Impressive; very well done. I'm expecially impressed that the skin was not 'placticized' in post processing. The eyes are extremely well done. The only aspect of the shot I would have liked a bit different is a bit more sharpness in the rest of her face. Regardless, a really good shot. Congratulations!
Cyan color cast, over-exposed, over-sharpened, over-saturated, poor composition. Otherwise, a great photo! ;^)
There are no rules in composition, only the good and bad.
Sometimes great photos DO just happen.
Desecration! I hope the Photographer sees this and sues.
It's easy to see why this one was voted into 1st place, and it has NOTHING to do with photographic or atistic ability. That this photo is not a nude is debatable. I don't know the photographer, and if this 'non-nude' is representative of his or her thinking, then I'm sure we'd disagree on many subjects.
The photo shows artistic talent and technical ability. For that I have to say 'Well done!'.
To each his own of course, but the subject is not to my taste. 'Strains' (on the eyes) would have been a more appropriate title for me.
I see someone likes large amounts of over-saturation!
Yes, but does it get rid of pimples, warts, etc.?
USD $199.00 for an upgrade from CS5 to CS6 that really provides little is a bit pricey for me. I might as well wait for CS.X when I'll have to pay $600 for the whole thing and all the updates in-between. Then it may be worth the price. That's what I did when I had CS---wait for it to be worth-while even though I had to pay the whole CS5 package price.
Photograph? No way unless it's a photo of a drawing. A poor composition as well, though the drawing is first class work. I'd give it a zero as a photo, 2 as a drawing.
tkbslc: I think for point and shoot and simple travel photography, the "cloud" and instant facebook/blog of photos is becoming more and more important. I don't think anyone trying to produce fine art or higher end photos is ever going to want to post unedited instant shots to the web.
But will it provide the same capabilities and speed of programs like Photoshop? Not in this lifetime. This idea will certainly not satisfy those who want quality photos, just those who want snapshots of Uncle Herbert and Baby Jane.
I'm certainly glad this article was posted and I' sure it's of value to many photographers / post-processors, especially to commercial photography. So thank you for doing so.
However, as an amateur, I prefer to touch-up blemishes individually and allow the 'character' of person to be seen. No 'plastic' skin for me, thank you!
Maxim Ge: I think that the claim "Sensor size does not alter magnification" is arguable. To be more exact magnification definition itself does not quite fit the "real world".
You define maginifcation as "simply the relationship between of the size of the (in-focus) subject's projection on the imaging sensor and the subject's size in reality". I think it has to be coupled with crop factor.
Consider an example. You have a frame 24x36 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm, projected size is 36 mm, so maginification is 2:1, that's correct, but remember - we see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.
Now we take a tiny camera with crop = 18 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm and projected size is 2 mm. Magnification = 1:9 ? But we continue to see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.
So 2:1 and 1:9 give same result - strange, isn't it?
I think that crop factor should be added to magnification definition, in this case both considered pictures would have same magnification.
That 'crop- factor' provides magnification is a fallacy, perpetrated by statements such as 'on an x crop factor camera, it's th same as a x mm lens.' If isn't the magnification they're talking about, it's the Field of View. The magnification is the same.
ptodd: I understand what magnification is; reassuring to have this knowledge consolidated.
What I don't understand is why '1:1' is so special? Using a smaller sensor, lower magnification ratios will yield essentially similar results (in terms of subject size relative to captured image, of course other variables like DOF will be different).
For example, why is it useful to the poster with an HS10 & close-up filter to directly compare the magnification ratio of their system to a user of a 35mm SLR? It seems to have little direct bearing on the subjects they will be able to capture or the images the will be able to produce. The magnification may be useful as an intermediate value for calculation, but why insist that only 1:1 is 'true macro', when for practical purposes the capacity of the system is so dependent on other factors?
I suppose the answer is that it is useful when comparing lenses of different focal length for use on the same size sensor (which in the old days was more fixed).
Why 1:1 is so special is because that is the minimum magnification that can truly be called a 'macro'. Here are the definitions:>10:10, normal photography.10:1 to 1:1, close-up photography. (Yes, there are over-laps.)1:1 to 1:10. macro photography.1:>10 micro-photography.
The author might do well to look up the definitions of 'Macro Photography' and 'Close-up Photography. Some of the so-called 'macros' he's included in his article are decidedly close-ups, and perhaps more of them are as well. Macros require that the size of the subject image be equal to or larger than it is in real life; i.e. a size ratio between 1::1 and 10::1. Close-up photography is where the subject is between 10 times larger than the captured image to the same size; i.e. 10::1 and 1::1. in Micro-photography, the captured image is more than 10 times large than the subject. Everything else is simply 'plain' or normal photography. With that in mind, it's really a stretch for lens manufacturers to term their macro lenses as such; they're really just close-up lenses (1::1).
Littered with assumptions and presumptions.