recent photos Untitled

Is the blur and noise in the lower half of this picture offensive? Can

you suggest ways to improve this image? Thanks.

First technical nit I noticed was the luminance noise and... it doesn't bother me a bit. I detest the blotchy color chroma noise from my D2H at high ISOs, but the sorta-grainy luminance noise doesn't bother me at all. In fact, the D2H high ISO luminance noise resembles Delta 3200 grain. Your D70 noise looks a more digital-ish, but it's not at all bad.

If it bothers you, try Noise Ninja or Noiseware on one layer. Blend them and apply the heavier NR only to the shadow areas that model the light around her jaw, etc. Don't do anything else to the brighter midtones - they're perfect as-is.

Very appealing portrait. The eye contact and very confident and inviting look indicate a real rapport between subject and photographer. Anyone who isn't a nitpicking photographer would probably say it's perfect already.

Thank you, Lex. I've been inactive with the camera for over 2 years so in a way having to re-learn a lot. 

You're right about the D70 noise; pretty good for its time but noisy by today's standards and I'm trying to use it to aesthetic advantage. A friend suggested DeNoise4 which I'll look into as well. The selective layer blending is a technique I use but in this case, I'm anticipating problems in the transition area especially on the right side hair line, but I'll give it a try. 

This young lady is quite fun to work with. She's a student in fashion design and very artisitc with a keen eye for aesthetics, so the pressure is on to make her look as good as she deserves.

I wish I had used a 50mm 1.8 lens; it might have been much sharper and slightly less noisy. Maybe next time.

I probably went overboard with noise reduction in the shadow and darker midtones here, but tried to keep the highlights and brigher midtones original, to preserve skin texture.

Whoops, our posts overlapped.  Anyway, yup, feathering layers to maintain realistic looking transitions is the tricky bit.  Can't do that very delicately with this JPEG, so the hair won't look quite right (heavy NR tends to make hair look very digital-ish).  Also, I noticed Noise Ninja couldn't really distinguish between noise and JPEG artifacts, so it was either too smooth or left blocky looking artifacts.  You can do more with the original full resolution file.

That's pretty good, Lex! I just downloaded a trial copy of DeNoise and gave it a test drive - doesn't look as nice as yours at first glance but I did treat the entire image.

Either way, it does appear to look better with lower noise; or should I say it makes the picture look more 'normal' without anomalies drawing attention.

../users/MichaelChang/Images/DSC_6007_DeNoise.jpg

Michael, you say you'd use the 50 mm 1.8 next time. What did you use for this time?

the noise, to me, is a little distracting, yes, but the work that you and Lex have done resolves my issue.  I'm more bothered by her left arm.  I don't see any reason to have included it in the crop.  If you're comfortable with retouching, you might also consider working on the area below her eyes, which are a little dark. 

Thanks for dropping in, Doug. I used a 35-135 AF zoom; it's a lens I use often and does a reasonble job.

Below is a crop per your suggestion. I think it looks pretty good too but seems to take away the sassy posture/look of the original, don't you think?

The dark eyes (in general, of these series of pictures) has been mentioned often. It never really bothered me until the repeated notice by others and I'm still not very clear as to why it's perceived to be a flaw (of the model or the touch-up). Is it because the picture is therefore improved by becoming closer to how it "should" be?

This shoot has raised more questions (to me, from a lack of experience) than any of my other photography projects.

well, it's personal... I like it better cropped, but I'm a sucker for a good face.  And she's got a good face, so I don't want any distraction.  What the picture may lose in sassy posture, it gains somewhere else, in this case by eliminating a distraction.  That's just my feeling.  I also would not have cropped so much from the bottom. 

Dark areas underneath the eyes, again, a personal choice whether to remove them, or leave them alone.  too much retouching can make the face look fake.  Sometimes, it's a matter of genetics, sometimes it's a matter of sleep deprivation.  Some people regard them as a sign of poor health, for whatever reason.  As a matter of detail on a young woman, I would rather be caught by a clear eye, rather than a wrinkle. I know some makeup strategies include heavy shadow applied to the same area, so there's definitely room for debate.  So, I don't think it's "how it 'should' be" but more presenting someone as healthy and alert.  We make impressions about people's personalities based on appearance, so presenting a good appearance is a first step in presenting a good personality.  an evolutionary biologist might say we're trying to project good genes. 

forgot to upload this;

darkness below the eyes is also associated with older age.

Thanks, Doug. Your analysis about the eyes makes sense.

To me, both crops have merit but I do like yours better in some ways. I'll present both and let her choose. 

Golly, haven't you been having fun? Some big guns weighing in here with a very informative discussion. Though their suggestions  may be just a little above my technical skills at the moment to duplicate their demos are enlightening.  While it may be true that the 50mm lens would produce a sharper image I think that consideration, for me at least, would be way down on the list of my priorities.  (would be elevated if much larger prints prints were anticipated)  Many more important elements in a portrait than the ultimate sharpness of it.  Anyway, I've enjoyed this series and am looking forward to more of your posts.  Did I mention that I think your choice of B&W trumps your colour versions?  I prefer the classic look of B&W.  Best, LM.

Thanks for dropping in, Len. Lex and Doug have contributed valueable comments which I've learned from, and now yours.

I neglected to mention that this "pose" was made with her sitting on a (stationary) 10 speed bike - it was a way to get the "look". 

On the 50mm lens, I was thinking more in terms of wider aperture therefore potentially lower noise; sharpness improvement would be a bonus but I suspect the gain in letting in more light would be at the expense of DoF giving it an odd look.

I'm now thinking about Halloween pictures - my favorite time of year. Should be fun if I manage to pull of some of the ideads!

Ah, now it makes perfect sense!  I should have recognized that.  I used to enjoy long distance cycling and tours around Southern California and Baja back in the 1970s-early '80s.  From that perspective it's a perfectly natural angle.

You could probably sell a hipster a 10 speed with this sorta photo - but your model will need a more careless sorta hair style with bangs, and whatever sunglasses are fashionably unfashionable this month.  And a wicker handlebar basket to hold the 6-pack of Pabst.