PS the POW 8/9/10--Go!

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image for Photoshopping was submitted by Melissa Papaj--thank you.<br /><br />You may post one reworked image, so make it your best effort. Any explanations about why and how you did what you did are encouraged and appreciated. Any critique is also welcome. Please remember to make your image 700 pixels wide and post a caption.<br /><br />For those of you wondering what this thread is about, this is part two of an exercise called Photo of the Week, in which an image is chosen from submissions to be critiqued, or, in this case, 'photoshopped' by others. You may find the thread with image submissions by looking for the most recent one with a similar title.<br /><br />Have fun!</p>

<p>Melissa's Notes: I am always curious to see how someone edits close ups...so here is mine for the week...Straight out of the camera :) Nikon D700, f/2.8, 1/250, ISO 400, 70 mm, reflector - silver side.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Dillon Gray--please repost your worked image.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>OK, here is my 3-minute take. I think the first thing is to just warm it up a bit. Beyond that, I cleaned under the eyes a bit, added a glamour glow (NIK filter); a little liquify on the arm/waist. On the arm to make it look better- looks too "twiggy" to me as it. And then on the waist to accent some shape. A bit of burning on the waist as well for shape. Aggressive skin softening on the arm, currently almost looks bruised. I could have cropped the arm, but I prefer to crop for content meaning I would only crop depending on how I am using the image. I think that was it for Photoshop. In terms of shooting, we are a bit hot. I think a white reflector would have been a better choice. And we are a little flat on the face. I would have liked to have seen a greater ratio. Slight bit wider on the shot so we can see the hand... and the ring which is now cut off. </p><div></div>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>How fun...mine don't normally get chosen. This was how I edited it :) I softened the skin and lightened the dark circles under her eyes, along with brightening them a bit more...I also added a bit of warmth to it...</p><div></div>

[jenkins]

<p>Removed some of the background and warmed up the subject, I found that bush to the right a bit distracting and the green needed to be desaturated for my taste. I worked on her eyes to brighten them up and generally retoned the image to a softer light, I have gone a good distance away from the original image, good job Mellissa.</p><div></div>

[richsimmons]

<p>Here's mine. This is fun. We need to do this more often.</p><div></div>

[JRCrowe]

<p>I found that her right arm was a distraction for me so I turned and cropped it slightly. I sharpened it a bit because she is young enough to get away with that. I increase saturation especially the green. Being a fan of freckles I chose not to soften the skin but minimize some of the creases. I lightened the eyes then enhanced with a bit of blue. I smoothed the arm a bit where there were blotches. She is such a beautiful bride and Melissa you did such a great job that all of the versions are quite lovely.</p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>This image has two major flaws, the positioning of the bride's right arm is awkward and produces an unpleasant line (which can be minimized by cropping) and the major blow-outs of the dress and flowers.....most of which can not be salvages from the jpg file.....maybe from the original capture RAW data. Pretty bride, nice expression and good camera eye contact. I added some fill and touched up her eye makeup along with some other minor tweaks. </p><div></div>

[richardsnow]

<p>I didn't do much... Took a similar approach to what Melissa did. Softened her skin and brightened her eyes a bit. Very slight levels adjustment. Let me know what you think Melissa</p><div></div>

[markonestudios]

Aha! So it <i>was</i> chosen after all :) In that case, here's my take:

<p>1. I evened out her skin tones a bit; I no longer like that over-softened, obviously-photoshopped look but rather more subtle tweaks.

<p>2. I burned some detail into her flowers (David S, there was surprisingly still some detail on them :)) and dodged her eyes just a tad.

<p>3. Added a curves adjustment to increase contrast and make it pop a little more. I like strong contrast :)

<p>4. Finally, I found her right arm positioning a bit awkward so I cropped to an 8x10 aspect ratio and sharpened for web.

