# Does this portrait/landscape photo look real?



## julianliu (Oct 21, 2016)

From editing point, what do you think can be improved? Does it look real? Do you like this kind of portrait? It's kind of my first try of this type of portrait and I like it and want to incorporate scenery background into my portraits more.


----------



## Granddad (Oct 22, 2016)

Love the background work. Yes, it looks real. However, with the angle (shot from above) and the focal length (14mm) you have too much distortion of your body. You look a bit like a Hobbit with a big head and body and short little legs. I'm not sure how to overcome this problem as you need the wide angle for the background... Thinking off the top of my head... A lower angle would help but then you'd lose half the background. Maybe a composite would be needed where the subject is shot at a more suitable focal length? 

If you could crack that problem I think you'd have a good thing going.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 22, 2016)

The shadow is wrong.


----------



## julianliu (Oct 22, 2016)

Granddad said:


> Love the background work. Yes, it looks real. However, with the angle (shot from above) and the focal length (14mm) you have too much distortion of your body. You look a bit like a Hobbit with a big head and body and short little legs. I'm not sure how to overcome this problem as you need the wide angle for the background... Thinking off the top of my head... A lower angle would help but then you'd lose half the background. Maybe a composite would be needed where the subject is shot at a more suitable focal length?
> 
> If you could crack that problem I think you'd have a good thing going.



You are right! I did not notice this distortion problem. I kind of felt the legs may be a little too short , but head too big, did not felt that much. Anyway, I realize this probably is true because of the wide angle lens, 14mm! I really appreciate your comments, good and to the point


----------



## julianliu (Oct 22, 2016)

Here is the image straight out of camera. I asked whether this looks real because I did get some doubts from people that the background look like photoshopped.


----------



## Granddad (Oct 22, 2016)

Ha HAA!! I was right for once! It IS real, not a composit.


----------



## Granddad (Oct 22, 2016)

I played with it in LR and used the distortion compensation (vertical slider) to create a new image, then cut out the stretched you and superimposed it on the original. I've no idea if that's how you really look and it's far too small an image as I was in a hurry and forgot to change settings when I exported but you get the idea.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 22, 2016)

You made the sky different and moved the light location so the shadows are wrong now. You need the put the sky back how it was or redo the shadows so the subject is lit from the new light source behind him.
The lighting of the clouds and the subject don't agree. Until this is fixed, it doesn't work.


----------



## julianliu (Oct 22, 2016)

Granddad said:


> I played with it in LR and used the distortion compensation (vertical slider) to create a new image, then cut out the stretched you and superimposed it on the original. I've no idea if that's how you really look and it's far too small an image as I was in a hurry and forgot to change settings when I exported but you get the idea.



Thanks! That's another great idea! I will do that in PS. Learned a lot by posting this image


----------



## julianliu (Oct 22, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> You made the sky different and moved the light location so the shadows are wrong now. You need the put the sky back how it was or redo the shadows so the subject is lit from the new light source behind him.
> The lighting of the clouds and the subject don't agree. Until this is fixed, it doesn't work.



Hey, I am not sure whether you made this comment before seeing the raw image I posted...


----------



## tirediron (Oct 22, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> You made the sky different and moved the light location so the shadows are wrong now. You need the put the sky back how it was or redo the shadows so the subject is lit from the new light source behind him.
> The lighting of the clouds and the subject don't agree. Until this is fixed, it doesn't work.


This.  The way you've increased exposure on yourself and altered the sky makes the shadows read wrong.  It's not something that most non-photographers will notice, but to me it stands out.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 22, 2016)

tirediron said:


> ...It's not something that most non-photographers will notice, but to me it stands out.



This.  

That being said, I really like it.


----------



## kdthomas (Oct 22, 2016)

I for one like it just as posted. The reason is that it's INTERESTING ... to me anyway. The distortion makes you look quirky and original. 

The post processing makes the colors really pop. Compositionally, the lines in the clouds pull my eye into the face.

The only thing I would say is that if you want to do the distortion thing try a couple where you really hammer the distortion ... get nuts ... get that lens way wide to get DOF and stick your head right up close to the lens.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 22, 2016)

julianliu said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > You made the sky different and moved the light location so the shadows are wrong now. You need the put the sky back how it was or redo the shadows so the subject is lit from the new light source behind him.
> ...


