Overall Impression!

[james_mccormick]

<p>Dear All,<br>

I'm once again being a little naughty here but I am finding that whenever I post in the critique forums I get very few (if any replys). This for me is having two effects. The first, it is kind of putting me off getting a subscription as the whole reason I use these sites is to learn from those who are considerably better and more experienced than me! I am aware that my photography is by no means brilliant, but I hope to some day make it good. So really the second effect is a feeling of lack of progress. I hasten to add, I am certainly NOT looking for ego stroking here. </p>

<p>So, please forgive me as I have posted an image here but I would love to get some constructive comments. </p>

<p>This was my second shoot to date. The model was a friend of a friend and I was going for a kind of 'typical' (if that exists), editorial/front cover look. My idea was to shoot from above downwards (used an 430EXII) fired through a 36" shoot through umbrella. I used a silver reflector (mainly used white, but in this image silver was used) from below to fill. I think this is nearly butterfly lighting, but my nose shadow is a little too long. The body used was a Canon 60D with a 24-70/2.8L on the end. The 430EXII was fired wirelessly using the 60D pop up flash as a disabled master. Image was made in ttl mode with some FEC dialed in. I used max sync speed (1/250) at f/2.8, ISO 200, FL was 45mm.</p>

<p>For my post process, I used red channel skin softening, increased the contrast of the iris by using the soft light blend mode and revealed the iris from a black layer mask. I added burn to the cheek bones and a little dodge to the protruding areas by adding a soft light 50% gray layer painted on with black or white foregrounds, respectively. The lip higlights were lightened a little and the eyebrows tidied and made a fuller. Lastly, the scleras were also whitened a touch and eye veins removed. I used red channel softening so that no surface or guassian (sp?) blur was added.</p>

<p>Finally the question! Do you think I am heading in the right direction here? Am I acheiving a three dimensional feel to the image? Does it look too processed? Should I just hang my camera up and leave it to those who are more gifted ;-)</p>

<p>Thank you all for your time and patience<br>

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

[john_deerfield]

<p>You are asking for at least two very different types of feedback: one on the photography and one on the post-processing. And, you are asking it in a relatively photo-enthusiasts forum. Yes, there are professional here, but far more enthusiasts than professionals. I dare say that a great many Photoshop professionals don't even use a 50% gray layer via overlay or soft light blending for dodging and burning (although I would say that this is the way it should be done!). Which is all to say that you might want to seek separate feedback via different forums. DPReview has both a Studio and Lighting Technique forum that might serve you better in terms of lighting critiques. I am pretty sure that a couple of re-touchers hang out here in Photo.net's Digital Darkroom and there is a similar forum on DPReview as well. There is also the NAPP: National Association of Photoshop Professionals. Finally, for serious image critiques from professional photographers, you can join PPA: Professional Photographers of America. Or a local chapter there of, which will have image competitions.</p>

<p>That said, in terms of lighting, a single light from above would be butterfly lighting (defined by the nose shadow). Adding a light source (reflector) from below gives you clamshell lighting. And, your pop up flash is contributing <em>something</em> to the exposure as evident by the catchlight. Overall, in terms of lighting, I would say we are a bit flat. Nice, but flat. And the crop is too tight... unless this is the copped frame. Personally, I almost always want to see the top the head and the bottom of the chin. And then crop the image if I need to. Why use 45mm? For a tight headshot, I would usually recommend a longer focal length. And, I might suggest f/4 for for better sharpness. I am by no means a re-touching, or even Photoshop expert, but it looks good to me. I do think the eyes lack some color though. To be of more help, I think we would need to see the original image to tell how well the PP version turns out.</p>

[wogears]

<p>How about posting in the critique forum like everybody else?</p>

[james_mccormick]

That was my point Les! I find that I never manage to get any

comments. People tend to rate but not comment which is not

terribly helpful when one is trying to learn. I assume you did

not read my post as I did mention there that I found it

difficult to get replies.

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>From 'About This Forum: Critique request posts belong in the Critique Forum. Pictures posted here should be solely for discussing specific techniques/issues and must be taken by the poster.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>James: This forum is NOT for critique. What if everyone posted as you did? Then this forum would be as crowded as the crit forums. Sorry, that's how it is.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I agree with Les. The best way to get critiques is to network. Anyone who takes the time to critique my work usually gets a return visit from me. I find that a matter of giving back to the community. Now, the percentage rate is low, because a lot of people are selfish and they ask for a lot of critiques but don't give many. So for every ten critiques I give, I'm lucky if I get one in return. But I find the more I network, the more I go out of my way to find photographers who's work I respect and the more I interact with them, the more insightful comments I get about my work. Even if you don't consider yourself advanced enough to give thorough and technically savvy critiques, you are certainly capable of making some sort of meaningful comment about what you see, what you may like and not like, etc. The returns from critiquing are great. One, you may got some good ones in return. Perhaps even more importantly, you will learn how to articulate what you're thinking, force yourself to think about what you're looking at, and expose yourself to others' work, which is one of the best ways of learning.</p>

[richardsperry]

I think her cheeks, nose, and forehead are smoothed too much.

 

There is a little bit of yellow on the inside of her left incisor I would desaturate.

 

I would crop with her chin in frame.

 

And her irises look unnatural, like glass. Combined with dry looking sclera, it gets close to Uncanny Valley.

 

I like the makeup, hair, and lighting. Pretty conservative.

[james_mccormick]

<p>Thanks for your comments John and Richard. They are ver helpful. I have another shoot lined up for the beginning of Feb where I am going to try out some short lighting.</p>

<p>Richard, yes I think the I may have added a little too much contrast to the iris and I did clone out a couple of speculars on the scleras which maybe why they look a little dry. I will certainly reduce some contrast in the iris. It's interesting that you mention the potentially over smoothed skin. I am not necessarily in agreement (but then this is personal choice I think) but I can see why you would think that. I did keep inspecting the skin at 100% as I changed the opacity of the red channel smoothing to ensure that I retained skin texture.</p>

<p>Les and Fred, I knew I was being a little naughty by posting the image here and to be honest, it would normally have been me that would have been groaning a little had someone else done it. I appreciate and respect what you both wrote (and you are right) but you may have been a tiny bit sharp in your initial response Les. Please don't take this as me snapping back as that is not what is intended. You are both very accomplished photographers and I am certainly not here to fall out with anybody :-) <br>

Thank you all kindly for your advice whether it be positive or negative.<br>

James</p>