special to get your first post.can you put a bigger picture with the camera details because i cannot really see the detail in the eyes.these are more eyes from nikon CHICAGO CHILDREN'S PHOTOGRAPHERhomeCHICAGO BABY AND FAMILY PHOTOGRAPHER AUDREY WOULARD


----------



## FarrahJ

Your photo is a great example! =)  What a cutie! 

I think sometimes the processing can make the eyes look unnatural.  There is a lot of personal preference in processing.



> Whereas, a person with dark brown eyes, not so much - the detail isn't there, so the "pop" isn't, either.


I disagree...and while I tend not to process my son's eyes quite as much, since I don't want them to look unnatural...but brown can be just as beautiful! =)


----------



## ClickyPicky

Oh don't get me wrong - brown eyes are GORGEOUS (I have brown eyes, as does my daughter )

Just that in terms of seeing a TON of detail in the "fibers" of the iris of eye - (which, I think, is what she's referring to by seeing "detail") - typically light colored eyes show that detail a lot clearer and "pop" like unless you get REALLY close.

That's not to say that brown eyes can't be just as beautiful and dynamic - it's just harder to point out the individual iris "fibers" for lack of a better word in the typical photo.


----------



## Elly

i was also talking about the detail in the eyelashes and the join where the eye lid touches the white part of the eyes.thats why i thought it may be something about contrast or maybe focus or sharpening.


----------



## ClickyPicky

Elly... you can see way more details of the eyes in the photo I posted than the one you posted earlier on Flickr.

No offense, but I'm not willing to post a bigger picture with the camera details - I prefer to protect my work by only posting low resolution photos. I shot this photo with a Canon 40D with a 50mm 1.8.  Which is like, the cheapest Canon lens you can buy.

The photo on the photographers website, you can see more detail because the subject has light eyes and it's a very up close shot, taken with a very high quality lens.

If you scroll through her photos, you will see that the eyes of each subject displays detail based on how close they are to the camera and how light of a color their eyes are.


----------



## ClickyPicky

It also makes no mention that I could find whether that particular photographer uses Canon or Nikon?

Bottom line - details and such of the eye (inner or outer) are going to be better with a $1500 lens than a $80 one - Canon or Nikon.    Considering Audrey charges $400 just to show up, I'm guessing she uses the high quality ones


----------



## kkamin

All the eyes have been brought out in Photoshop-sharpened, brightened, possible catch light enhanced or added, the area around the iris darkened.  

Here is another example of eyes taken by a Canon, with an entry level Rebel.  Out of the camera versus a a few swipes with Photoshop.  (I realize the shot out of the camera is a little underexposed, but you get the point)


----------



## FarrahJ

kkamin - going for the twilight look?  her eyes are certainly not that light IRL


----------



## kkamin

FarrahJ said:


> kkamin - going for the twilight look?  her eyes are certainly not that light IRL



"Twilight" like the movie?


----------



## kkamin

"Raawwrr!"  I didn't see the movie but that's the noise they make in my head.


----------



## Elly

thank you for your help.she uses a d700 with nikon 50mm 1.4($300) and 85mm 1.4($1200).i did some looking for information. maybe we see things different but i see a difference.i see that there is more seperation between the eye lid and the white part of the eyes,it looks a bit clearer and more noticable where it joins.and also the eyelashes.in the photo you post with the big eyes it looks a tiny bit less clear and in the inside of the eye when i compare,not much but in my eyes it stops it from looking as strong and clear.this is the difference i talk about and i see it a lot i just didn't know why.if you put the two photos next to each other and look.maybe its only me who likes it clearer like this.


----------



## SpeedTrap

Elly said:


> thank you for your help.she uses a d700 with nikon 50mm 1.4($300) and 85mm 1.4($1200).i did some looking for information. maybe we see things different but i see a difference.i see that there is more seperation between the eye lid and the white part of the eyes,it looks a bit clearer and more noticable where it joins.and also the eyelashes.in the photo you post with the big eyes it looks a tiny bit less clear and in the inside of the eye when i compare,not much but in my eyes it stops it from looking as strong and clear.this is the difference i talk about and i see it a lot i just didn't know why.if you put the two photos next to each other and look.maybe its only me who likes it clearer like this.


