Author | Thread |
|
07/15/2005 02:35:24 PM · #126 |

Edits, before and after....
d |
|
|
07/15/2005 03:34:25 PM · #127 |

A couple of quick portraits I shot to lead up into the post-processing area of Assignment #1. Unfortunately, it's raining today, so I was stuck with the area I had to shoot, so please, ignore my backgrounds. lol.
So, now it's your turn to tell me what you would have done differently, and how you think they could have been improved. I shot in two different methods here, with two different settings. So go at it. When I get home from a trip on Sunday, I'll post-process and we can start to have fun with all our shots.
*EDIT* I know about the red-cast too, my camera's white-balance gives me fits with breeanna.. she's a very dark skin tone, and I can't seem to find the right setting
Message edited by author 2005-07-15 15:35:38.
|
|
|
07/15/2005 04:06:45 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Artyste: Originally posted by briantammy: ok here's mine.
running a little late but finally made time. Took this morning under a patio umbrella near a tree. The sun was a little bright.
//www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=briantammy
brian |
Tried to post this as a comment on your shot, but it wanted me to register.
First, I'd like to hear your reasoning behind the composition for this. It's certainly non-traditional. Also, I can't seem to find any way to see the information we had requested for it, to make it easier for accurate comments.. if you could leave me a note on what your settings were, I'd be grateful.
I'll just leave a final note for now. I don't know what aperature you shot in, but having the background blurred a little more (and darkened, but that can be done in post), will help bring out your subject much better. Always keep an eye on that, and think about background distractions when you shoot. If you have a personal reason for having it the way it is, that's ok.. but remember we're here to learn a few basics, and some "rules", and once that's done, you can go about breaking them whenever you like ;)
Anyway, I await your response. |
thanks for your response so far. sorry for leaving out information. I had to run.
I transferred the shot to my dpc portfolio in a collection folder for this mentorship. So you can leave comments there now. Also I have a point-and-shoot. Does that disqualify me from going any further. I don't really have the freedom to adjust the aperature or shutter. I have learned some techniques that help me though. I put the exposure info given by the camera with the image.
Why do you think that this composition is unique. Is there a more tradiitonal pose set-up?
No, I don't have a particular reason for chosing the setting that I did. I just was looking for even lighing.
brian |
|
|
07/15/2005 04:15:02 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by briantammy: I transferred the shot to my dpc portfolio in a collection folder for this mentorship. So you can leave comments there now. Also I have a point-and-shoot. Does that disqualify me from going any further. I don't really have the freedom to adjust the aperature or shutter. I have learned some techniques that help me though. I put the exposure info given by the camera with the image.
Why do you think that this composition is unique. Is there a more tradiitonal pose set-up?
No, I don't have a particular reason for chosing the setting that I did. I just was looking for even lighing.
brian |
No, of course it doesn't disqualify you :) The settings just help give us an idea of what you used to better base our comments on. Having less control will mean a more difficult time following along with some of the advice and whatnot, but you can still learn a great deal, and many things will still apply.
The composition is unique in that you have your subject competeing with space in your image with a background object, (the tree in this case), and have much of her out of the frame. This isn't necessarily bad all the time, but it's certainly not "traditional" in the sense that most portraiture work you'll find will have the subject prominent, with no, or few, other distractions.
|
|
|
07/15/2005 05:30:22 PM · #130 |
Edit done... not happy with skin tones, as usual. :-)
....
Thanks Glen and Kevin. I may just give up on AV mode for awhile as I usually get more junk shots than good ones out of it. :-) As for the background, well these weren't really planned portraits, just hanging out at the zoo and knew I still needed to get a photo for this assignment. This was the one time the kids stopped long enough for me to get a shot while they were playing on a statue. I need to be more aware of backgrounds though as I'm sure I could've gotten this at a better angle. These are my neighbors girls, btw. It was killing me not to pull out my flash for some fill, let me tell you. :-) Not that I would've been able to get it out and on fast enough with these guys... you know, kids and zoos... so much to see! :-) Overall, I think it came out ok considering. Still need alot of help with skin tones though. That's for sure.
|
|
|
07/15/2005 10:50:15 PM · #131 |
and
Before and after
This is the first time I've really had the opportunity to play with my new 50mm so any tips for this lens would be greatly appreciated.
Debi |
|
|
07/16/2005 06:48:58 PM · #132 |
Hi everyone! I pm'd Artyste and he said someone dropped out, so I could join your group here? I haven't heard back from my pm to Sher yet. So...I'll just move forward and if it seems there are too many people I will bow out until next time.
