Photoshop CS5 and editing


shanegeach

Link Posted 21/07/2010 - 19:51
Hey all im back again.

I need some pointers and some CC's on one of my pics ive just finished editing please can you have a look and let me know ???

Thank you
Camera: *ist DS,MZ-50,
Lenses: D-Xenon 50-200mm 4/5.6, pentax smc a 50mm 1.7, Kiron 70-210mm, Pentax SMC DAL 18-55, Asahi 2x Rear tele-converter, Sirius M42 135mm macro, M42 extension tubes 61mm,
Flash: Jessops 360 AFdc
MY WEBSITE

shanegeach

Link Posted 21/07/2010 - 19:52


Camera: *ist DS,MZ-50,
Lenses: D-Xenon 50-200mm 4/5.6, pentax smc a 50mm 1.7, Kiron 70-210mm, Pentax SMC DAL 18-55, Asahi 2x Rear tele-converter, Sirius M42 135mm macro, M42 extension tubes 61mm,
Flash: Jessops 360 AFdc
MY WEBSITE

ChrisA

Link Posted 21/07/2010 - 20:20
Well it's an interesting expression.

But the highlights look rather unnatural. The left eye, for instance, the tip of the left ear; the upper and lower lips, the left side of the chin, and the left side of the face between the eye and the ear.

It looks a bit like face paint - I take it that's not intentional?

To be honest, it looks to me like quite an interesting photo, overedited.

I always recommend the following rule:

Edit, save, then put it away till the next day.

Then have another look. The bits that've been over-done are a lot more obvious when you haven't looked at it for a few hours.

I speak from bitter experience...

PS... it would be good to see the original - much easier to comment on the editing.

PPS There's also some very suspect cloning gone on down the right hand side of his face (left of frame as we look at it). The cheek below the ear looks like its edge has had something of a hacking at.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Last Edited by ChrisA on 21/07/2010 - 20:25

Helpful

shanegeach

Link Posted 21/07/2010 - 20:37
ChrisA wrote:

PPS There's also some very suspect cloning gone on down the right hand side of his face (left of frame as we look at it). The cheek below the ear looks like its edge has had something of a hacking at.

I assure you there is no cloning its just pure hdr toning, its the angle at which im standing....
Camera: *ist DS,MZ-50,
Lenses: D-Xenon 50-200mm 4/5.6, pentax smc a 50mm 1.7, Kiron 70-210mm, Pentax SMC DAL 18-55, Asahi 2x Rear tele-converter, Sirius M42 135mm macro, M42 extension tubes 61mm,
Flash: Jessops 360 AFdc
MY WEBSITE

ChrisA

Link Posted 21/07/2010 - 20:46
shanegeach wrote:
ChrisA wrote:

PPS There's also some very suspect cloning gone on down the right hand side of his face (left of frame as we look at it). The cheek below the ear looks like its edge has had something of a hacking at.

I assure you there is no cloning its just pure hdr toning, its the angle at which im standing....

Fair enough. I stand assured.

I'm purely describing what I see. It's an entirely subjective impression, albeit one that I've attempted to give honestly, and with no other motive than to convey an impression as you requested.

If you don't like my view, please feel free to ignore it completely.

I'm not at all clear, however, how the bottom of the right ear is so sharply cut off compared with the left.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Last Edited by ChrisA on 21/07/2010 - 21:15

Helpful

terje-l

Link Posted 21/07/2010 - 21:33
An interesting portrait. But I am not sure the HDR treatment suits the picture. It looks well overdone to me.
Best regards
Terry

K20D, Optio I10, DA 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 AL II, A 1:1.7/50, D FA 1:2.8/100 Macro, Sigma 70-300 1:4-5.6 APO DG Macro, Pentax AF 360FGZ

Helpful

paulyrichard

Link Posted 21/07/2010 - 21:49
I agree with ChrisA in regard to the over-processing. This is a very good portrait, why the need for it? Those horrible highlights just create a barrier between me appreciating the portrait.
"Ifamericatoldthetruthforjustonedayitswholeworldwouldfallapart "
"All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt

http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/
Last Edited by paulyrichard on 21/07/2010 - 21:50

Helpful

shanegeach

Link Posted 22/07/2010 - 01:50
second version is in my gallery if any one wants a nose at it..... and i do thank you all for your comments they kinda made me see the important bits i missed out on....
Camera: *ist DS,MZ-50,
Lenses: D-Xenon 50-200mm 4/5.6, pentax smc a 50mm 1.7, Kiron 70-210mm, Pentax SMC DAL 18-55, Asahi 2x Rear tele-converter, Sirius M42 135mm macro, M42 extension tubes 61mm,
Flash: Jessops 360 AFdc
MY WEBSITE

shanegeach

Link Posted 22/07/2010 - 01:55



HERE IS THE SECOND TOUCHED UP VERSION, IT LOOKS A BIT BETTER THAN THE 1ST.... ANY COMMENTS ????
Camera: *ist DS,MZ-50,
Lenses: D-Xenon 50-200mm 4/5.6, pentax smc a 50mm 1.7, Kiron 70-210mm, Pentax SMC DAL 18-55, Asahi 2x Rear tele-converter, Sirius M42 135mm macro, M42 extension tubes 61mm,
Flash: Jessops 360 AFdc
MY WEBSITE

shanegeach

Link Posted 22/07/2010 - 02:01
OMG......... IVE JUST NOTICED, IF YOU LOOK CLOSE ENOUGH AT MY FACIAL HAIR I CAN SEE WHITE.......OH GOD PLEASE NO ...... I CANT BE GOING GREY ?????? AAAAARRRRRR
Camera: *ist DS,MZ-50,
Lenses: D-Xenon 50-200mm 4/5.6, pentax smc a 50mm 1.7, Kiron 70-210mm, Pentax SMC DAL 18-55, Asahi 2x Rear tele-converter, Sirius M42 135mm macro, M42 extension tubes 61mm,
Flash: Jessops 360 AFdc
MY WEBSITE

