Reading mode: Light Dark

My 1st paid photo shot

Go to last post
Okay, maybe it's a bit flat, and adding contrast might not flatter the skin tones. Rather then a weakness, flat lighting can be a strength ("diffused" if softened a little more). So instead of adding contrast and sharpness, let's try going in the opposote direction. (Also took some glare off her cheek bone.)


Barbara B. said:
I am still working in PS on many of these. Any suggestions to
improve this image are WELCOMED. I posted this in photoSIG. Some
felt it looked flat.
This was posted with the permission of the subject.



--
Barbara (pbase supporter)
C2100uzi
Canon D60
You can rate & critique some of my photos at:
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=19278

Click to expand...
--
jnat
http://www.pbase.com/jnat
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=15366
 
Don't you think it at least needs a bit more contrast? Looking at the histogram, and doing a levels (even autolevels) shows that the highlights aren't quite set. I did over process the image (took 5 minutes), but to show more of a contrast I guess. : ) I looked at some of your images with women, and they had more contrast. More of what I was looking for. I think I did overdo the sharpening, but it could be done more selectively on the hair and maybe the eyes. Or if you wanted just the soft kind of look, then what she did was perfect. Just leave it. Still think it needs more contrast though. Even just a bump of autolevels if need be. Just my opinion. Still looks flat to me.

B a H
Robert Mossack said:
...I like Barbara's original better. You did a good job enhancing
the image, but it's the wrong look for a portrait, especially one
that is supposed to make the subject look beautiful. The contrast
is fine. But it's too sharp now, and shows too many skin
perfections. It might work for a male, that you want to emphasize
their rugged appearance, For such a beautiful lady, you want a
smooth appearance.

Again, just my opinion..

Robert Mossack
Click to expand...
--

If you have time to post on this site every day, you HAVE time to click a banner to feed the starving. http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
 
Actually, it depends on the subject. For a rugged guy that you want to accentuate the features, yeah. But for a beautiful young lady, no, you want the contrast to be flatter. Too much contrast can accentuate flaws as much as oversharpening can. Have you noticed what professional wedding and portrait film photographers use? A lower contrast portrait film. Why? For not only the truer skin tones, but the reduced contrast.

Robert Mossack
B a H said:
Don't you think it at least needs a bit more contrast? Looking at
the histogram, and doing a levels (even autolevels) shows that the
highlights aren't quite set. I did over process the image (took 5
minutes), but to show more of a contrast I guess. : ) I looked at
some of your images with women, and they had more contrast. More of
what I was looking for. I think I did overdo the sharpening, but it
could be done more selectively on the hair and maybe the eyes. Or
if you wanted just the soft kind of look, then what she did was
perfect. Just leave it. Still think it needs more contrast though.
Even just a bump of autolevels if need be. Just my opinion. Still
looks flat to me.

B a H
Click to expand...
s k u l p t said:
If you have time to post on this site every day, you HAVE time to
click a banner to feed the starving. http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
Click to expand...
 
Robert Mossack said:
Have you noticed what professional wedding and portrait film photographers use? A lower contrast portrait film. Why? For not only the truer skin tones, but the reduced contrast.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you Robert. I did wedding photography for nearly 40 years. However, the biggest concerns and main reason very low contrast film is used is because of the white gowns and black and white grooms dress. Additionally, there is most often poor lighting and low contrast minimizes the shadowing. The majority of wedding photos are far enough away from the subjects that skin lines and imperfections are not a consideration, but tonal quality is. Low contrast is the key!

--
Ken
C-3030Z, C-2100UZ
. )
 
To much, huh? How about this? Put a little of the snap back into it while keeping the soft, low-contrast look.


jnat said:

Barbara B. said:
I am still working in PS on many of these. Any suggestions to
improve this image are WELCOMED. I posted this in photoSIG. Some
felt it looked flat.
This was posted with the permission of the subject.



--
Barbara (pbase supporter)
C2100uzi
Canon D60
You can rate & critique some of my photos at:
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=19278

Click to expand...
--
jnat
http://www.pbase.com/jnat
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=15366
Click to expand...
--
jnat
http://www.pbase.com/jnat
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=15366
 
I guess it's what kind of portrait you're going for too. Yes, for weddings and that kind of thing you want less contrast. But for something more trendy, like a modeling portfolio, high contrast can be nice. Take a look at some shots here and tell me that high contrast doesn't work.... : ) You just have to not be afriad to do some cloning in Photoshop to get some of the imperfections out. Or now in Photoshop 7, using the Healing brush tool and a graphics tablet is a really nice combo.

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=165058

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=211437

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=199715

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=2986

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=225976

Again. I think there are different looks that you want to go for. It all depends on what the client wants. The thing that I was talking about was mostly her white point/highlight. Just look at the histogram, and look at the highlight area. In my mind, it could be tweaked. Apparently just in my mind though. LOL.

I think the huge strength of black and white is taking away the color so you can focus more on the contrast of the shot. It's no longer about color, but shape and flow created by contrast. Just my opinion though. Some cases less contrast is nice. Perhaps it is in this one.

