# Whatcha think? [not a picture of a kid.. lol]



## Parkerman (May 12, 2008)

She had went to get her senior pictures done.. And was on her way back while i was at a friends house, they stopped by and her mom wanted me to get some pictures.. So.. there's one of them.

These were just kinda random.. Like, I had no intention of taking pictures.. lol.  And they were just to "see what i could do"


----------



## dslrchat (May 12, 2008)

Looks good, 
Did you happen to soften her face and cut some of her eyebrow out?


----------



## K8-90 (May 12, 2008)

It looks like a good shot, but that the PP ent over board!

I don't mean to be harsh... the face looks like plastic, and I feel as if the arm has been digitally scultped (?). I also feel that it is too saturated/vibrant, but that may just be my taste.

However, I think the lighting was good. Could you post your original?


----------



## Parkerman (May 13, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> It looks like a good shot, but that the PP ent over board!
> 
> I don't mean to be harsh... the face looks like plastic, and I feel as if the arm has been digitally scultped (?). I also feel that it is too saturated/vibrant, but that may just be my taste.
> 
> However, I think the lighting was good. Could you post your original?




She had acne on her checks/nose. Had to do that to overcome it. I personally thought it didn't look to bad as far as the PP goes, I've seen worse done when softening a face. I also like a colorful picture. Are you on an LCD monitor? Could be the case there too if you haven't calibrated it.


----------



## kellylindseyphotography (May 13, 2008)

Your PP looks great to me.  Not overboard at all.  I personally feel some of the wedding photographs I see around here are WAYYY overdone, but the brides like that.

This girls will like what you've done.  Good job.


----------



## Shibby! (May 13, 2008)

kellylindseyphotography said:


> Your PP looks great to me. Not overboard at all. I personally feel some of the wedding photographs I see around here are WAYYY overdone, but the brides like that.
> 
> This girls will like what you've done. Good job.


 

I agree.  The plastic skin look.  

This one looks great though.  Might be a bit oversaturated on the skin to make it appear a bit rosey, but still a nice picture.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 13, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> She had acne on her checks/nose. Had to do that to overcome it. I personally thought it didn't look to bad as far as the PP goes, I've seen worse done when softening a face. I also like a colorful picture. Are you on an LCD monitor? Could be the case there too if you haven't calibrated it.


 
PS = Spot heal. New layer. Skin Smoothing to hell and back. Layer transparency reduction to fit.


----------



## Parkerman (May 13, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> PS = Spot heal. New layer. Skin Smoothing to hell and back. Layer transparency reduction to fit.




There was to much just to do a spot heal, or so i felt at the time. So i did a gaussian blur instead with a layer mask instead.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 13, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> There was to much just to do a spot heal, or so i felt at the time. So i did a gaussian blur instead with a layer mask instead.



plastic,
plastic, 
plastic.
look


----------



## Parkerman (May 13, 2008)

The_Traveler said:


> plastic,
> plastic,
> plastic.
> look




How about you contribute something better than that? 


plastic, plastic, plastic.. Helps me none.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 13, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> How about you contribute something better than that?
> plastic, plastic, plastic.. Helps me none.





Parkerman said:


> There was to much just to do a spot heal, or so i felt at the time. So i did a gaussian blur instead with a layer mask instead.




 OK
Because you were too lazy to respect either your 'craft' or your subject, you took what might have been a nice picture of a lovely girl and turned it into a plastic looking, stamped-out, garish, over-saturated piece of crap.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 13, 2008)

How's that?


----------



## Village Idiot (May 13, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> There was to much just to do a spot heal, or so i felt at the time. So i did a gaussian blur instead with a layer mask instead.


 
There's never too much. It just means you have to spend more time on it.

Step away from the picture and look at it from the eyes of a critic and forget that it's your picture. What do you see is wrong with it?