Here's my first assignment: Candid taken at a wedding rehersal
Original:
Afer editing:
 |
|
|
07/16/2005 07:00:31 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by jpochard: Hi everyone! I pm'd Artyste and he said someone dropped out, so I could join your group here? I haven't heard back from my pm to Sher yet. So...I'll just move forward and if it seems there are too many people I will bow out until next time.
Here's my first assignment: Candid taken at a wedding rehersal
Original:
Afer editing:
|
sorry, hon...i never got a PM from you. of course you're welcome here! |
|
|
07/16/2005 07:02:05 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
sorry, hon...i never got a PM from you. of course you're welcome here! |
:) (gotta get me some of the cool smilies)
Message edited by author 2005-07-16 19:02:25. |
|
|
07/16/2005 07:57:43 PM · #135 |
Hey All!
I'm so far behind! I had to buy another hard drive so my system could run - been working with that. Tonight I am getting caught up in the group and on the commenting. Please accept my apologies for not doing so already! Also, thanks to some gret constructive crits, I re-edited my test shot...
d
 |
|
|
07/17/2005 02:07:42 AM · #136 |
well, i think you've all made a great start here. your first assignment photos are giving us some good info about areas that can be improved.
what i'm gonna do in the next few posts is put up each of your photos; original and edited, and post my edited version next to them. then i'll tell you the basic steps i went through to get them to that stage. we can discuss the edits i've done and you can tell me what you like or don't like and i'll answer any questions you have. once we've finished our discussions, then i'll post the 2nd assignment.
here goes...
edit to add this: all my edits were done in Photoshop CS but i didn't use any tools that aren't found in the previous version of PS...levels, curves, clone, heal, dodge, burn, sharpen, fade.
also...my monitor tends to read a bit dark so if i'm lightening these photos too much, feel free to let me know. :)
Message edited by author 2005-07-17 02:50:32. |
|
|
07/17/2005 02:32:14 AM · #137 |
original edited my edits
i really like the lighting here so basically, all i did was adjust the levels. i did a bit of basic healing and cloning set at a very low opacity. then i zoomed in and dodged the iris of the eyes with a hard, round brush set at about 4% and set to Highlights. i made several passes until i got it to the degree i wanted. i also slightly dodged the whites of his eyes. then i sharpened using Sharpen (i'm not a big fan of USM). then i Faded Sharpen to about 80%.
btw, a good way to use the healing brush is to set the brush Hardness to 100%, the Spacing to 25%...then shape your brush by setting the Angle to -49 and the Roundness to 16%. this will make the brush a tall, thin oval and will give you much better results. this setting will feather the edges of your healing and will minimize the mottled look you can sometimes get with the healing brush. i use this setting for all my photos. |
|
|
07/17/2005 02:46:47 AM · #138 |
original edited my edits
again, not much editing at all here...just basic levels and curves. the pose is adorable and the lighting is nice and filtered making it fairly even. she has a gorgeous skin tone so there is no cloning or healing done at all. the only other edits i made was to dodge the irises and whites of her eyes just like i explained in my previous post. sharpening was also done the same is in dahkota's photo.
i think you achieved a nice seperation of your subject from the background while still allowing us to see that this is an outdoor portrait. |
|
|
07/17/2005 03:05:05 AM · #139 |
original edited my edits
beautiful, soft lighting and the angle of her body makes a flattering pose. the color of the flowers is very complimentary to her skin tone and brings out the blush in her cheeks.
again...basic levels and slight curves. i like your closer crop except that the small piece of the flowers now becomes a distracting element because it looks cut off. i cropped a bit off the bottom but kept the width the same. dodged the irises and whites of her eyes...also a slight dodge on her teeth (beautiful smile). sharpened and faded sharpen.
|
|
|
07/17/2005 11:30:06 AM · #140 |
left comment for this one :)
|
|
|
07/17/2005 03:02:12 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by sher9204: again...basic levels and slight curves. i like your closer crop except that the small piece of the flowers now becomes a distracting element because it looks cut off. i cropped a bit off the bottom but kept the width the same. dodged the irises and whites of her eyes...also a slight dodge on her teeth (beautiful smile). sharpened and faded sharpen. |
Sher -- I understood everything you did except for the fading on the sharpening. Did you over sharpen and then fade? |
|
|
07/17/2005 03:16:34 PM · #142 |
debi: i used the regular Sharpen in PS...Filter>Sharpen>Sharpen. this can sometimes make things a bit too sharp. if it's too sharp, then i use Edit>Fade Sharpen. this brings up a slider control that allows you to fade back the amount of sharpening.
