PS the POW--Go!--4/23/12

[picturesque]

<p>I thought I'd break up the present line of Photo of the Week posting and bring back a fun-with-Photoshop thread. Here's a neutral image for you to work on.<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--an image is posted to be 'photoshopped' by others. I chose this one because it is straight out of the camera, except for some sharpening, the day was overcast, and there is perhaps slightly too much flash going on. Let's see what you can do!<br>

<br />Have fun!</p>

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> As Marc pointed out, the original image is blurry--I removed it. Please see my post below for a sharp image to work on. Sorry about that!</p>

<p><strong>Update:</strong> I checked further on my files. I shot 4 similar situations, and don't recall them being blurry. I don't know what happened, but perhaps my processing from the RAW was faulty. All of them are sharp, and I re-processed the one I originally chose. It is below, so use it or the one above it if you wish. Sorry about the confusion. If anyone wants a higher resolution file to work on, just e-mail me. Carry on!</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Nadine, Not too bad right out of the camera so a light hand is necessary in 'correcting' any weak spots. First I corrected the key stoning of the structure then re-cropped to an 8x10 format. I burned in the bride's dress a tad and then the sky area. I've increased the overall saturation about 20% while leaving the Reds alone so as not to mess with the flesh tones which are OK to me. Then I cloned out a few white\light spots throughout. Re-sized for web and sharpened just a tad more. Good exercise with only a few readily available non sophisticated adjustments. Better? Your call! Best, LM.</p><div></div>

[jschmitzphotos]

<p><img src="http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1050/psthis423123.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong>PS This - 4-23-12</strong><br>

With LR4 I +22 contrast, -29 highlights, +41 shadows, -100 whites, -44 blacks, +10 clarity, +10 vibrance.</p>

<p>With tone curve I +7 lights and -7 darks. Under HSL-Luminance I +5 orange just to make the bride's skin glow a bit.</p>

<p>Added a graduated filter with a touch of blue to make the sky prettier and added a very slight -7 amount vignetting.</p>

<p>I also added a bit of sharpening (+24 and export dialog: sharpen for screen, low) because for some reason when exported the jpg looks a bit blurry/muddy when in LR it is pretty sharp.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Quick fix.</p>

<p>Separated figures and foreground on a layer, corrected the base layer key-stoning, (if you do the whole file, the subjects become "squat" looking).</p>

<p>Exposure adjusted separately for sky and remainder of image, with adjusted skin tones, and then high pass sharpening (also added slight edge vignette).</p>

<p><em>This image appears to be back-focused and even high pass sharpening can't fix that.</em></p>

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

[picturesque]

<p>Oops...it is actually motion blur, not back focusing. Here is a sharp one.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>As noted above--I re-processed the original image as the blurriness must have been through faulty processing. Here it is...still needing some work...</p>

<p>I'm actually interested in the need or no need to straighten the building. These things normally don't bother me in a non-architectural shot, unless lines are obviously quite skewed. Any thoughts?</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think slight keystoning in the background architecture is ok but the positioning of the right pillar near the edge of the frame is bad. It seems to be chopped off. This is analogous to a limb being cut off. If this didn't happen the slight tilt is ok IMO.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I added a starburst vigenette, burned in some more texture around the couple, and knocked down a few bright spots in the background.</p><div></div>

[peter_cohen]

<p>Probably over the top, but fun exercise ;-) Topaz Adjust 5, clouds, vignette, stroke.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>Ilkka--I agree with you. When I processed these for my clients, I straightened the slight tilt (only by turning the image) and cropped the right pillar out of the photo. These don't look like it, but they are candids in the sense that I did not pose them. I simply stopped them as they walked out of the church. My off camera light used for the formals was still popping off inside and I was concentrating on that (seeing into the church and putting the entry right next to the bride).</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Nadine, Thought the pic was flat so I adjusted highlights and shadows, corrected for skin color, selected the sky and added some blue finally added some color to the sky inverse.<div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>Some good work in PS here ... my only comment is how adjustments on some result in "nuclear" skin tones ... a residual effect from digital exposure errors that is a lesson in itself. </p>

[stacey_gibson]

<p>Hey David... nice edits! Nothing over the top, but you really made the bride and groom stand out; there's quite a bit more depth to the image now.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Thank you Stacey...........</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I tried to make the image more dramatic and make the couple stand out in their environment. Hope you like it :-)</p>

<p>The look comes from layers with curves, saturation and some dodging and burning in photoshop, no actions. I think it looks better when viewed a little bigger since the couple is only a small part of the whole picture.<br /> Perhaps the look is a bit too strong but usually to look good when printing it has to be a little more contrasty and saturated when viewed on the screen.</p><div></div>

[pete_s.]

<p>This is a more natural version, closer to my own preferred style.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>Hey Pete! Your second version is what I basically did, except I didn't square the building off so much and I left the doors open. Why did you close the doors? Just curious.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>In general I don't like to clone stuff out because it just takes too long in post to make it invisible and I would rather pick another vantage point while shooting. But for a larger print like a 16x24 or 24x36 I would rework an image with a higher level of scrutiny and might alter things if I thought it would improve the image.</p>

<p>In this case I closed the doors because I think the inside of the church distracts the viewers attention slightly because it's bright and close to the subjects and it doesn't provide any information or add anything visually interesting to the image. </p>

<p> </p>