 
IT IS NOT THE BRAND OF CAMERA THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.
sorry to yell but, it seems you will not accept that.  The things you are talking about have nothing to do with the brand of camera.  It is photoshop.


----------



## Elly

ok you dont have to shout.i've seen photos of audreys like that which are straight from the camera without photoshop.anyway i only asked why i saw lots of pictures like that from nikon and couldnt find the same from canon.they can both use photoshop.i think i have a more precise eye then lots of others.


----------



## ErectedGryphon

Every photo you have linked to where the eyes "pop" are mostly blue eyes, and have extreme depth of field.  They have also been post processed to make the eyes more of a subject than the actual person.

To me it looks as if you are trying to associate a photographic style with a particular brand of camera.  If you put a different camera in the hands of those photographers, odds are you will get the same end results, because that is their style.

Try this exercise; take (or buy) your CF Card to the camera store, pick a Canon and a Nikon (with similar lens), shoot he sales clerk while focusing on the eyes.  With out post processing (RAW Files) you won't be able to tell the difference.  Now JPG, the cameras post process in camera, and one might have better face/eye recognition than the other.


----------



## Elly

ErectedGryphon said:


> With out post processing (RAW Files) you won't be able to tell the difference. Now JPG, the cameras post process in camera, and one might have better face/eye recognition than the other.


 
maybe this has something to do with it.how much do you know about this for eyes with both cameras?have you compared?


----------



## ErectedGryphon

Elly said:


> ErectedGryphon said:
> 
> 
> 
> With out post processing (RAW Files) you won't be able to tell the difference. Now JPG, the cameras post process in camera, and one might have better face/eye recognition than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe this has something to do with it.how much do you know about this for eyes with both cameras?have you compared?
Click to expand...

 
The most I know about this, is that Canon puts this feature in their P&S cameras, because most people that buy P&S shoot family and friends. When dealing with dSLR I only care about Sensor quality because I shoot RAW, and post process what I want to print or post. 

When I shoot people I do focus on the eyes, but my style is to make the person the subject, so I use a wider DoF, and process more on skin tones.

I would think if you took the 50D and set it to "Face Detection" mode you might see similar results, but I bet you would still need some Photoshop work.

P.S. FarraJ in post #16 does a very good job in showing the difference; in the first pic the boy is the subject (Wider DoF), in the second, the eyes become the subject (Shalower DoF) with more light and processing on the eyes.  And she used a Canon.


----------



## Elly

does face detection detect eyes or the whole face? and is it used in single point autofocus?do you know if nikon uses a lot more contrast and sharpening then canon in jpegs?sorry for lots of questions but curious.


----------



## ErectedGryphon

Elly said:


> does face detection detect eyes or the whole face? and is it used in single point autofocus?do you know if nikon uses a lot more contrast and sharpening then canon in jpegs?sorry for lots of questions but curious.


 

I don't know on either count, I have an old Canon 5D (and love it), I use my eyes for face/eye detection.


----------



## ClickyPicky

Canon Vs. Nikon.  Scroll for an identical shot of an eye taken with high quality canon and nikon glass.

Robert Seale Photography Blog » Nikon vs. Canon Hi-Res shootout

Same in terms of sharpness.


----------



## Elly

thank you clickypicky.it might be alot to do with the differences between the out of camera settings.am i right in saying nikon jpegs produces more contrast,sharpening and vibrance out of camera on default?


----------



## Zeckson

*General Statement:*
All digital SLRs with even an ordinary lens can give very sharp and nice images and they are much better than compact cameras.

*Why images are sharp?*
It is because

1. There's ample light falling onto the subject that the camera can focus easily.
2. Camera's focusing mechanism is good.
3. Lens converge light very well onto the sensor.
4. There is enough contrast on the subject.
5. Post processing is done inside the camera.
6. Author further enhance the sharpness in post production.

