Reading mode: Light Dark

x10 portrait

Go to last post
"The original looks warmer to me..."

"The processed photo emphasized the shadows around the eyes and under the nose, and combined with the [cooler color]..."

"If you simply compare the two photos by looking at them, does the processed image really appear warmer?"

Asking if your monitor is calibrated is not a personal attack.

The processed image has warmer flesh tones. The rest of the image also displays evidence of a warmer balance. Remember, I backed up visually what I saw with color samples from the face - and other areas. The warming effect is visually evident all over the images as well as when measured vs. the unprocessed image.

When I made the comparison of blue hair highlights in the unprocessed images vs. a warmer value in the processed image, you wrote:
"I have no idea what the real hair color is..."

Do you really think her natural hair color contains blue highlights?

Rather, it's visual (and measurable) evidence of a cooler balance in the unprocessed image as are the other areas I mentioned.

Your responses are starting to read very much like an encounter with Paul Till. You should try to self-edit your emotional responses - I didn't put that tone in my posts and in fact I simply supplied objective facts to corroborate what I saw with my eyes.
 
Brooks Lester said:
Your responses are starting to read very much like an encounter with Paul Till. You should try to self-edit your emotional responses - I didn't put that tone in my posts and in fact I simply supplied objective facts to corroborate what I saw with my eyes.
Click to expand...
That's because you're an obnoxious character Mr. Lester.

--

 
Brooks Lester said:
----
Click to expand...
Paul can be blunt at times, which mostly annoys the insecure. But he's not obtuse and doesn't suffer fools, which some others also find annoying.

How you could be told several times that I was only talking about the skin tone (i.e., the appearance of the face) and keep harping on blue tones in the hair and other parts of the image other than the face boggles the mind.
 
Thought i'd make a few subtle changes , will remove if you dont like . ;)







 
Lovely image, thats what i liked about the X10, takes nice portraits.
This one of my wife using the X10.



--
Alan.
 
PAUL TILL said:
Brooks Lester said:
Your responses are starting to read very much like an encounter with Paul Till. You should try to self-edit your emotional responses - I didn't put that tone in my posts and in fact I simply supplied objective facts to corroborate what I saw with my eyes.
Click to expand...
That's because you're an obnoxious character Mr. Lester.

--

Click to expand...
Exactly.......

I just don't know where Brooks gets off on being so measured and reasonable, it isn't on at all is it.

The world would be a much better place if we were all complete numpties like you.
 
Billx08 said:
Brooks Lester said:
----
Click to expand...
Paul can be blunt at times, which mostly annoys the insecure. But he's not obtuse and doesn't suffer fools, which some others also find annoying.

How you could be told several times that I was only talking about the skin tone (i.e., the appearance of the face) and keep harping on blue tones in the hair and other parts of the image other than the face boggles the mind.
Click to expand...
No, he annoys way more than just any insecure here (if there are any)

His intolerance of fools is probably not what most find annoying either, I'd have money on that one.

Yet again, it's a very small minority of people who get involved in that same old crap, over and over and over, dragging threads off on some personal BS crusade.

Oh, and I (and possibly many others here) don't / wouldn't place Brooks amongst that group.
 
aeneon said:
Thought i'd make a few subtle changes , will remove if you dont like . ;)







Click to expand...
I like your take on the image. My usual post processing take is to do as little as possible. If you get the image right in camera there shouldn't be much to do. This time though I really wanted to try some new things in Photoshop.
 
cprevost said:
First one is post processed heavily in Photoshop. May not be to everyone's taste but I like it. Second is straight out of the camera jpeg.
Click to expand...
I think that your daughter is so pretty that the hardness and drama of the PP on the first perhaps doesn't entirely do her justice - so on balance I prefer the original, perhaps with some gentle PP to bring the best out of it. I don't dislike the first one, it does look like it would have printed well, but it's not what I personally would have done with it. I love the little half-smile you caught.

But I am finding that the focus sits somewhat uncomfortably with me. It seems to be on her fringe (US=bangs?) and the front of her hair and the fur of the hat. It should be on her eyes - which are a little softer than ideal. And if I were sharpening that image, I'd only do so on the harder features of her face and leave skin and OOF background un-sharpened - I find that granular right hand side of the first version with the contrasty lichen tends to draw the eye - for context, the bark would work just as well softly focused - the attention should be on her lovely pretty face - I don't feel as though my eye should be allowed to wander to other areas that are shouting too loudly for my attention.

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images
http://boojewels.blogspot.com/ - blog

Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.
 
