Trancedelic Retouching wrote:
I REALLY don't like the removal of the shine in her eyes.  It just looks way creepy and unnatural.  Almost like she's possessed....but maybe that works in this case?  It looks like the plants are taking over her soul!   Haha....but if that's not what you're going for.....then I'd bring back the shine.

I also think the way her hair is intermingled with the background is very sloppy and muddy.  I would go back and take the time to carefully select the hair and decide which strands to keep and not keep to make it look more seamless.

+1
The lips look a little unreal too
But the idea its great![=
Nice work!

Trancedelic Retouching wrote:
I REALLY don't like the removal of the shine in her eyes.  It just looks way creepy and unnatural.  Almost like she's possessed....but maybe that works in this case?  It looks like the plants are taking over her soul!   Haha....but if that's not what you're going for.....then I'd bring back the shine.

I took the shine out of her eyes because of the light source. Its coming from back behind her head. Ergo, there shouldn't be a reflection in her eyes (i.e. no flash and no external pinpoint light in front of her). Honestly I was going for a more natural look BUT I think I screwed up in that her eyes are too clear and too green. The other theme going on in the back of my mind was that of a mystical forest nymph(the green power of the forest) which led me to do the eyes like that.

Trancedelic Retouching wrote:
I also think the way her hair is intermingled with the background is very sloppy and muddy.  I would go back and take the time to carefully select the hair and decide which strands to keep and not keep to make it look more seamless.

Again the mystical forest nymph issue. Here is a small version of the original background I dropped in

I wanted it to be smoky/foggy but not nearly as much as the original. The reflective light needed to intermingle with her to reflect the environment.

Chaviit0 wrote:
The lips look a little unreal too
But the idea its great![=
Nice work!

Thanks. I agree totally here. I went too far particularly with the diffuse light source. I did bring the teeth up in brightness(curves) but any further and it started to look strange and distracting from her beautiful lips.

SirbuT wrote:
cast some shadows from the plants on her chest

Actually I REALLY wanted to do this but they just didn't jibe with the light source. What you can see if you look closely is very soft and minimal "reflective light" dark green "shadows" on her chest. It almost looks like color mottling on her skin. I purposely didn't do mottling on her face since I wanted it slightly brighter and clearer since this is obviously the focal point for the piece.

Thank you to all for this feedback. I truly enjoy all of you guys work and have looked through all of your ports in the past. SirbuT I really thought your Grant Thomas Hair retouch was great. I personally thought it was better than Nienna's.

SterlingFX wrote:
I took the shine out of her eyes because of the light source

Forget the light source, just ith a backlight you couldn't have gotten that image in the first place, there had to be other light sources besides the back natural light.

SterlingFX wrote:
I personally thought

This is not a competition. Bringing her into this is pointless, serves no purpose and it's very rude.

x

Trancedelic Retouching wrote:
In regards to the eyes.  I'm sorry, but eyes almost always pick up ambient light from somewhere regardless of the light source.  Unless they're squinting or their eyes are deep in shaddow, there's always some kind of highlight even if it's really subtle.  If you wanted to change it because of the lighting, then draw in your own highlights.

See, her eyes are kind of in shaddow, yet they still have highlights.  Maybe you could replicate a similar subtle effect for your image? 

That's a great example!!! After I pondered things for awhile, I have to agree with you. There's always some reflection in the eye. After all, what if a stream was in front of her? It would definitely reflect.

I'll do it! Got some real work to get out of the way first though.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

SterlingFX wrote:
I took the shine out of her eyes because of the light source

Forget the light source, just ith a backlight you couldn't have gotten that image in the first place, there had to be other light sources besides the back natural light.


This is not a competition. Bringing her into this is pointless, serves no purpose and it's very rude.

x

Sorry, I was actually trying to be nice to SirbuT out of respect for his work. That was my point and my purpose. I apologize for my inadvertent rudeness.

SterlingFX wrote:
Actually I REALLY wanted to do this but they just didn't jibe with the light source.

They don't. Matter like leaves and stuff, fake or real, will always cast shadows, and I don't see any here.

SterlingFX wrote:
What you can see if you look closely is very soft and minimal "reflective light" dark green "shadows" on her chest. It almost looks like color mottling on her skin.

Thats where the falseness shows in. Try looking at images of trees and see how the shadows of their twigs/leaves look.

I will tell you what I see: Backlit from left when I see the background, and when I see the model: Light coming from top center and diffused very unpleasantly.

Whenever you bring in a new backdrop, see how light will play in it. This looks a cut paste.

SterlingFX wrote:
I purposely didn't do mottling on her face since I wanted it slightly brighter and clearer since this is obviously the focal point for the piece.

By what you created, I can't seem to understand the focal point. Besides the dead eyes, and distracting tonal variations, the image looks flat to me, totally. Infact, the transitions are too strong if you would look at it. The image looks fake.

SterlingFX wrote:
I personally thought it was ... [whatever]

You are on a public forum, know that? What are messages for? Thats a clear illustration of your kiddish and untrained behaviour, only if you knew....

Ashish Arora wrote:
Besides the dead eyes, and distracting tonal variations, the image looks flat to me, totally. Infact, the transitions are too strong if you would look at it. The image looks fake.


You are on a public forum, know that? What are messages for? Thats a clear illustration of your kiddish and untrained behaviour, only if you knew....

