|
Here is a photo I just retouched, but it just doesn't seem to be working for me. Please help me pinpoint what I need to work on and what is Ok.  Jun 16 10 12:28 pm Link Here are some crops:      Jun 16 10 12:31 pm Link Just my opinion here but she looks a bit too sharp and/or over processed. Digital compared to analog: Digital gives a LOT more detail and it's not necessarily complimentary to pull it all out. Jun 16 10 12:31 pm Link KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote: Replaced it with one that was not so heavy on output sharpening. Jun 16 10 12:57 pm Link EDIT: Anything can be second guessed and picked apart.. So is something in particular bothering you about this shot? Jun 16 10 01:13 pm Link Too much sharpening for sure. The skin looks unnatural, as if it was 'borrowed' from other skin parts. Do you mind if we see the original? Jun 16 10 01:15 pm Link Have you boosted the vibrancy slider? She has some strange blue coloration on her hair and some on the clothing. Too strong vibrancy would do that. I would like to see the original too. Jun 16 10 01:24 pm Link The shadows are too dark Cheeks and Neck are too light +1 on seeing the original x Jun 16 10 01:30 pm Link Indigo Dream Images wrote: Here's a comparison of original to retouch: Jun 16 10 01:37 pm Link Dumb question, but is that the actual image taken from the camera before messing with RAW sliders? I gotta tell ya, the retouch actually looks better IMO, but if it were me, I would smooth that skin out. What is baffling me is that if it is the actual image (before any processing at all), there are aspects of the original image that, well, dont look to good. Im definitely not saying this to be mean, but I see a noticeable difference in the lips especially, from original to retouch. *Edit: What I mean about the lips is that they look seriously grainy (as does the background), but the light in the image suggests to me that you werent using a high enough ISO that would give off the grain...am I right? Jun 16 10 01:44 pm Link Krunoslav-Stifter wrote: I think she had some blue stuff in her hair, though my original raw conversion did not help with the shadow transitions at all. There were no big moves of vibrancy or saturation, maybe -15 vibrancy and +5 saturation. Later in processing, I only reduced saturation. Jun 16 10 01:51 pm Link This is weird. I'm not sure what to say since the shot you have as the original image looks blocked up in areas. The transition between the values seems harsh and blotchy My original feeling was she was over-lit. It looks like you used a gold reflector for fill. Then corrected that in post. The post does look better but there's a harshness to this shot that I can't put my finger on. I'm assuming you shot in RAW. It may be your original settings are a bit over done. EDIT: I read a couple more posts. What was your ISO? I'm also wondering about what RAW file you used. Canon, Nikon, Sony..etc.. Sometimes especially with older and cheaper cameras even tho they have plenty of MP they don't do a very good job in the camera of processing a good file. Jun 16 10 01:54 pm Link descending chain wrote: I see it now. After seeing the original. I had some issues with the vibrancy slider pushed to the maximum. It starts too pick up colors that are barely visible and exaggerates them. But that is expected, because that is how the tool works. Jun 16 10 01:57 pm Link Indigo Dream Images wrote: This appears to be an artifact of putting the animated gif onto Photobucket. The ISO was 400. I've included the original without trying to get fancy. Jun 16 10 02:19 pm Link It may be the flare from the back light. Your processed image looks sharp enough. However, this does not look that sharp. If you're trying to save it by filters it's part of the problem.. EDIT: What camera model did you shoot this with? Jun 16 10 02:59 pm Link I think the overall shot is a little uncomfortable looking, even without the retouching, because of the angle seems a little pushed back looking, as if her head looks a lot smaller than her body, I think i would personally play about with rotating a bit and a different crop Jun 16 10 03:00 pm Link KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote: The camera was a Nikon D3X, shot at ISO 400, with a 200-400 f4 at 330 mm. The raw above may not look sharp because there is very, very little sharpening applied, and no contrast adjustments. Jun 16 10 04:08 pm Link Okay, this second image (below the transitioning one) wasnt there before. Is that the original? descending chain wrote: Jun 16 10 05:31 pm Link You could take some yellow out of the white tones. Jun 18 10 01:59 pm Link some bits seem very smooth, while other bits, like the left of the chin, seem overlooked while the shadows need tone changing, they seem green lol and the highlights/shadows are a bit intense overall. I think just soften it up, coz it seems like a natural type of image, also +1 for wanting to see original to compare Jun 20 10 05:07 am Link |