Boo said:
But I am finding that the focus sits somewhat uncomfortably with me. It seems to be on her fringe (US=bangs?) and the front of her hair and the fur of the hat. It should be on her eyes - which are a little softer than ideal. And if I were sharpening that image, I'd only do so on the harder features of her face and leave skin and OOF background un-sharpened - I find that granular right hand side of the first version with the contrasty lichen tends to draw the eye - for context, the bark would work just as well softly focused - the attention should be on her lovely pretty face - I don't feel as though my eye should be allowed to wander to other areas that are shouting too loudly for my attention.
Click to expand...
Glad I'm not the only one that can see it's out of focus.

--

 
PAUL TILL said:
Glad I'm not the only one that can see it's out of focus.
Click to expand...
It's in focus, but the focus isn't where I feel it should have been. And for me, that makes it a little uncomfortable to view and detracts from it being a great photo.

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images
http://boojewels.blogspot.com/ - blog

Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.
 
Hi,
Yes its always fun to experiment in photoshop. Glad you liked it . :)
 
Boo said:
PAUL TILL said:
Glad I'm not the only one that can see it's out of focus.
Click to expand...
It's in focus, but the focus isn't where I feel it should have been. And for me, that makes it a little uncomfortable to view and detracts from it being a great photo.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, her right eye is what I feel should be in focus looking at the composition but it's the rim of her hat that is the only bit I can see is in focus and it distracts me from her face.

Paul.

--

 
I've stated that every time in my posts, and I'll say it again here:

The skin tones in the processed image are warmer than in the unprocessed image - to the eye and in measurement with a professional editing program.

Apparently you're stuck on the text in my post where I stated that I also measured other areas of the image, which reflect the same thing.

If you want to call pinker warmer, that's your call, however, the pinker image looks the way it does because it's a cooler rendition of the scene compared to the processed image. If you prefer that look, fine, I have no truck with that. It's just not warmer than the processed image.

For the record, if I had edited the original image I would not have applied more contrast to the face, instead, I would have used a layer-based approach and applied increased contrast plus some vignetting to the perimeter of the composition, adding drama to the background while maintaining a lower contrast on the subject. I also would have massaged the warming effect to retain some of the pink in the flesh tones.

I happen to prefer pinker flesh tones myself - as long as these tones don't render magenta - a major reason to shoot the X10 and X100 in jpeg as opposed to RAW.

I've avoided using emotional language in this thread - I've stuck to the empirical. It would be nice if you could do the same.
 
The thing about this kind of processing is you can look at it a day later and how you feel about may change. Or, no one will like it, but you (which is fine BTW). I've processed images of my children that my wife doesn't "get." Neither do her parents. Oh well.

When I saw the first image for the first time, I liked it straight out of the gate - so much so that I felt anything else would suffer by comparison. Then I saw the original and thought, hmmm, maybe the contrast is a tad strong on the face in the first image. I've been looking at these images and reading the comments since you started this post, but have had a tough time figuring out exactly what I'd change and how I'd do it differently. Obviously, this is a season-to-taste issue and if it were me I'd probably have several versions. I haven't and won't download the image to see how I'd do it, but for me hands-on tinkering is usually the best way when vision is lacking.

Your daughter is photogenic and the smile and other aspects of this shot make it memorable and worth trying different processing treatments.

For me, I think the face is a bit too bleached and the contrast, perhaps a tad strong. The brown hair, hat and dark eyes/eye lashes give her image power. I wouldn't want to lose that, but her skin is so flawless, I think I'd tone down the bleach effect across her face and maybe a softer (less sharp) treatment across that region between the eyes and lips. The lip color looks better to me in the processed image. I think the shadow below her right cheek and in the corner of her right cheek could be lightened or smoothened (maybe just lest sharpening of a noisy area?). That would lighten the image near her smile, which is "light" and relaxed in and of itself.

As to focus, the trees and all that, what're ya gonna do (in a rhetorical sense)? It is what it is. A fleeting smile in a candid like that doesn't come around every day, but even as a "portrait" as you stated, where this posing, it's still not easy to get the easy-going natural look you captured.

Very nice.
 
Should read:
dotbalm said:
I think the shadow below her right cheek and in the right corner of her right cheek mouth could be lightened or smoothened (maybe just lest sharpening of a noisy area?). That would lighten the image near her smile, which is "light" and relaxed in and of itself.
Click to expand...
Basically making the tone more even in the face which in the processed image is a bit too contrasty for my taste. But hey, that's just my .02. Again, very nice!
 
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