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 22/07/2010 - 09:42
paulyrichard wrote:
I agree with ChrisA in regard to the over-processing. This is a very good portrait, why the need for it? Those horrible highlights just create a barrier between me appreciating the portrait.

'Fraid this says it all for me, Shane. It's such a powerful original with that strong, direct look. But I am biased because I rarely see an HDR shot which I like.

(Good to see you back, by the way!)
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

Helpful

paulgee20

Link Posted 22/07/2010 - 11:38
Hi Shane,

Well stark and a fair bit severe, not where i would go but a damn good shot........


Paul
K5's (2)both gripped, K10d gripped, Pentax 28-90 f3.5, Sigma 18-250mm, Sigma 150-500mm. Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro, Sigma 10-20 f.4-5.6.EX DC, Hoya 135 f2.8, Take on 28mm f2.8 Pentax AF360 flash, 2 fill in slaves. 30 metre remote release, Rt angle viewfinder, Giotto NOT 3261B Tripod with Manfrotto 808Rd4 ball head, Manfroto 4861RC2 monopoly, shoulder stock, various filters etc, Panasonic SET HBS HD Video cam, Tamrac Explorer 8x backpack and a sore back.....
-------------------------------------------------------
Photography is an index for measuring futility and pride.......

Paul

:wink
http://s743.photobucket.com/home/pg20_photos/index http://www.flickr.com/photos/pg20

Helpful

BigJacko

Link Posted 22/07/2010 - 15:01
I'm probably going to annoy the bejeezers out of you, and the other commentators... but I preferred the first shot, of these two.

I have no problem with the HDR 'overprocessing' of the first one - indeed, I think it is right up there with the Guinness ad campaign style, and works well - highlights an' all. In my head, I can hear that drumming of the 'and then he waits' advert, with the white horses, etc.

I can see what Chris means about the left-hand side ear, but if that's really the way it is, then there's nowt to do but live with it. For me, it's only become a distraction since Chris drew attention to it - but that's the nature of commentary, isn't it?

I prefer the way the original image emphasises (perhaps even over-emphasises) the frown lines and other skin textures and the hair - much more strongly than the second image. It has a sort of 'low-key' brightness about it that is quite hard to explain... but its darkness IS its feature; its angle; its game. Prominent darkness is the phrase which comes to mind. The more 'average' tones of the second image means it loses these key points; the skin textures, whilst more evident overall, lose their accentuation in the second image. It's as if it *needs* the darkness to make them stand out - and the first shot does this way better, for me.

My only dislike about both photos, is the treatment of the subject's shoulders/collar bone, on the right hand side of the frame. The second image here is, for me, better than the first - but only because the first's treatment of this area is a bit 'colour-washed'. By that I mean there's an almost posterised/solarised effect to the collar bone there, with a block of almost solid single tone, which to me just doen't look right. Needs a bit more gaussian blur or something to break it up a little, but still keep it defocussed.

The only other thing I would perhaps change (and I notice you've done this in the second image) is bringing out the whiteness of the eye in the left of the frame. The top shot needs that cheat, I think, to make the eyes more piercing through the darkness - and balanced. They're both just right in the second image, but the contrast with the face is less, because its less dark overall.

The only other thing I would say is that I have no clue what I'm talking about, probably - and I'm sure Chris and Pauly would both agree with that statement! I should point out that I have already been stunned today by the observational skills that Chris has, demonstrated in a critique he did on Pauly's 'Cross' image elsewhere - and I've also been equally stunned by some of Pauly's work (that I looked at, because of Chris's comments). I therefore take my hat off to the pair of them, and hope I can rise to their levels in due course...

...but I still had to say what *I* felt about the images, so, for what it's worth, there you have it! That top image would not, in my opinion, look out of place in the pages of Time Life magazine (and is as good if not better than many I have in a book of that esteemed publication).

Keep it up!
Neil
≡≡≡≡
Pentax K-x Pentax DA L 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL Pentax DA L 55-300mm f4-5.8 ED Pentax A 50mm f2.0 Pentax AF360FGZ flash Rikenon P 50mm f1.7 Vivitar CF 28mm f2.8 (K02 Komine) Tokina 80-200mm f4 Vivitar MC 2x22 Tele Converter

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas 'Tin-Legs' Bader

Helpful

Gwyn

Link Posted 22/07/2010 - 15:04
I am surprised to find I actually like the first one. Grey hairs and all .

Helpful

ChrisA

Link Posted 22/07/2010 - 18:49
The eyes in the second one remind me of The Hood, from Thunderbirds.

That aside, I think the highlights are now a lot less distracting, but the texture of the skin is a bit plasticky, especially the forehead.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Last Edited by ChrisA on 22/07/2010 - 18:50

Helpful
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.