Outdoor portrait, pretty girl....

Jamie W said:

10D, 24-70L at 70mm, ISO 100, 1/125th, f/6.7 with 550EX bounced
into Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer. RAW+JPG small, extracted in Canon
FVU, slight levels adjustment, resize in PS7.

Commetns and constructive criticism appreciated.



--
Jamie W.
Kindness. Compassion. Understanding. Respect. Courtesy.
I try to live up to these words. Do you?
Film? What do you mean, film?

Click to expand...

1ofUs! said:

Hi Jamie, I hope you don't mind, but I did a little retouching in
photoshop. Brightened a bit, desaturated the red tones (maybe a
little too much I think), sharpened the eyes selectively, softened
the skin and brought out the highlights in the hair. Very easy,
took only about 5 minutes, and I think it makes quite a difference.

Click to expand...

Garrett Lau said:

Otto's brightness adjustment is way overdone. After seeing this,
I've decided to ask about the portraits I took yesterday:
http://www.pbase.com/garrettlau/lgbrcwomen

My first impression was that the first photo is overexposed, but
now I'm thinking it might be OK. The main problem I noticed in all
of these portraits is the shadows in her eyes, so I think I should
have taken off the Omnibounce and pointed the flash straight at her
(instead of angled up). What do you think? I'll be taking more
portraits this afternoon, of different women in a different
setting, so I would appreciate any feedback.

--Garrett

Click to expand...

marianco said:

I copied the picture into Photoshop. The color was much, much
better, much more vibrant. That made me realize that your original
photo was using AdobeRGB rather than sRGB as the colorspace. Note
that sRGB is what web browsers expect. When you use AdobeRGB
instead, the photo will look dull when viewed on a web browser. It
looks much better when viewed in a system where AdobeRGB is
recognized as the color space.

To post a picture on the web, convert the colorspace to sRGB first,
so that the colors will not be dull when viewed on a browser.

In Photoshop, the primary improvement needed is to do a Levels
adjustment. The midtones are just too dark, particularly her face.
I think this is because of the overall brightness of the grass
causing her face to be underexposed. I shifted the midtones marker
to the left and the picture markedly improved. I also set the
white-tone dropper to the white of her blouse. This also improved
overall contrast.

In terms of photo technique, I would have used direct flash rather
than use the Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer to get a smaller more intense
light reflection on her eyes. Or I would have added more fill-light
by increasing the flash exposure compensation. Most of the lighting
is ambient lighting anyway. Thus, you're primarily wasting battery
power in this situation when using the Pocket Bouncer.

Because of the overall brightness of the scene - such as the grass,
her blouse, I would have used the partial meter on her face to get
a better exposure of her, given the tendency of the light
surrounding grass and her blouse to underexpose her face.

Click to expand...

Jamie W said:

Pretty girl. Clearly your biggest problem in these photos is the
time of day...the sun is too high in the sky and produces very
harsh and unflattering light and shadows.

In these instances, I always use fill flash, but frankly with that
kind of sunlight it isnt always enough. Reflectors are good
also...and you can use posterboard as a subsitute. I have found
that white and orange have worked best for me.

However, the best thing to do is to find a shady area, and put the
subject there. Use fill flash, with the well light background.

When you do more, let us know. She's very pretty and we'd like to
see more! Good luck!

Garrett Lau said:

Otto's brightness adjustment is way overdone. After seeing this,
I've decided to ask about the portraits I took yesterday:
http://www.pbase.com/garrettlau/lgbrcwomen

My first impression was that the first photo is overexposed, but
now I'm thinking it might be OK. The main problem I noticed in all
of these portraits is the shadows in her eyes, so I think I should
have taken off the Omnibounce and pointed the flash straight at her
(instead of angled up). What do you think? I'll be taking more
portraits this afternoon, of different women in a different
setting, so I would appreciate any feedback.

--Garrett

Click to expand...

--
Jamie W.
Kindness. Compassion. Understanding. Respect. Courtesy.
I try to live up to these words. Do you?
Film? What do you mean, film?

Click to expand...

marianco said:

I copied the picture into Photoshop. The color was much, much
better, much more vibrant. That made me realize that your original
photo was using AdobeRGB rather than sRGB as the colorspace. Note
that sRGB is what web browsers expect. When you use AdobeRGB
instead, the photo will look dull when viewed on a web browser. It
looks much better when viewed in a system where AdobeRGB is
recognized as the color space.

Click to expand...

Jamie W said:

Not bad! I do think the red was reduced too much....she looks a
bit pasty to me, but not horribly. I like the sharpening of the
eyes and the highlights in her hair, but I think it is too bright
overall....her shirt is too high for me. I know this can't be
helped b/c its white, but to me it looks better a shade darker than
lighter.

But thanks for your input and your comments. They are very
appreciated.

Click to expand...

BayAreaFoto.com said:

As you can see, I hate yellow brownish grass... Hope you don't
mind.
Picture was flipped so the "after" picture is on the left.

Click to expand...

Jamie W said:

...to all for the comments. Very interesting. While the DOF may
have played a part in the softness of the first image, I attribute
it more to the fact that I did no sharpening at all. That is not
the case with the second image.

With portraits, I usually prefer a softer look regardless. To me
it is more flattering, particularly with women. Never have really
liked the ultra-sharp portrait. Softness also helps to hide the
imperfections.

With this image I tried to address some of the commetns...different
framing, more contrast, sharpening.

How 'bout it?

10D, 24-70L at 52mm, ISO 100, 1/125th, f/6.7 with 550EX bounced
into Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer. RAW+JPG small, extracted in Canon
FVU.

Slight levels adjustment, resize, added contrast, sharpened using
FM CSPro medium setting in PS7.

Again, commetns and constructive criticism appreciated.



--
Jamie W.
Kindness. Compassion. Understanding. Respect. Courtesy.
I try to live up to these words. Do you?
Film? What do you mean, film?

Click to expand...

1ofUs! said:

Hi Jamie, I hope you don't mind, but I did a little retouching in
photoshop. Brightened a bit, desaturated the red tones (maybe a
little too much I think), sharpened the eyes selectively, softened
the skin and brought out the highlights in the hair. Very easy,
took only about 5 minutes, and I think it makes quite a difference.

Click to expand...

1ofUs! said:

--
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must
be wrong...

Click to expand...