Thanks for the critique. I will be revisiting the image hopefully in the next week.

As far as my kiddish and untrained behavior, it was obvious to me by the strength of her reaction that there was some underlying issues here which is why I apologized regardless of my true feelings. This is actually a nice example of mature behavior. I never attacked anyone but stated I preferred his piece to hers.

I have about 23 years of experience in participating in electronic exchanges going back to pre-internet BBSs. I wrote a piece for a company (I was a sysadmin) just over 20 years ago on email etiquette as we realized how easy it is for their to be flareups or miscommunications when intonations and body language were missing.  The comparison in question was posted in a public forum. A response therefore in kind was appropriate. The situation reminds me of complimenting a woman saying that she looks beautiful today and her response is you mean I look ugly on other days. Its obvious that Nienna does some great work too and is extremely talented.

Once I had apologized, however, it was inappropriate to continue the topic.

Ashish Arora wrote:
Thats a clear illustration of your kiddish and untrained behaviour, only if you knew....

Quite ironic that you assume this because of my age, experience and training. Personally, I've learned not to make unfounded assumptions and use inflammatory language about people, have you?

SterlingFX wrote:
Once I had apologized, however, it was inappropriate to continue the topic.

+1

SterlingFX wrote:
If you zoom in on the eyes - way in, you can see a light reflection of me (particularly in his left eye, the sidewalk (fuzzy white line) in the background and a sunlit green bush(particularly in his right eye). No shadow or reflection at all from the "ivy"

Link is 1166x1673 1.7mb
http://www.sterlingsteves.com/DSCF0013.jpg

If you don't get naturally occurring catch lights you create one with a special light on location dim enough not to affect the scene but bright enough to reflect in the eyes.

If you don't have such a light on location or on set you should add the catch lights in post.

You generally don't want to remove them unless you can replace them with better ones.

Some photographers always wear a white shirt so that at least that will show up.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
If you don't get naturally occurring catch lights you create one with a special light on location dim enough not to affect the scene but bright enough to reflect in the eyes.

If you don't have such a light on location or on set you should add the catch lights in post.

You generally don't want to remove them unless you can replace them with better ones.

Some photographers always wear a white shirt so that at least that will show up.

Thanks for the critique and commentary! I had no idea people went so far to get a catchlight. I do plan on adding something in fact I have quite a list of things in my mind. I have to clear up some time to do it all since I'm going back to an earlier version. I had reduced the size of the file prior to posting and then started making substantial changes to that one. I'm now behind on my internal schedule for a for pay project.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Multiple catch lights are sometimes used to create a crazed look.

Funny!!! That's probably what I look like now after sitting here and staring at the screen all day... I probably have a couple of more hours till I can't focus any more. Old age sucks and I'm only 48!

SterlingFX wrote:
Out of professional curiosity, I decided to do a recreation of the scene. I roused my befuddled neighbor and had him pose in a somewhat similar setting. Unfortunately, there wasn't a mystical forest nearby and had to use a newly dubbed "mystical" area on the sidewalk near my apartment. Did not retouch or resize at all - just cropped.
If you zoom in on the eyes - way in, you can see a light reflection of me (particularly in his left eye, the sidewalk (fuzzy white line) in the background and a sunlit green bush(particularly in his right eye). No shadow or reflection at all from the "ivy"

Link is 1166x1673 1.7mb
http://www.sterlingsteves.com/DSCF0013.jpg

Kudos for going as far as to take your own reference shot. I think I see where the problem with the ivy shadow lies. In your retouch, the curves of the plant seem to follow the curves of her body. This is why it seems like there should be shadows - there's nothing to tell the viewer that the ivy is farther away from her. In fact, the same goes for your experimental photo - if it weren't for the fact that the side of the plant to the right of the photo isn't following the curve of your body and getting smaller with your right (camera right) shoulder, it would look fake as well. Remember that we can't see depth with photography, so it's our job to make sure there are obvious visual cues to make it clear to the viewer what object is on what plane of depth.

One thing to keep in mind when creating a composite with multiple levels of depth is atmospheric perspective - things closer to the camera have higher contrast, while things farther away have lower contrast. This is exaggerated when fog is present. IMO, the flowers look a little strange because they are higher contrast than the model. Seems like they are in front of her and behind her at the same time. If you reduce the contrast of the flowers, it may become more obvious that the ivy isn't on the same plane of depth as well.

The amount on lens blur on the ivy is reinforcing the fact that it's touching the model (especially since the background is so blurry signifying a wide aperture). The ivy (and the flowers) should be blurred to let the viewer know they are on different planes then the model.

Finally, the size of the ivy is telling us that it's touching the model. If you want it to appear closer, correct the scale by making it larger.

Once you make these changes, I doubt it will look like the ivy is missing a shadow anymore.

MP Retouch wrote:
Kudos for going as far as to take your own reference shot.

Thanks for all the info... I will be going though it several times to let it all soak in.

Frankly, I found the reference shot very enlightening (sorry, not punny). You sit there and speculate about what should be where to contribute to realism. It really is hard for me to figure out exactly how the light will fall and what might help without actually seeing it. One thing on the to do list is create highlight spots on her shoulder like the light fell on my neighbors shoulder. Maybe in her hair too which might ease/conceal the transition issue there.

You should have seen my sleepy neighbors puzzled face as I was trying to explain the reference shot.