I would really like to discuss with you and hear your thoughts about Eye reflections in portrait photography, and eye sharpness.

Are there any certain rules to follow? What is best, an eye without a reflection or with? Is a photographer's reflection accepted or considered distracting?

To those who visit the critique section , this is a common issue, to others who do not, we'd like to hear from you more about this.


This issue came back to surface after some recent portraits posted in the critique section.


One other issue with eye reflection is this:



As posted by Balazs Pataki.


Thanks you for your replies.

Faddoush:

I hate when I can see the photographer reflected in the subject's eyes (or anywhere else, for that matter) and I'm certainly one who has pointed this out in various critiques. For me, seeing the reflected photographer is like seeing the wizard of oz behind the curtain--it ruins the magic. It also becomes distracting because it is a secondary element. Now, there are times when you REALLY have to study the image to see the photographer, and that is less of a problem for me. When I open an image and see it first thing, though, the image is kaput.

As far as reflections in general, I do think they tend to add a spark to an image. However, I'm also a fan of images where the eyes are black holes--like shark eyes--and we are left to guess as to the humanity of the subject. It depends on the mood and the composition of the image. I don't think a reflection is necessary, but I know there are folks who would disagree. I'll tell you one thing--I'd rather forgo the reflection if it means using obvious flash lighting to get it. I tend to prefer available light or very subtle artificial light if necessary.

Thank you John for the feedback.

I don't like reflections period in eyes. Even a "glint" I find artificial and off putting.

There used to be (maybe still are) a lot of shots on 1X with the glassed over and reflective and 3D rendered like pearls of eyes. For me - it wasn't nice or cute or inspiring but distracting and a little "Tacky".

Richard,

How can you find a "glint" in the eye "artificial"?

Colmar

Well it is subjective.... I can't explain it too well. There are just some images where the glint seems a bit too present/in my face so to speak. This may be natural - it may be the bounce card - it may be photoshop. Whatever it is - there are times where it looks normal and there are times where it looks just over cooked...

many times reflection is completely natural. if it adds or lessens the impact depends on the individual image and personal taste. i dont think it can be regarded as technical flaw..... but it can be a consideration when one capture images
again , this is all about personal taste

I've always found "catch lights" in the eyes of a portrait to be a good thing. They add life and sparkle to the image in most instances. As far as sharpness, if anything is to be sharp in a portrait it should be the eyes or at least one of the eyes. I agree with Sasson though, it all depends on the image and personal taste.

Thank you Faddoush for starting this discussion.

In this photo below some have objected about the reflection of the photographer and it got rejected. After reading the above discussion i must express my disagreement with Johnpainter who prefers " the eyes are black holes--like shark eyes ". But Humans are not sharks. Its natural to have sparks and most unlikely to have a black hole which make the image with lack of human touch. Again too much reflection is a distraction as in this image below. So what could be the solution. I tried to edit in Photoshop. Tried three option the " black hole", burned the eye reflection and left it as it is, and i find the moods are totally different. If i say that the eyes at present represent " white pearl" then the burnt reflection will represent a " black pearl". So in my opinion it is the middle path is best, not too much bright/ not too dark .

Thanks

sounak.

it also depends what is shown in the reflection and where it is placed. that is partially in the control of the photographer depending how aware he is of the issue and the circumstances. in this image i find that the reflection distracts but only very slightly:) again, a superb image!!!!!!

Everyone,

I have just had a picture accepted by OneXposure, that has some reflections in the eyes - I toned the eyes down a bit, but left the "glint" - else the person has no soul - We talk to people through their eyes - leave some "glint" - it is important. People are not shraks as pointed out above - the entrance to the soul is via the eyes - if the photographer is very prominent and the eyes form a large portion of the picture, I would tone it down, but leave the "glint".

Colmar

Actually, I didn't say I prefer such a thing--I indicated that it depends on the image. In some images the reflection (sans photographer) adds a spark to the mood, but in others the 'black hole' eyes better fit the motif or ambiance. In your example above, I do think the photographer's reflection ruins the image. I see it first thing and that's all I can focus on. If that same image had the same reflection but without the photographer I'd be fine with it.

Thank you all for the replies, this is Turing into a very nice discussion.

So I guess, it all depends on mood, the capture itself, the person and what we want to pass to the viewer.

To All,
Like everything else it would seem we all have our personal likes and dislikes. So, I tend to agree with Sasson that it depends on personal taste. I also agree that with Steven that catch lights do give that sparkle which for me makes the person feel alive.

