Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 26, 2009, 5:09 PM   #11
Member
 
siddhartho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 54
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
bahadir wrote:
Quote:
Btw, you might alsolike to clone out the flash inthe subject'seyes..
I will respectfully disagree here.
I kind of feel having a bit of flash on the eyes (not red eye) makes it shiny & creates eye contact with viewer. But yes the focus was messed up!


siddhartho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2009, 5:12 PM   #12
Member
 
siddhartho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 54
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
In the second exposure, the midtones appear underexposed and the white balance looks off - not natural skin tones at all. The exif indicates you set a manual white balance. How did you arrive at the value to use? It has a very greenish tint to it.

Hi John,

I am using Nikon D-60 and have different settings of While Balance. And each of them can be customised. I am yet to gain full control on it. If you would like to share some knowledge on this, it's welcome.
siddhartho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2009, 5:15 PM   #13
Member
 
siddhartho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 54
Default

jollyr wrote:
Quote:
hi i hope u like what i have done
Thanks very much Jolly for your time.With increased sharpness some of the areas look grainy.

I have noticed if the shotis not set properlynot much improvement can be done by digital editing.
siddhartho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2009, 12:20 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

I think just a little under exposed. just levels with the boy. With the little girl the color cast needed correction to make the white really white and I removed the dark shadows from under her eyes, probably caused by lighting issues





aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2009, 3:13 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
bahadir wrote:
Quote:
Btw, you might alsolike to clone out the flash inthe subject'seyes..
I will respectfully disagree here. Catch light is one of th benefits of flash. But, much in photography is personal taste - so try cloning it and see which version you prefer. I do agree the focus is on the hands when it should be on the eyes.
Well put indeed dear mate, but all in good time, imo: ) As a matter of fact Ioften preserve the flash light in the eyes deliberately.However it is thelighting, contrast ant setting which, I think,should bethe determiner rather thanthe 'matter of taste'. For example tweak the exposure as Julie did above and everything changes, making the sparlesindispensably enhancing!! Below are two well know examples ('The head of a child' by Rubens and 'Pieter van den Broecke' by Frans Hals) regarding the sparkles.

In factmy quoted remark above was the last sentence ofthe paragraph.I should sayI'm happy to seethe rest was also considered




Attached Images
 
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2009, 7:00 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

I cant imagine a portrait without some sort of catch light in the eyes. I know that in some cases it works but I usually position a model if possible so I do get the lights in their eyes. for instance, this shot is without flash but reflection from a window gave the effect in the eyes. The catch lights improve a shot in my opinion
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2009, 9:42 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 102
Default

I must agree here that a portrait without some catch light in the subjects eyes is somewhat.............:?....undesireable....imho.

Steve
SternSteve121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2009, 2:21 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default



Ah, more than agreeing, I wish there's none left withoutit: )-Should you have a look in my 'Little Boy and Media' series in member's and familyphotos, you'll see all images havethe catchlighthoughonly oneof the bunchwas shot with flash- ...providing of course the proper exposure, contrastand tone is attainedthere, or else the subject may risk ending up with 'flashing eyes' rather than withthe catchlightthat enlivens.You can also remember some images with unmatching photoshopped sparkles just because one'knows' that it is good to have it. On the other hand there areliterally 'very few' portraits without it in which the beholder seeks to find any, which means the intent was accomplished, butit would be redundancy to bring thisto discussion since we're dealing with the 'abc' yet.In fact even theportrait above painted by Frans Hals (difficult to observe due to small size)I attached as example have it butperformed very subtly.




bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:17 AM.