But the majority of the sharpness you see on the Internet comes from post production using photo editing softwares. It is how the author prepares his/her images for viewing on the Internet.


----------



## Early

Elly said:


> hiya. I've looked at portrait photos made by canon and nikon cameras and many times the nikon portraits make the eyes look more sharp and stand out more than the canons. why is this? my friend said it is because of better autofocusing or lenses with more contrast. Is this true? has anyone else noticed this on both cameras?


I seriously doubt you've seen enough photos to compare.  Besides, it would greatly depend on the lens being used.  Not so long ago, someone showed a portrait taken with a Canon 50mm f1.4 that displayed outstanding detail in the eyes, un-retouched.


----------



## newrmdmike

this thread is awesome . . ..  haha, I WANT SO BADLY TO CONTRIBUTE IN THE WORST WAY,
in fact . . . i think i will KenRockwell.com there. 

All kidding aside, i think good glass will get you the furthest, and so i don't worry much about camera bodies. in fact i don't even worry about that unless the shot in mind needs glass to lend its personality to it.  The last shoot i did i used a d3 with a 17-55 and a point and shoot. . . for the final product it looks like i will end up using more shots from the point and shoot; i never would have expected that, but it was easier to climb with a point and shoot than with loaner d3. 

YOU CREATE THE IMAGES, and it is therefore important to learn more and become more capable of understanding how to get desired results . . . the gear may lend itself to those results but is not always RESPONSIBLE for those results.  From my own experience learning how to utilize the positive attributes of what gear you have access to will get you a long ways.


----------



## Elly

Early said:


> I seriously doubt you've seen enough photos to compare.


 
haha, you couldn't be further from the truth . 

Mike like you say different gear has different attributes.that's why i'm asking questions to understand the different attributes .

so back to the question- am i right in saying nikon jpegs produces more contrast,sharpening and vibrance out of camera on default?


----------



## UUilliam

I would say Yes to ON DEFAULT

however Canon has a colour menu (style menu?) that I changed and got better results than nikons.
Well nikons aimed at the same user group atleast.


----------



## newrmdmike

"clear eyes that stand out" = knowledge of how to use your format and lens to your favor + processing knowledge+light+makeup+shadows. NOT xformat by xbrand + xlens = clear eyes that stand out.
i have used nikon . . . and traded with people and used canon. . . these companies do a good job not creating too many directly competing cameras, so its difficult to compare sometimes.  i was shooting a d200, and preferred my friends 5d because of the full frame sensor, and tended to like its out of the camera color better than nikons out of the camera raw color . . . although with nikon jpgs i have been pleased, except it doesn't really matter because i shot raw all of the time.

I would say it doesn't matter, and i've used both, and still really liked my nikon.  I would also say that if your not beating your camera up and are in the price range i was in that canon may end up being more cost effective.

with nikon and canon shooting raw you have the controls to pretty much do whatever, so that leaves you with lenses, and both companies have awesome lenses . . . some more and less awesome.  some not so awesome.

go to Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ and start reading if your interested in very specific narrow details and differences.

BUT, i promise it won't make much of a difference, try your best to get over gearhead tendencies.  What you put in is always what you get back, and knowledge will get you further than gear.  GEAR ISN'T as big of a deal as people tend to think.


----------



## gopal

elly...if u are a nikon user stick to it, otherwise there may be more comparisons with panasonic, oly, sony etc....i feel company many not be faulty, since the lenses and cameras pass thorough checking...and it is a matter of reputation also.


----------



## Derrel

Okay, back to Elly's sample photo, of the blonde woman whose eyes really stand out  Flickr Photo Download: :::Ania O:::

I downloaded the sample photo in its largest size,and applied a very steep curves shift to it to look for evidence of heavy-handed fakery. I can see none. THe photo has been lightened quite a bit in post; with a slight downward movement of the curves, it's possible to see more easily that she has some actual real skin pores under her eyes; the hair at her temple area on both sides, is very crisply rendered--even the wispiest little hairs. Pulling the curves downward even more, it is clear that her lips are in focus and very slightly chapped. The photographer's outline is clearly visible against the simple skylight that is illuminating her. This photo is not heavily processed or photoshopped extensively.

