# bathtime smile ADJUSTED WB



## allison_dcp (Jul 8, 2012)

Heres the orignal


Heres the one I just changed.
 C&C?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 8, 2012)

allison_dcp said:


> Heres the orignal
> 
> Heres the one I just changed.
> C&C?



WB change???? In B&W... a white balance change will shift things a little, but not like that. Looks to me like you went way to heavy on the contrast slider! The original is the better image, except there is only one eye in focus (his right eye), everything else looks soft... did you do that in PP?


----------



## allison_dcp (Jul 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> allison_dcp said:
> 
> 
> > Heres the orignal
> ...



yea I did soften it. After looking at it again I agree with you. Still love the picture though but I do have my mommy goggles on.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 8, 2012)

allison_dcp said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > allison_dcp said:
> ...



hahaha... yes! Mommy Goggles, definitely! Fake blur and over-softening do not good images make!


----------



## amolitor (Jul 8, 2012)

Charlie's being unkind, but he's basically right. The original of this image is nearly as good as it's going to get. I'm not sure what you actually did to get the second image, it looks like upping the contrast and blurring some things. I would avoid the blurring entirely, and do about maybe half that much contrast adjustment.

We have a tendency, when making these adjustments, to do something (move a slider, make a change) a bit and say 'oo, I like that' and then move the slider over a lot more, and like it more. A small amount of change actually may be improving the image, but as some point we fall in love with the effect, and overapply it. You need to step back and take the whole image in again, give it a few minutes to sink in, and ask yourself if you've really made it BETTER or if you're just loving the visual POP of the effect.

This is a sweet photo of a little kid, I'm not feeling that it needs visual POP!

The only real flaw in the original is the extremely shallow DoF, one of the eyes is razor sharp and the other is not. There's no fixing that, so you're going to have to live with a slightly flawed image. That's ok. Punch it up slightly, sure.  A little more contrast rarely hurts. Don't overdo it, let the image be itself.


----------



## allison_dcp (Jul 8, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Charlie's being unkind, but he's basically right. The original of this image is nearly as good as it's going to get. I'm not sure what you actually did to get the second image, it looks like upping the contrast and blurring some things. I would avoid the blurring entirely, and do about maybe half that much contrast adjustment.
> 
> We have a tendency, when making these adjustments, to do something (move a slider, make a change) a bit and say 'oo, I like that' and then move the slider over a lot more, and like it more. A small amount of change actually may be improving the image, but as some point we fall in love with the effect, and overapply it. You need to step back and take the whole image in again, give it a few minutes to sink in, and ask yourself if you've really made it BETTER or if you're just loving the visual POP of the effect.
> 
> ...


Thank you, very constructive I've been using 1.8 aperature on most everything, I think I'll try 2.8 from now.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 8, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Charlie's being unkind, but he's basically right.



Hmmmmm!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie's being unkind, but he's basically right.
> ...



My thoughts exactly.

If THAT was unkind... never let me critique anyone's images ever again...


----------



## amolitor (Jul 8, 2012)

You needn't be unkind to critique honestly, just don't be flippant or mean spirited. I should know, I'm flippant and mean-spirited at times, but it's usually on purpose. I'm not just critiquing an image, I'm being mean to the photographer for some reason.

Find the good, and there's always something good, and point it out.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

amolitor said:


> You needn't be unkind to critique honestly, just don't be flippant or mean spirited. I should know, I'm flippant and mean-spirited at times, but it's usually on purpose. I'm not just critiquing an image, I'm being mean to the photographer for some reason.
> 
> Find the good, and there's always something good, and point it out.



You really need to grow a thicker skin if you think what he said was "mean-spirited"

He stated facts.



cgipson1 said:


> WB change???? In B&W... a white balance change will shift things a little, but not like that. Looks to me like you went way to heavy on the contrast slider!



He simply explained that rather than a WB change it looked more like a heavy contrast change.

Nothing mean there...



cgipson1 said:


> The original is the better image, except there is only one eye in focus (his right eye), everything else looks soft... did you do that in PP?



A statement: "Your original image was better"; with a critique: "There is only one eye in focus, everything else looks soft"; followed by a question in order to gain clarification as to the source of his critique:  "Did you do that in PP?"

I see nothing mean there either...

Then the OP answered:



allison_dcp said:


> yea I did soften it.



And then not only answered but responded POSITIVELY to Charlie's critique:  





allison_dcp said:


> *After looking at it again I agree with you.* Still love the picture though but I do have my mommy goggles on.