----------



## kellylindseyphotography (May 13, 2008)

The_Traveler said:


> OK
> Because you were too lazy to respect either your 'craft' or your subject, you took what might have been a nice picture of a lovely girl and turned it into a plastic looking, stamped-out, garish, over-saturated piece of crap.




:thumbdown:

I totally disagree.  I have seen that in a few pictures around here.  And I managed to tell the person constructively thats how I felt.

Instead of gaussian blur, do you know how to create an overlay mask?  It works better than the blurring.

I don't think you overdid it anyway, but jeez.


----------



## Renair (May 13, 2008)

I think it looks very well, great job.


----------



## Bman (May 13, 2008)

I think it looks good, great lighting. nice little engraved tree.


----------



## Alex_B (May 13, 2008)

it is probably well done in that way that you achieved what you or she wanted.

But this super flat skin to me looks like .. plastic I am afraid (to follow The Traveler with the wording). If you had done the same effect, but just 60 to 80% of what we see now, it would be much more human and not so android-ish. But I have to admit this is just a comment coming from my personal taste.

She still has to learn how to apply lipstick properly I am afraid ... not that I am any better at it though


----------



## Parkerman (May 13, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> There's never too much. It just means you have to spend more time on it.
> 
> Step away from the picture and look at it from the eyes of a critic and forget that it's your picture. What do you see is wrong with it?





Here, I went back and redid it doing a spot heal.. In all honesty.. I dont see much of a difference.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 13, 2008)

Much better. You lose a lot with the first attempt. Subtle wrinkles and lines in the face are no longer gone. Wrinkles don't always mean old and sometimes they should be there regardless of age. The skin looks much more natural and truthfully, looks much smoother. The first attempt has weird shades blended where they shouldn't be.

You also lose lighting detail with the blur. Shadows are now properly defined instead of looking like smudges like the do in the first picture.


----------



## Parkerman (May 13, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Much better. You lose a lot with the first attempt. Subtle wrinkles and lines in the face are no longer gone. Wrinkles don't always mean old and sometimes they should be there regardless of age. The skin looks much more natural and truthfully, looks much smoother. The first attempt has weird shades blended where they shouldn't be.
> 
> You also lose lighting detail with the blur. Shadows are now properly defined instead of looking like smudges like the do in the first picture.




Yea, shadows are where i can see it the most. But thats just about it.. on a 1:1 i can tell with wrinkles and such, but resized i can't.


----------



## That One Guy (May 13, 2008)

i don't see a difference in the two.

was the subject happy with the results? if so, case closed.


----------



## Parkerman (May 13, 2008)

That One Guy said:


> i don't see a difference in the two.
> 
> was the subject happy with the results? if so, case closed.




Haven't showed her yet.. =P. I will next time I see her or her mom though.


----------



## The Losing Kind (May 13, 2008)

I can see a difference between #1 and #2, and I definitely like the second version better. It looks nice and clean, but no longer shiny and "plastic" (since that's the word we're using). 

But really, it's up to what the client likes. Like others, I am curious to know what she thought of these, because I think a senior would be pretty happy with something like this.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 13, 2008)

drew over rulers to mark the edges of the ellipse and then use the elliptical marquee tool to select the face.

reduced saturation by 15% so the face matched the arms and neck a little better

still a little heavy on the magenta but .....


----------



## Parkerman (May 13, 2008)

To me, that takes life out of her face.


----------



## Senor Hound (May 13, 2008)

Concerning what The Traveler posted, people will like the one on the left more...  I'm just saying.


----------



## kellylindseyphotography (May 13, 2008)

The one on the left is the original.  So your saying you disagree w/traveller?

I disagree.  I think the one on the left looks better too.


----------



## kundalini (May 13, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> Concerning what The Traveler posted, people will like the one on the left more... I'm just saying.


I completely disagree.  The one on the right has matched skin tone of the face with the rest of the exposed skin.  The one on the left looks .... mmm.... the song Sweet Painted Lady comes to mind.

Kelly, you're confusing me.