What you are seeing is the way a full frame D700 and a the superb Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF-D renders a close-up subject when shot at ISO 200, at f/1.6 at 1/320 second. One of the things that makes her eyes stand out is simple: shallow depth of field due to a wide aperture, used on a large sensor d-slr, from close range, and very carefully focused. If you pull the curves down, you can see MORE detail in her cheeks,hair,and lips, and that competes for attention with the eyes. With her light blonde hair, raising the curves up and lightening the images makes the darkest in-focus area, here eyes, go Pop!

The 85mm 1.4 AF-D has superb defocused areas, and superb bokeh--it was long considered Nikon's "bokeh king" until the new 200mm f/2 AF-S VR-G overtook it. I would suggest anybody who is interested simply download the photo,and pull the curves down,and see that this is a straight, unmanipulated photo, made with about $4,000 worth of premium equipment. You cannot make this photo using a DX sensor and an 85mm lens that tops out at f/5.6--this is FF, shallow depth of field, wide-aperture work. This photo could have been made on a full-frame Canon or a Nikon or a Sony, with the premium 85mm lenses of any of the three systems with its aperture set to f/1.6.


----------



## newrmdmike

clap clap derrel!  i apply curves like that to check for processing flaws to!  

best answer i have seen yet . . .


----------



## newrmdmike

now then point out that canon has gear that will make the same photo, the same way. . . and your at square one . . .it isn't company dependent for this particular shot. (although that nikon 200 f/2 is WICKED!!!!!!!!!)  the most important part to remember i think is that it does rely on full frame coupled with the lens to make it possible.


----------



## mitsugirly

I'm a Sony girl...you can "pop" any eyes in the right situation. It's not the camera. 

There are tutorials on how to pop the eyes. Done in PS.

Here's a partial eye pop I did on my grandson: 








Also, there are programs out there that are for glam portraits...you can not only sharpen and pop the eyes, you can whiten them, change their color, brighten them and even change the shape.


----------



## Elly

Derrell interesting point about FF.i hadnt thought that the extra dof compared to a crop sensor would have made much of a difference to popping the eyes.

btw for those that think im here to say one equipment is better and can do more than another you are wrong.i put up this thread because i have spent a *lot* of time looking at portraits with shallow dof and looking at the exif details.by a much larger percentage i have seen photos from nikon where the eyes looked perfect and i wanted to know if there was any logical reason to it.


----------



## Elly

ps yes i know about light in eyes, eye colour, shutter speed, pp and whitening, adding or having catchlights, correct sharpening technique, shallow dof(though good point on ff), expose for eye, good lens, accurate focus . . .


----------



## Derrel

The eye pop on the litle boy in the vest is not the same as the sample photo Elly referred to--in the baby's photo, his vest is also sharp..his whole face is rendered sharply, as is his hair....one photo is a shallow depth of field effect created in-camera, the other is a Photoshop post procesing trick that adds sparkle to the eyes, but doesn't make them pop in the same way as what Elly is referring to. One pic has shallow DOF, the other has moderate DOF.

It "is" the camera, and the lens, at least some of the time. See this wedding recently linked to here in the TPF forums Fotografai Aleksandras Babicius ir Irina Belcikova

This wedding was shot with full-frame Nikon cameras and 14-24, 24-70,and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. Take a look at the shallow depth of field wide-angle photos--that type of effect is impossible to achieve on a crop-sensor camera,especially with a slow kit lens that cannot provide any foreground/background separation due to the inherently deep DOF APS-C provides on wide-angle focal lengths. The "look" of the blonde woman's photo Elly linked us to is not anywhere the same as the baby photo...two very different things here. The difference in rendering between APS-C, FF 24x36, 645, and 6x7 medium format, as well as 4x5 film is significant at each different format size...that's why Canon, Sony,and Nikon make 24x36mm sensor cameras, and why people pay big money for Canon,Nikon, and Zeiss-for-Sony 85mm f/1.2 to f/1.4 lenses.


----------

