|
|
|
BruceDigna
{K:137} 10/9/2003
|
I agree on the oversharpened effect. The top seems too dark to me as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Becky V
{K:9699} 10/5/2003
|
On the topic of being a PS newbie . . . I consider myself a self-taught perpetual PS newbie. I think the best way to learn PS is practice. If you've got the patience, bring a photo into PS and start running down all your menu options. See what they do. Begin with the "Image" menu as most of your photo tweaking will originate there. The result I posted came simply by using the curve option in that very menu. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Gargani
{K:4527} 10/3/2003
|
Thank you all for you comments, suggestions, and kind words! I know how valuable time is, and I appreciate the time you took to offer me help.
Becky V-that is EXACTLY the look I REALLY wanted! Almost a newsprint look. You did a great job on it. RE: lighting, this was taken at dusk with a big slow zoom and I believe built-in flash, so yea it is definately 'flat' (as far as my limited understanding of 'flat' goes-heheh...) I am a total PS-PSP8 'newbie'. I find I have very little patience to learn more than a few level adjustments. I never have tried to figure out layers and stuff like that. It looks like I may have to get out the dreaded 'manual'.
Matej-the story? She was told it was time to clean up and go inside. We were out in the yard and she was not quite ready to quit. Oh well, that's the look you get from the little people sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
Becky V
{K:9699} 10/2/2003
|
Actually, I quite like the facial expression as it gives the photo some personality. Who hasn't seen their child do this at one time or another?
Personally, I don't think it's *too* anything. The composition is great and the tightly framed "in your face" shot is perfect for the subject. I think this photo suffers because the lighting is flat. I am by no means an expert on lighting, but I think some well placed highlights and fill would bring some depth and added atmosphere to the photo.
As for a comic-book feel, I did some further pushing (I hope you don't mind.) What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
{K:24381} 10/1/2003
|
I don't think there are any technical problems. A black background is quite valid, and there's not a lot of it here anyhow. Yes the t-shirt is the lightest thing in the photo, but 1) it's not blown out or anything, 2) the girl's eyes and expression are so intense that I look at the face, not at the white t-shirt. And as has been said, the skin tones are OK. Finally, as someone who usually shoots high-speed films, I really don't worry about the digital grain here.
So what is wrong with the picture (if we assume that something is indeed wrong)? Well, I think the general public likes cute lovely kiddies. Here, she's wearing a rather nasty grimace, so the cute and lovely effect is reduced. You, as someone for whom she's very important (judging by the number of her photos that you have submitted, I would guess she's your daughter), would still perceive her as very lovable in this photo, but the random viewer may not see it the same way.
To me, the problem with this shot may be that to some degree it fails as a portrait. Technically it is a portrait, but I am not convinced that her facial expression is one that is typical of her character. This may have been her mood for a relatively short period of time, but I don't think it's the "real her" that you've shown here.
Alternatively I would have liked to know what caused her to grimace this way, some sort of a story, but the close-up shot doesn't provide that.
|
|
|
|
Christine Campbell
{K:2693} 9/30/2003
|
I don't see anything wrong. What I can see is the smile lurking behind that glare. Very cute :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 9/30/2003
|
After some experimentation I've convinced myself that the grainy look is from oversharpening (IMHO). Maybe this is not at all what bug you about it...
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Gargani
{K:4527} 9/30/2003
|
Let's try that again...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Gargani
{K:4527} 9/30/2003
|
Hi Kim and Sefan, thanks for taking the time to look this over. I thought it best to attach the original so you could see first hand where the shot came from. I have taken your comments into consideration and when I have more time I'll experiment with it some more. Thanks so much again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 9/30/2003
|
I don't think the whites are blown out, nor do I think there is a meaningful zone-system for digital. The comments about dark framing and the white shirt are interesting to me: I thought it worked because of the close shot, creating natural frames for her face. The white shirt isn't ideal, but not the reason for me to be unhappy with the shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 9/30/2003
|
I think it is a good photo, with the right choice of levels for the grays. The thing that jumps out that is "wrong" is the "grain", or digital version of it as it were. Did you shoot this at a high equivalent iso rating? It is a great face, definitely a good moment to capture it too :-) The little highlight in her forhead - is it a ceiling-bounced flash?
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Culbert
{K:37070} 9/30/2003
|
I like the fact that you got in close, and the detail on her face seems nice, but there is so much darkness surrounding her face that she seems to fall off into the shadows.
As well, the fact that she's wearing what appears to be a white shirt really plays havoc with the tonal range... the whites are blown out, the shadows are super dark, but her face is excellent. I don't know too much about the zone system for B&W but maybe something as easy as a darker t-shirt and a little more light on the back of her head so it rims her head and makes it stand out?
|
|
0 
