Need a Quick, Specific Critique

<p>The image is driving me bananas. I love it, so I'm not looking for "like it/don't like it" kinds of critique. I'd like to know the following:<br>

1. Does it immediately strike you as flat?<br>

2. Do the darker chairs in the background detract from the image?</p>

<p>I've been futzing with it for nearly an hour and my eyes are about to pop out of my head.</p>

<p>I've recovered as much highlight area I possible before it goes flat(ter).</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>OK, I'm going to answer my own questions...</p>

<p>Yes, I think it's flat, but not necessarily in a bad way.</p>

<p>Darker chairs in b/g offer some separation between b/g and subject.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, and yes, particularly what looks to be the beginning of a 'halo' around her head. However, the face (especially mouth corners) strikes me as too contrasty in comparison to the rest of the image, so if you up the contrast even more, I think this area is going to look unnatural.</p>

<p>Back to the drawing board...</p>

<p>Quick response.... yes, it's flat. The image lacks dimensionality and lacks light direction. I don't really enjoy it as you've presented it, as to my eyes it looks a little plastic. The eyes are over-sharpened relative to the rest of the image; they have a high level of contrast in an image where relative contrast is very low. That immediately looks wrong, at least to me.</p>

<p>If I were looking at this image I'd want it to look something closer to this, with more contrast and dimensionality. And quite probably with even more contrast than I've shown here, as I've been pretty restrained with this in recognition of your starting point.</p>

<p><img src="http://balancingpoint.org/singleimages/mbrown.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It is a very strange looking image, synthetic is a good descriptor for it (as has been said).</p>

<p>I'm not keen on it - looks really flat and not very attractive to me... if you post the orginal - I'm sure some of us will take a whack at it...</p>

<p>Couple things:<br>

Made it a B&W because of mixed light sources. Church gymnasium was converted to sanctuary for ceremony. Big sodium vapor lamps directly overhead, plus some window light and some flourescent thrown in for good measure. Not the best situation. Dominant light source is obviously flash with one at (approx.) a 45 degree angle serving as main, and on-camera serving as fill. Went for a 3:1, but it seems to be a bit higher than that. Not happy with the mish-mash of colors, nor the harsh shadow on bride's chest.</p>

<p>Got about 600 more from this wedding to get through and find I'm spending too much time on an image that is no longer exciting me like it did when I first saw it.</p>

<p>But, here's the orig. in JPEG form, minimal processing. Have at it.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>here's my 5 minute fix on it... for b/w</p><div></div>

<p>I like the original before all the voodoo that made your eyes go buggy. Leave it alone and love it.</p>

<p>Boom. I'm done. My brain hurts.</p>

<p>Thanks to all who contributed.</p>

<p>I'll save the story about how my 9 year old daughter managed to change the monitor calibration while looking for a video game she plays on this computer.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I still do love it.</p>

<p>And now I love it even more because I'm done with it.</p>

<p>Again, thanks to those who responded!</p>

<p>Here is my try:</p>

<p>Gradient map B&W> Shadow/highlight adjustment> Local (face) curves and healing.</p><div></div>

<p>The colour original is the best because the skin tones are great and contrast well with the white chairs. A good example where fiddling makes it worse. You could run it through Portrait Pro to smooth out the skin textures on the face, but thats all.</p>

<p>one last shot at it... I like it in color and cropped closer</p><div></div>

<p>Most of these sample tweaks make me go "Ouch!" The skin gradation has gone from delicate to over the top. I see what Michael likes about the first monochrome version. It has a classic old school appeal, very soft and romantic. Any global tweaks will overdo it. You'll need to do some very selective tweaks to specific areas, otherwise that delicate gradation in her skin will suffer.</p>

<p>Don't change the skin tone in her face, neck, arms, etc. at all. That includes the gradations from highlights to shadows. Don't mess 'em up. The first version at the top of the page is perfect. Ditto the chairs. Leave 'em as-is.</p>

<p>Just work on separating her gown from the surrounding chairs, and flowers from her gown - both gown and flowers need more detail. Tweak the eyes carefully, lighten the pupils to get some separation from the irises. Maybe the hair as well.</p>

<p>I wouldn't attempt this with just the small JPEG here.</p>

<p>This is great, all these different opinions and visions. I love seeing how our styles differ, but not seeing a right-or-wrong viewpoint. I liked all the versions posted of this image, though some would be uncharacteristic of my style.</p>

<p>The first version, at the top, I still think is flat, but I'm still drawn to it. It has such an odd quality to it. I like my final version of the B&W (and thank the posters for inspiration), and will be showing that, as well as the color version, to the bride.</p>

<p>I cropped in a little myself, but liked the sea of chairs as a b/g frame, so I left enough to still get the effect.</p>

<p>But I will say that it's easy to go overboard with an image. The original version is often your best version.</p>

Man, you guys are good at photoshopping! I actually like about every variation!

<p>Yeh, I should modify my "Ouch!" comment a bit. None of the tweaks here are bad. But the effect Michael wants is like holding a snowflake without melting it, or a thin sliver of frost without breaking it. I have old family portraits from the 1930s-'50s with this effect - very low contrast, high key, very soft, romanticized effect. It seems unfamiliar now, but was once considered state of the art for professional portrait and wedding studios.</p>

<p>Here's what I would do with the image.<br>

I saw it as more of a high key, so I played with it towards that end.<br>

I took the original jpg and did a little skin smoothing.<br>

Switched it to LAB colors, took the "lightness" channel and used that as my BW image.<br>

Played with the curves a bit to make it little brither. Then I dodged the eyes like 10%</p>

<p><img src="http://www.clarkcorona.com/temp/photocomedit005.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I think the original one is the best. I would keep it that way from what I've seen.<br>

Best,<br /> Diego.</p>

 

<p>Michael,<br>

"Kinda where I was headed originally."<br>

This is the best version for my taste, although I like the 'flat' first also.<br>

It's hard if you are run into it to come out clear - a) I often take my first gut feeling and b) a timeout.<br>

Nice thread - good idea to come out with the question as it focus us also.<br>

Regards Axel</p>

 

<p>I was happy to do it! I have always enjoyed and repected the opinions of my peers.</p>

<p>Although I do think the "kinda where I was headed originally" version was best. <snicker></p>

<p>But, if not for the inspiration and ideas...might not have gotten there as easily.</p>

<p>NICELY done David! Great B&W</p>

<p>Regarding the image I like number 5 from the top.<br>

What I dont like is her smile, too much for this part of the world where I live, but my guess is that it is just fine for the US? <br /> <br /> Other opinions regarding her smile?</p>