----------



## K8-90 (May 13, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> She had acne on her checks/nose. Had to do that to overcome it. I personally thought it didn't look to bad as far as the PP goes, I've seen worse done when softening a face. I also like a colorful picture. Are you on an LCD monitor? Could be the case there too if you haven't calibrated it.


 
I am on an LCD, uncalibrated, and it is notorious for making things seem over saturated... Knowing this, in hindsight, I probably shouldn't have said anything... Oops. Sorry?

However, I still feel it's a bit too plasticky, but it is a personal-taste thing. I prefer to see pores, some wrinkles and stuff, rather than the impossibly-perfect skin that (I feel) is obviously photoshopped. Maybe I'm just jealous? 

Maybe it is just how she is - I find the lipstick to be too much, or probably just not my taste.

Didn't mean to cause a spat here...


----------



## kellylindseyphotography (May 13, 2008)

I was sayin I also disagree w/traveller.

I think the original (aka the one on the left) looks better to me.

Or, rather, something in between the one on the left and the one on the right, would look better to me.  If the red was taken down JUST slightly (maybe in lightness and not saturation) I think I would like it alot.

As it is, I think she would like the original too.  Funny, I never see this kind of comentary on pictures like elsaspet.  Her brides, while the color isn't the question, resemble mannequins all the time.  I tryed to link to one of her recent threads specifically but it looks like she took the photos down.


----------



## Hill202 (May 13, 2008)

The_Traveler said:


> OK
> Because you were too lazy to respect either your 'craft' or your subject, you took what might have been a nice picture of a lovely girl and turned it into a plastic looking, stamped-out, garish, over-saturated piece of crap.


 
deleted


----------



## MyaLover (May 13, 2008)

Thank you for clearly marking your photo.  I always mark mine but some people just dont return the favor 

I like the photo, nice background and pose, the lipstick is a tad too much for me though


----------



## Parkerman (May 14, 2008)

MyaLover said:


> Thank you for clearly marking your photo.  I always mark mine but some people just dont return the favor
> 
> I like the photo, nice background and pose, the lipstick is a tad too much for me though




Yea, I had no control over her makeup though.. lol


----------



## Village Idiot (May 14, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> Yea, I had no control over her makeup though.. lol


 
This made me bust out laughing. If I had control of my model's makeup, I'd basically be a clown photographer.


----------



## Sarah23 (May 14, 2008)

I like the second take that you did where you took down the blur a bit. The first one just seems like its too much. BUT...I think travelers looked a bit too gray...so somewhere inbetween is good.

Just remember, its all subjective..and what really matters is if SHE likes it. Just dont make her look too FAKE...I know I hate having a pimple or blemish, but I would also hate looking like a Barbie doll. 

And yeah...her lipstick is a bit much...but nothing you could do about that.


----------



## MyaLover (May 14, 2008)

The more I look at it, the more I like it.  The colors are great, nice and shrap, and they look fun and she looks happy.  I think you did a great job.  Its very natural.


----------



## NJMAN (May 14, 2008)

If I may interject here without hijacking Parkerman's thread, I just want to say that, although it got off to a slightly rocky start, Traveler did take the time and trouble to show what a little bit of selective color balancing can do to enhance a portrait and make the skin tone look a bit more realistic. 

Parkerman, I think you generally did a nice job on the Portrait. You opened it up for critique, and so you got some comments on what others see in their own opinion as to how it could be improved. If its constructive critique, it makes us think and challenges how we look at things artistically. 

Could Traveler have been a little less craggy in his initial remarks?  Maybe so. But I always welcome straightforward honest critique on my work from someone who has been around the block a few times. I learned something from Traveler's post, and that is valuable. 

And whatever happened months ago on this forum has no relevance to anything in this particular thread.  Personal attacks are just bad form.

Again, I apologize Parkerman for hijacking your thread. Overall, a very fine effort, but we all can use some improvement. Thanks for sharing. 