i think the Fade give you a great amount of control over your editing. it can be used for any edit you've done to your photo...even Desaturate. (you have to apply it immediately after the effect you want to fade, though. if you do anything else to the photo, you lose the ability to fade that effect.) you can also play around with the Mode settings within the Fade and you'll get completely different effects. of course, within the Basic Editing challenges, the Mode must remain in the Normal mode. |
|
|
07/17/2005 04:24:58 PM · #143 |
original edited my edits
jen, my friend, yours took a bit more editing. :) i think her pose is just precious and those big eyes are beautiful. very nice seperation from the multi-colored background and a nice bokeh, too. the problem comes from the heavily shadowed face. this seems more of a candid type portrait and i know that it's not always possible to get the best lighting in that situation. of course, while it's preferable to get the lighting correct at the time of the photo, it can be fixed in post processing if you have the right tools in your editing arsenal.
for this photo, i used a free Photoshop plug-in called Virtual Photographer. Photoshop CS has the Shadows/Highlights tool but it can sometimes cause unusual halos and with color photos, can cause strange colors. with the Virtual Photographer setting "Bright Shade", it really brought up the levels without strange colors or halos and made it much easier to edit. then it was just a matter of using the lasso tool to mask off her head and hands and adjusting the hue/saturation and curves. then, as with the other photos, i dodged the irises and whites of her eyes, sharpened and faded sharpen. |
|
|
07/17/2005 04:42:30 PM · #144 |
If I'm horning in where I shouldn't, please just feel free to delete this message entirely. I'm not sure if this is open enrollment or limited to the few members on the list. In any event, portrait photography is something with which I have very little experience but an area where I'd like to improve my skills. I shot the following pics of my niece recently and wondered if my edited versions could be improved upon. (All the exif info. is with the edited versions in the Comments area.)
original
edited
original
edited
original
edited
Thanks very much to sher and Artyste for moderating this forum. I will follow along with the exercises even if I can't participate actively in the thread, and I just wanted you to know how much your efforts and time are appreciated. Thanks again! :)
|
|
|
07/17/2005 05:19:26 PM · #145 |
Judith,
Your camera sure loves that little girl! I think you did just a marvelous job in bringing out the best of those shots. Your originals all have a snapshot quality to them and the edited versions are much more polished and finished looking.
I did notice the top of her head is cut off in the first pic. My favorite by far is the third. the lighting on her face and that smile combine to just make that photo glow! |
|
|
07/17/2005 08:00:45 PM · #146 |
Thanks Sher, That's a great tip. I have Virtual Photographer and use it often but never thought about using it to help fix a bad exposure. Neat trick. Sorry about my photo being in such bad shape. I wasn't expecting anyone else to have to mess with it. :-D I'll try not to give you so much work next time. ;-)
|
|
|
07/17/2005 09:53:01 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by jpochard: Judith,
Your camera sure loves that little girl! I think you did just a marvelous job in bringing out the best of those shots. Your originals all have a snapshot quality to them and the edited versions are much more polished and finished looking.
I did notice the top of her head is cut off in the first pic. My favorite by far is the third. the lighting on her face and that smile combine to just make that photo glow! |
Judy, thank you! I found it very difficult to achieve anything other than snapshots (in the originals) while basically chasing the kids around the yard. There's no time really to compose a shot when the kids are moving at lightning speed, and I prefer candid to posed portraits of children. Thank goodness for RAW and all the post-processing tools we have at our disposal; they've saved many of my shots from going straight to the recycle bin! :)
|
|
|
07/17/2005 10:29:07 PM · #148 |
Good evening folks. Sorry about my silence, but I was away this weekend and wasn't anywhere near a computer (even though I thought I might be). I'm home now, but exhausted. Thanks for your comments on the photos I posted up.. and next I'll do my editing and show my "usual" workflow.
(although I doubt tonight, look for them tomorrow). I usually shoot underexposed, as many of you noticed. I like the control I have on an underexposed shot in editing more than I do a properly exposed (or, as is more *my* case when I try to shoot for proper exposure), over-exposure. heh.. so I keep my EV at -1.0 generally. I shot some more over this weekend using the histogram, so I'll share those too.
|
|
|
07/18/2005 01:15:12 AM · #149 |
Alright, I got around to it tonight after all:

Since I got a good shot this weekend, I went with it. When we start doing more advanced editing, I'll work up the photos of Breeanna as a tutorial of sorts.
On with Assignment #2! :)
|
|
|
07/18/2005 01:40:37 PM · #150 |
Okay...I will post this in a regular thread too, because I'd really like feedback - however, I thought the portrait group might give me your thoughts on this too. This is a rather severe crop from the original shot of her with her grandmother. I really liked the look on her face. Because it's a crop (which means I've lost some detail), I think a softer effect such as this works well on it. What do you think?
The color seems a bit livelier when I have it in PS for some reason.
 |
|