My own personal taste is that no matter how well done, when the eyes start to look like Children of the Corn I don't find it pleasant. It is not natural because people do not look like that...well at least not on Earth. :)

As to the soul, I have a different feeling about this. I do not need to see the eyes, or look into them to get a sense of the soul. Yes, something in the shot has to offer it, but for me it does not have to be the eyes. I am beginning to understand more and more each day that any kind of rigidity in Art - basically destroys it.

Damon Winter, of the NY Times, won the Pulitzer in 2009 for this picture which is a profile shot, barely showing a tiny portion of one eye, no glint, and no reflection. Yet, when I look at this shot I see his soul more deeply than in most photos I have looked at over the last year. I don't know why this is - but for me - it is there. Does anyone else see it? I would be interested to know.

By the way if you click on it - it gets bigger and better.

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/.a/6a00d8341c2c7653ef01156f3a700b970c-pi

Phyllis

One could argue that while new photogs are guilty of excessive use of saturation and other editing tricks and sliders - as they are too guilty of jumping up and down when they see grain and call it noise. Glint in eyes could just be another 'sand trap'. That can either be abused or used well...

Could not agree more. Very well said Phyllis.

I apologise Phyllis and with all due respect and all, but this is Barack Obama in a pose reflecting the role everyone wants to see him in. The Big Resolved Leader. No wonder it's from the NYT and no wonder it won the Pulitzer. Yes it is powerful, but because of the added value of Obama's image. If it would be John Doe from the neighbourhood probably not a single soul would take any interest in this photo. Therefore I think it's not the best example.

To me, the conclusion is that the photographer's reflection is no-no but catchlights are go-go. Thanks for starting this thread, Faddoush.

OK, can't resist this one (I did try for 2 days): I don't see a "Resolved Leader" in this photo, I see a perplexed man, caught out in the rain without a hat. So, yes people see what they want in photographs.

Dead, "black hole" eyes in a photograph do tend to and mystery and a dark tone. Bright reflections can add a sparkle, but sometimes are distracting if too big or bright. Seeing the photog's reflections would for me in most circumstances be a no no!

Well, after that Texan president he was scared to appear in his beloved Stetson even if it rained LOL. I think he looks cool though, like a rock star on a rainy stage. ;))

Yeah, yeah, yeah!! Obama, the "rock star"!! See, people see what they want...

Change, Change..... give me a break.

#sameasthelastguy

Sorry Mr.B I just saw this now or I would have answered sooner. I don't think we should bring politics into this. I was referring to photography and the idea that you don't have to be looking at the camera to have a truly effective photograph. Obama is an outrageously handsome man, with charisma, so he makes a good photographic model...and I think it would be so even if he were not famous. Now that could be just an American woman's perspective, but I don't think so because I seem to have a lot of other female company. What struck me in the photo..was not that he was a resolved leader..but that the essence of this person ( his inner life) was captured in this shot - for me.

If some see a perplexed leader or a rock star..so be it. I see strength of character - although I am not looking into his eyes. I am not here to change your minds. :))) I will keep enjoying him.

I do think the original question was about reflections in the eyes...and my point about that picture was only to say that I did not need to see the eyes or reflections...to have an emotional reaction.

Phyllis

Could anybody tell me how to make eyes sparkle alive like the ones in the 1X portraits?
I may understand the ones shot in studio environment but what about the ones in natural light?
How do you do it? I tried to google it but couldn't find a effective and easy usable one.
i don't like black holes where there should be eyes.
Please just tell me how you do it rather than advising photography techniques
I want to learn about the PP only, any help appreciated.

Thanks

Uzay - it is entirely about the light source. Even in natural daylight, it makes a huge difference where the main, or reflected light sources are coming from when positioning your subject.

Dodge & Burn techniques can be used in PP to accentute the contrasts, but like all good PP, the better the original source material, the easier the PP. You need to be come aware of the light in the eyes at the time you are taking the photo, rather than after the event.

I know you said you're not bothered about photography techniques, but really and truly, the best thing you can do is take a friend out for an hour and take photos of them, fairly close up (head & shoulders at least), and steadily go round them 360 degrees, with them turning with you. This way the light and reflections will change each time you move a bit further round. By the time you've done this a few times in different environments you'll have a really good understanding of the best angles for the light sources to create the sparkle you want.

Kim :)

Glint fine. Reflections not fine.

'Nuff said.