To which Charlie responded using the OP'S OWN WORDS:



cgipson1 said:


> hahaha... yes! *Mommy Goggles*, definitely!





allison_dcp said:


> but I do have my *mommy goggles* on.



And then he finished off with a matter of fact type statement... (which is TRUE, by the way...) which was stated in a light-hearted manner and even ended with the ever popular "winky emoticon" to insinuate a friendliness towards the OP:



cgipson1 said:


> Fake blur and over-softening do not good images make!



.
.
.
.
So I'm sorry... WHERE again was his mean-spiritedness????


----------



## amolitor (Jul 9, 2012)

He wasn't mean spirited, he was flippant.


----------



## Starskream666 (Jul 9, 2012)

Softened it way too much...


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 9, 2012)

*flippant
flip*pant*
[*flip-*uhnt]

1. frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness; characterized by levity.


No, I don't believe Charlie was at all flippant; not by the definition of the word, at least.



ETA: Op, as I previously suggested, I think you need to reshoot this. There will be plenty of opportunities!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 9, 2012)

e.rose said:


> So I'm sorry... WHERE again was his mean-spiritedness????


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 9, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> No, I don't believe Charlie was at all flippant; not by the definition of the word, at least.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 9, 2012)

He stuck a winky smiley face on the end of his remark, and you don't think his remark was "characterized by levity"? Really?

Also, I think Charlie might be an adult and fully capable of defending his own remarks. Just sayin'


----------



## amolitor (Jul 9, 2012)

Also, why are we wandering off into the weeds of squabbling over whether Charlie's flippant or not? Arg. I'm out.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 9, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Also, why are we wandering off into the weeds of squabbling over whether Charlie's flippant or not? Arg. I'm out.



You're from NoVA, I'll bet.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 9, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Also, why are we wandering off into the weeds of squabbling over whether Charlie's flippant or not? Arg. I'm out.



Because you felt the need to critique someone's perfectly valid critique and accuse him of behaving in a way which he wasn't.

And that sh*t annoys the HELL out of me. :er:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 9, 2012)

amolitor said:


> He stuck a winky smiley face on the end of his remark, and you don't think his remark was "characterized by levity"? Really?
> 
> Also, I think Charlie might be an adult and fully capable of defending his own remarks. Just sayin'



Usually when people who don't know me, choose to judge me on a comment I have made, I just ignore it... since they don't know me!   I am amazed and happy to have such lovely friends (Emily Rose and Jess) defending me this way!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 9, 2012)

Ladies, while I really do appreciate the fact that you are defending me, and trying to educate someone.... it really is not necessary. (and it has sort of hijacked the the OP's thread... although I am sure she is amused by the whole thing!)  

Lets just mellow... and get back to the party!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 9, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Ladies, while I really do appreciate the fact that you are defending me, and trying to educate someone.... it really is not necessary. (and it has sort of hijacked the the OP's thread... although I am sure she is amused by the whole thing!)
> 
> Lets just mellow... and get back to the party!



For the record... It was completely coincidental that it was to your defense that I came.  If it were anyone else I would have done the same


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 9, 2012)

e.rose said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am well aware of that! It is just that you did... even for me! Makes me feel less loathsome and atrocious!  

(seems like pretty ladies always have a disclaimer where I'm concerned!  lol)


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 9, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I am well aware of that! It is just that you did... even for me! Makes me feel less loathsome and atrocious!



Don't feel that way.
In your absence we took a vote and it was unanimous that you are as loathsome and atrocious as ever.*

*Keep up the good work. * 

**flippant remarks by wereflippantallday.com (offices in NY, Tokyo and Abilene)*


----------



## allison_dcp (Jul 9, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Ladies, while I really do appreciate the fact that you are defending me, and trying to educate someone.... it really is not necessary. (and it has sort of hijacked the the OP's thread... *although I am sure she is amused by the whole thing!)
> 
> *Lets just mellow... and get back to the party!


yup


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 9, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I am well aware of that! It is just that you did... even for me! Makes me feel less loathsome and atrocious!
> ...




Thankee Lew!  Just to keep my reputation intact:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 9, 2012)

allison_dcp said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ladies, while I really do appreciate the fact that you are defending me, and trying to educate someone.... it really is not necessary. (and it has sort of hijacked the the OP's thread... *although I am sure she is amused by the whole thing!)
> ...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 9, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Charlie, that's a side of you I've never seen before!

Thankfully.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 9, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Yea.. I wuz beein Flippant!  <Giggle>!


----------