The_Traveler said:


> drew over rulers to mark the edges of the ellipse and then use the elliptical marquee tool to select the face.
> 
> reduced saturation by 15% so the face matched the arms and neck a little better
> 
> still a little heavy on the magenta but .....


 





Hill202 said:


> I seem to remember a few months ago, you making a grand exit from this forum because a mod grew tired of your degrading comments and singled you out for them. If memory serves me correct, you were unable to take what you were dishing out and left with your tail between your legs! Now you're back doing the same thing!... amazing! One would think that you might have learned a lesson from that.


----------



## Parkerman (May 14, 2008)

NJMAN said:


> If I may interject here without hijacking Parkerman's thread, I just want to say that, although it got off to a slightly rocky start, Traveler did take the time and trouble to show what a little bit of selective color balancing can do to enhance a portrait and make the skin tone look a bit more realistic.
> 
> Parkerman, I think you generally did a nice job on the Portrait. You opened it up for critique, and so you got some comments on what others see in their own opinion as to how it could be improved. If its constructive critique, it makes us think and challenges how we look at things artistically.
> 
> ...




Yea, I understand what you are saying. I have generally tough skin, things don't bother me personally. Neither did this, It was just the uselessness of his posts..that bug me..  well, all except the last one.. It made me realize I prefer the color in the face. Like i said, it signifies life. The one that he did with less color personally makes me feel like she is about to pass out.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 15, 2008)

Whatever the calibration - or not - of your monitor, Photoshop (or PSP) can give you a good idea of the color balance of your image and how it compares with some standards. 

This page linked below is quite informative, giving a PS technique to achieve a good skin color balance. Looking at their examples will also give you an idea if your monitor is well-calibrated. 
http://www.smugmug.com/help/skin-tone


----------



## K8-90 (May 15, 2008)

The_Traveler said:


> http://www.smugmug.com/help/skin-tone


 
Great link! Very helpful!


----------



## manaheim (May 15, 2008)

The_Traveler said:


> OK
> Because you were too lazy to respect either your 'craft' or your subject, you took what might have been a nice picture of a lovely girl and turned it into a plastic looking, stamped-out, garish, over-saturated piece of crap.


 
  

That was officially the harshest thing I've ever seen on this forum.

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway...

The things I see in this pic:

- Looks like it was maybe over-sharpened- look at her arm where there is green around it and you can see a halo.
- Looks like the saturation may be turned up a bit too much.
- Possibly too much contrast?

For me, it just looked like you did all the stuff one would usually do in PS, but just went a hair overboard.  No biggie.

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it but there are some nice airbrushing techniques out there... I can't find my favorite atm for some reason, but you can always google it.


----------



## Parkerman (May 16, 2008)

manaheim said:


> That was officially the harshest thing I've ever seen on this forum.
> 
> Aaaaaaaaaaanyway...
> 
> ...




saturation and contrast are fine to me. I'm on a CRT monitor, so it looks like what i want it to as far as that goes, Plus the chick and her family are the bright/flashy kind.. lol. 

Only sharpening done to it would have been the portrait sharpening with lightroom, the preset.. I just clicked it.. hah. Only thing i actually did in photoshop was the skin touch up. 


I really appreciate everyone's *helpful* comments. Whether they're good or bad. I have several other shots of her that i need to get around and process.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 16, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> I'm on a CRT monitor, so it looks like what i want it to as far as that goes, Plus the chick and her family are the bright/flashy kind.. lol.



If everyone else sees it as over-saturated, it may be that your monitor is uncalibrated. Thus, while it looks fine to you, and may even print well on your printer, it may look over-sat to others.

RE: WB - According to the link above, ideal values for cyan are about half of the magenta values (this applies to WB not saturation), the cyan values on the face are 4 while the magenta values are 38; far from what their examples are.

PS reads the image file directly, not the display  so the values it gets are the true ones.


----------