It wouldn't matter what the raw photo is, the clouds are illuminated on the back side, and the subject is illuminated from the front side. Makes it look very fake. Since the sky and subject are in conflict, people will notice something odd looking even if they cannot articulate what it is that bothers them.
If you are using artificial light to add to natural light, the two sources need to agree as far as shadows cast. You can use a fill light, but make sure it is not angled so it hits the ground if the ground is to be in the shot.


----------



## julianliu (Oct 22, 2016)

Thanks for all the comments, letting me realize what's the problem. 
That being said, it does not keep me from liking this photo a little bit less.


----------



## Granddad (Oct 23, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> It wouldn't matter what the raw photo is, the clouds are illuminated on the back side, and the subject is illuminated from the front side. Makes it look very fake. Since the sky and subject are in conflict, people will notice something odd looking even if they cannot articulate what it is that bothers them.
> If you are using artificial light to add to natural light, the two sources need to agree as far as shadows cast. You can use a fill light, but make sure it is not angled so it hits the ground if the ground is to be in the shot.



Thanks for the clearest explanation of the issues here. 

Julian, it seems you've got the concept, now you need to work on the details.


----------



## julianliu (Oct 23, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> It doesn't keep me from liking it a little bit less either. JK



I do appreciate people comments, that's how I feel I can improve.  However, For some reason I do not like your tone of sarcastic and critique. So thanks but please do not comment on my photos anymore.


----------



## Granddad (Oct 23, 2016)

julianliu said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't keep me from liking it a little bit less either. JK
> ...



I suspect you may be being a little over sensitive. This is a forum, in text only communication it's far too easy to read in & take offense that isn't intended; I know this from my own (humiliating) experience. If a comment isn't blatantly rude, don't take it as such. Also there were the letters JK at the end, that means "Just Kidding." At my age I think I'm qualified to say - take a deep breath and chill!


----------



## Destin (Oct 23, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> julianliu said:
> 
> 
> > Advanced Photo said:
> ...



See, this isn't a problem to me. It simply appears (especially to the untrained eye) like that shadow could be from fill flash. Which would also fit with the cooler color temp of the subject vs the background. And because the shadows on his face match the shadow behind I'd leave it as is. 

It would look far worse if the shadows on his face didn't match the shadow on the ground.


----------



## julianliu (Oct 23, 2016)

Granddad said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > It wouldn't matter what the raw photo is, the clouds are illuminated on the back side, and the subject is illuminated from the front side. Makes it look very fake. Since the sky and subject are in conflict, people will notice something odd looking even if they cannot articulate what it is that bothers them.
> ...



I do feel I may be a little over sensitive as well. I apologize. Though I do feel the sarcasm from "JK". I will just let it go next time. I do realize here, some people like you say things in a nice way even though it's a critique and some people say things, well, not so nice. I do like this forum and want to make some friends here and learn from everybody so I will work to have the right mindset. Thanks for reminding me that. 

Julian


----------



## Braineack (Oct 23, 2016)

Just tone down the foreground exposure, you've brighten it and you up a little too much.


----------



## julianliu (Oct 23, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Just tone down the foreground exposure, you've brighten it and you up a little too much.



That sounds like feasible solution. Thanks!


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 23, 2016)

If you don't like someone's tone of criticism you can use the "ignore" function. You won't see their posts anymore.   Easy peasy.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Oct 23, 2016)

I have seen shots similar to this that may have fixed the wide angle problem by having the subject sit  and/or shoot lower and straight( er) on to subject so there is less distortion while maintaining as wide angle possible for background effect.

As far as JK, wait till I answer a subjective/ controversial post before my coffee; I'll be ignored in no time haha!

Everyone takes things out of context on forums, Ive seen advanced new guy there 'arguing' with a few people already and it can easily spread like a virus. Nothing drastic yet but Im here for the fireworks and have popcorn handy.


----------



## julianliu (Oct 30, 2016)

SquarePeg said:


> If you don't like someone's tone of criticism you can use the "ignore" function. You won't see their posts anymore.   Easy peasy.



Thanks for sharing such useful information


----------



## Trever1t (Oct 30, 2016)

I like it. I'll tell you there are a lot of armchair pro's and there are pro's with personal tastes that differ. Yeah, I can tell a fill light was used, that may bother some, it's not a natural look. That said it's a fun image, you look good and that background, wow.


----------



## JohnnyWrench (Oct 31, 2016)

I don't agree with the others who say the shadow is wrong. It's obviously a flash causing that shadow and just because it doesn't match the shadows from the natural light in the scene doesn't mean it's "wrong." Cool shot.


----------

