Which of these do you like best?
thanks docno. Yep, as i said, i have no problem with folks who do PP, I wish i could get into it myself.
I used to paint too, so I understand where you are coming from. I am thinking maybe if I got a graphics tablet I may enjoy the process more, or be more willing to get more involved in it.
Perhaps on the grey days when I don't get out to shoot, i should invest some time at the PC
I hope you did not mind a made a slight change to your picture.
No problem... I like what you've done with it. I purposely went a little extreme on this one. Fortunately, since I shoot in Raw, I can always do a more naturalistic treatment. But you reverse engineered back to it and it looks good.... Thanks
I'd love to learn how to take 35mm portraits. Wah......-- hide signature --
You can place the subject in the middle of the frame and keep it small and then crop, this is for boring headshots, like the classic portraits taken with 85-135 mm . Or better you include the environment, add context, do not limit yourself having the face in perfect proportions, experiment composition and try to depict the atmosphere.
Unless you shoot faces for catalogs or faces for beauty products etc
The second one because to me it emphasizes the subject and makes her look more attractive. I am much more interested in flattering the subject than trying to reflect some mythical "reality", whatever that is. Nice shot.
Thanks for posting your awesome portrait.
What profound eloquence!
I would like either one by itself. Looking at both side by side I think the second looks over processed.
Pretty close up to this point. Did a quick count (some of you liked both or aspects of both so I put you in both columns). Right now, it seems that 10 have voted for version one and 8 for version two. So it's pretty close to a tie. [Early results suggested that v1 would win hands-down, but v2 narrowed the lead late in the game].
Noy is down tomorrow, so I'll ask her to make the final decision ... after all, it's her face
BTW - thanks, all, for looking and sharing your opinions... has been fascinating to 'see' the different perceptions and preferences we all have (but, no, not so surprising I guess).
Great post, nice pictures, good discussion, and lovely models!
I found the discussion of this issue (how much PP "pop" is too much) very interesting. On the one hand, photos like the 2nd one certainly "pop" more and catch the eye -- especially when you view the two side by side, it's hard not to see the first as "flat" by comparison.
On the other hand, it is easy to go too far, and I've grown to hate the "Instagrammed" super-saturated fake look that I see a lot of friends posting these days. I mean, you can aim your camera at anything random and boost clarity and vibrance to +100 and get something eye-catching, but that doesn't mean it's a good or interesting photo. And to me they all start to look the same, and don't even look like real photos anymore.
But most of us certainly agree that some amount of PP (done well) certainly improves an image. For example, I think photo #1 is much better than the unprocessed original. And I think it would have looked great viewed alone -- it's only when viewed next to #2 that makes it look flat in comparison.
I struggle with this myself, because my instinct is to be more drawn to the 2nd photo and to go for a similar effect when processing my images. Of course, it's not a "level 1 or level 2" thing, but an infinite amount of variation in between. So I generally try to increase "pop" until it just starts to look "fake" to me, then bring it back down a notch.
I printed the two images out (only 4x6 because I was only curious about colour rendition). Using a decent but somewhat dated Canon Pixma MP628 printer and Photo Paper Pro II paper (the second best glossy paper in the Canon consumer range I believe).
Interestingly, the second (more saturated) image looked more clearly the better one in this instance, and the colours on paper didn't look as over-the-top as on screen.The once hyper-vivid skin tones were more subdued as were the saturated greens in the background. All in all, the more vivid version, when printed, looked much better than on screen and much better than the printed naturalistic version. At least to my eyes....
[Note: I'd converted the the images originally for the sRGB colour-space, so perhaps the print outcome would have been different if in aRGB. And yes, all of this still highly subjective]
Thanks again, everyone, for an interesting discussion...
Hard to say.. Both look good to me
Just a matter of preference as 2nd one "Pops" & 1st one has that softer look like some portraits have?
- Canon EOS M58.8%
- Panasonic G85/G803.3%
- Panasonic FZ2500/FZ20001.9%
- Panasonic LX10/LX151.2%
- Panasonic GH5 development3.6%
- Sony a99 II15.9%
- Nikon KeyMission 170 and 801.0%
- Fujifilm GFX 50S development28.3%
- Olympus E-M1 II development18.7%
- Olympus E-PL80.1%
- Olympus 25mm F1.2 Pro1.5%
- Olympus 12-100mm F4 IS Pro1.9%
- Olympus 30mm F3.5 Macro0.1%
- Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art3.6%
- Sigma 12-24mm F4 Art2.6%
- Sigma 500mm F4 DG OS HSM Sport2.4%
- YI M12.2%
- GoPro Hero50.8%
- GoPro Karma drone2.2%
|Flower in flower by atdigit|
from Random Items Challenge 26
|Surface tension by atdigit|
from Right in the middle
|A Normal Dat at Thomas's Clap 2016-9379 by Andrew Maltzoff|
from Show us SCHOOL!