<p>Melissa, I can send you my .psd file if you like :)<div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"I burned some detail into her flowers (David S, there was surprisingly still some detail on them...."</em><br /><em></em><br />Much of the areas are still blown. If you take a look at my tweak above, I pulled back a few details and stated that most of the blown areas can not be salvaged....as you demonstrate above. BTW, judging from the hotspots and the reflector catchlights in the eyes, it appears that the primary light source and the reflector were out of the optimal position to provide more even lighting.</p>

[JTG1]

<p>Thinking outside the box. :)</p>

<p>~Jack</p>

[JTG1]

<p>Thinking outside the box. :)</p>

<p>~Jack</p><div></div>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>Wow! Thanks everyone for your input. I know I blew the whites out a bit and I did take a few others with darker exposures, but where it was so close -and I metered to her face- I ended up loving this one the most. Which still even though I blew out the whites, I still had to lighten her eyes post production - using a reflector... I do have the RAW file...maybe I will try harder to pull some of the whites back...</p>

[andresa]

<p>MP, MAK, RS - nice work.<br /> Everyone else - no cigar.<br /> DS - seriously, what were you thinking? You've killed her eyes, flashed her face and tortured her flowers. She looks like a ghoul. <br /> JB - is this a new business model? maybe people will pay you not to do that to their photos? <br /> Why are people doing plastic skin, hyper-real colors and weird halos in their retouching? It's called retouching, folks. Not reconstructing. Respect the real beauty. Or at least make it human.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Nice shot Melissa, Pretty girl.</p>

<p>Personally, I think she is a natural beauty and doesn't need all the smoothing over.</p>

<p>I simply and subtly restored part of her dress, and flowers, slightly brightened her eyes, slightly masked the lines under her eyes, and brought out a bit more of the background to keep it from getting too dark in contrast to the light, airy feel of the shot.</p>

<p>The only real retouching I would do is fix the odd looking arm ... which is a simple fix better done on the full sized file.</p>

<p>Again, nice shot.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Andres--you can express your opinion about these images all you like, but I remind you that this exercise is open to <strong>any</strong> Photoshop/retouching/processing interpretation, so reconstructing is OK, and there is bound to be a wide range of interpretations.</p>

<p>Also, please respect the subject in the image herself. I know you had no ill intent, but even a casual description such as 'ghoul' is not necessary.</p>

[andresa]

<p>Of course, excuse me. I only mean to express that she is a pretty girl and I don't think many of the interpretations have made her look better. Ghoul is maybe not the right word, but in that picture she has stopped looking like a normal person to me. My comments are not about the subject, they're about the unsuitable processing.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Ok I changed my mind on my picture, Marc how did you repair those blown highlights, excellent job? Was it some kind of repair mask or a plug in?</p>

[jenkins]

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

[Not Here]

<p>There are many excellent renditions of this in color, and they are very well interpreted. How about a b/w for a change in pace. For the most part this is a straight conversion in CaptureNX2 with some follow-up burning and dodging in PSElements, primarily around the eyes. Sorry, I have a thing for eyes in portraits and love for them to stand out. I like how Marc has restored some of the blown highlights on the dress, but didn't take the time to do so myself (I'm not even sure PSE has the capability to do that.)... Anyway, an interesting forum and very educational. <br>

Thanks to Melissa for providing the beautiful shot... Mike</p><div></div>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Andres don't complain, show us how you would do it. This is a teaching forum. </p>

[danielransom]

<p>So I thought to keep her image as real as I thought correct, while enriching it and framing her well. I always use Noise Ninja, even when I don't see noise. It does well to smooth things out, particularly skin tones. I warmed her up a bit, through red saturation, and did quite a bit in exposure/highlight. I dropped out the background, and then rebuilt it as a frame around her. I thought the original background too crowded. I highlighted the yellow in the flowers, through color saturation. I did paint in some highlights on her nose and under the eyes, but don't like to make people look really differently than they do naturally. She looks to be in later 30's, with a bit of the usual wedding tiredness under her eyes. So I relieved that a bit. I might have overdone the nose,and don't have an answer for her chin standing out so much. I'm (ahem) blaming the MUA.<br>

<p><img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/drcheapskate/4887315208/" alt="" /></p>

[danielransom]

<p>Here's the URL. First time uploading blues. http://www.flickr.com/photos/drcheapskate/4887315208/</p>

[danielransom]

<p>Here's a kinder, softer version. Better color (Adobe RGB) and not such alien eyes. I do think Simon's is the best though. http://www.flickr.com/photos/drcheapskate/4887504244/</p>