EDIT: I note a plethora of subsequent attempts at post-processing that follows this. Sdrummer, can you be helpful and add a little about what you've done to the image? Secondly, I'm going to make some cheeky comments. Sdrummer's version has stronger reds and a cooler temperature, whilst there's a more restrained edit by Cam-I-Am. Both have their merits, but do look decidedly familiar to what I posted in this much earlier...
Photoj wrote:
Hi Thomasrichards,
I'm PMing you over your portraiture thread: "Please critique".
The green tint is caused by your surroundings (and not your monitor). The trees act as giant green reflectors. Take a look at the outdoor portraiture lighting post I have on my blog made during August.
I'll give you my honest feedback and unlike comments made, I don't like the first image. This is because your model has been unflatteringly framed. Your composition is good, but her posture is wrong. Her facial expression is alright, but her shoulders and neck aren't. You give the impression that she is hunched with a short neck. (EDIT: The posture has since grown on me a little, but I can't still help but wonder if her right shoulder could be repositioned differently; Mark-A was right to make clear up what I glossed over in the PM which was leaving too much space above the model's head in the frame).
The second image is much better in everything except that you messed up the lighting. You'll find tips on my blog that might help you here.
I hope this gives you a few pointers...
Best wishes,
Ed
patti wrote:
ok. take a vacation. one week. that is ALL...and get back in here
I'm back, but not to stay for a while. I just couldn't leave this one unfinished.
thomasrichards wrote:
Thanks for the critique Ed... I was hopnig you would comment on it.
Could you tell me if I have managed to get rid of the green tint in the re-processed edition of the second photo?
I'll continue here rather than PM you again. The tint hadn't disappeared in your second edit. It's a hard thing to remove green tints without altering the appearance of the rest of the frame.
thomasrichards wrote:
i dont mind you editing my photo for this purpose
In that case, below you'll find my interpretations of your images with a brief description of what's been done. The aims were to get more distinction between the model and the environment. One takes a sun-kissed approach, the other is more grunge.
Original on the right. Edited version included cropping to a 4:3 ratio to get more width and reduce the height - unlike Mark-A this is wider to get the most out of the background with the converging lines (and it's an outdoor portrait, so we can't crop out all the background). There is also increased contrast by using several techinques that included the use of layer masks with brightness increase, contrast decreases and increases, levels adjustment, altered channels, high pass filters, warming filter, and diffuse glow.
Your re-processed photo is the one below. PP was considerably simpler than what I did with image #1 with brightness, hue/saturation adjustment, crop, clone stamp and levels adjustment. Contrast not altered despite appearance.
Despite what I said about the lighting being messed up in my PM to you, with the right editing, that can be corrected. The original lighting was a little flat, but what you did right was expose the face. That makes the PP work to get a more dynamic image much less stressful.
Hopefully this might be useful. I'll keep an eye on this thread for another day or two before disappearing.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