B a H
Robert Mossack said:
Robert Mossack
B a H said:
Don't you think it at least needs a bit more contrast? Looking at
the histogram, and doing a levels (even autolevels) shows that the
highlights aren't quite set. I did over process the image (took 5
minutes), but to show more of a contrast I guess. : ) I looked at
some of your images with women, and they had more contrast. More of
what I was looking for. I think I did overdo the sharpening, but it
could be done more selectively on the hair and maybe the eyes. Or
if you wanted just the soft kind of look, then what she did was
perfect. Just leave it. Still think it needs more contrast though.
Even just a bump of autolevels if need be. Just my opinion. Still
looks flat to me.

B a H
Click to expand...
Robert Mossack said:
If you have time to post on this site every day, you HAVE time to
click a banner to feed the starving. http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

If you have time to post on this site every day, you HAVE time to click a banner to feed the starving. http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
 
So you're saying this is a wedding shot? Weddings are a different beast. This is most likely a modeling porfolio. Take a look at some of the samples I've shown on the above post to see what I'm thinking. : ) I guess I can't explain it well enough.

B a H
Ken Killian said:
Robert Mossack said:
Have you noticed what professional wedding and portrait film photographers use? A lower contrast portrait film. Why? For not only the truer skin tones, but the reduced contrast.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you Robert. I did wedding photography for
nearly 40 years. However, the biggest concerns and main reason
very low contrast film is used is because of the white gowns and
black and white grooms dress. Additionally, there is most often
poor lighting and low contrast minimizes the shadowing. The
majority of wedding photos are far enough away from the subjects
that skin lines and imperfections are not a consideration, but
tonal quality is. Low contrast is the key!

--
Ken
C-3030Z, C-2100UZ
. )
Click to expand...
--

If you have time to post on this site every day, you HAVE time to click a banner to feed the starving. http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
 
Hello Barbara

Your images is too dark. under-exposed. My mentor would say that the top of thhe head is missing but magazine like Vogue and Bazaar are much worst. Personaly I don't care for that.

go to photoshop and take a look at image/adjust/levels

1-take the right side arrow and bring it down a bit, take the middle arrow and bring it down just past the bump. Adjust to taste.

2-with the lasso do a rough contour of the eyes, first one then release, hold the shift key and do the second eye contour. Go to select/feather and input something like 4 pixels. Go to image/adjust/levels and get the eyes a bit more contrasty, darker, punchier. Then go to select and click deselect

3-go to filter/sharpen/unsharp mask use something like 50-1.5-2 It will bring up the sharpness a bit.

4-go to select and click reselect. The eyes will be reselected. Return to the unsharp mask and add just a bit of sharpness, something like 30-1.5.2 It will make the eye sparkle more.

go have a look at
http://www.pbase.com/image/4324629

I guess I will a to paie my due to pbase soon :-) in order to direct link

In a day I will remove the image from my galerie.

(I am on a "foreign" monitor right now and it leave to be desired, quality, calibration and things but you are good and I am sure you will understand what to do)

--
Gaetan J.
'when you assume something you make an ass out of u and me' B.Hill
 
Gaetan J. said:
Hello Barbara

Your images is too dark. under-exposed. My mentor would say that
the top of thhe head is missing but magazine like Vogue and Bazaar
are much worst. Personaly I don't care for that.

go to photoshop and take a look at image/adjust/levels

1-take the right side arrow and bring it down a bit, take the
middle arrow and bring it down just past the bump. Adjust to taste.

2-with the lasso do a rough contour of the eyes, first one then
release, hold the shift key and do the second eye contour. Go to
select/feather and input something like 4 pixels. Go to
image/adjust/levels and get the eyes a bit more contrasty, darker,
punchier. Then go to select and click deselect

3-go to filter/sharpen/unsharp mask use something like 50-1.5-2
It will bring up the sharpness a bit.

4-go to select and click reselect. The eyes will be reselected.
Return to the unsharp mask and add just a bit of sharpness,
something like 30-1.5.2 It will make the eye sparkle more.

go have a look at
http://www.pbase.com/image/4324629

I guess I will a to paie my due to pbase soon :-) in order to
direct link

In a day I will remove the image from my galerie.

(I am on a "foreign" monitor right now and it leave to be desired,
quality, calibration and things but you are good and I am sure you
will understand what to do)

--
Gaetan J.
'when you assume something you make an ass out of u and me' B.Hill
Click to expand...
the pic have been removed from my galerie :-)

--
Gaetan J.
'when you assume something you make an ass out of u and me' B.Hill
 
Well it sure is an excellent shot, I woudlnm't say it was flat, but it could possibly do with a tad more contrast, I personally wouldn't have cropped the top of her head/hair off either (only David Bailey gets away with stunts like that;-)

Other than that it's faultless in my eyes, the DOF, the background, expression on her face etc all make it nicely

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300, E10, Canon D60.

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top