DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Before and After
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 27, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/09/2004 03:22:41 PM · #1
Trying to improve my editing, just a practice shot of a friend. what do you think?
Does it look too fake? I was trying to stay away from that.
Before
After

I also was trying out the "over exposed" shot... this was a candid of my son wearing my jeans as a jacket
does it just look stupid?

or does it have potential
 11/09/2004 03:24:11 PM · #2
I like the before image 20000000000 times better!
 11/09/2004 03:26:02 PM · #3
Katrina - I agree 100% with Xion. The "after" looks too jarring. The skin doesn't fit with the face, etc. The first one is excellent. I love the little boy - pure angel. LOl

Edit: I want to clarify - you did a fine job, excellent, doing the editing. I just prefer the "realism" of the first and think the second one does look "fake" - but not due to any ineptness on your part.

Message edited by author 2004-11-09 15:27:56.
 11/09/2004 03:26:46 PM · #4

ok what about this one?
 11/09/2004 03:28:12 PM · #5
The "After" looks incredibly fake. What makes it even more unbelievable is that someone holding a cancer stick in her hand could have wrinke-free skin and ultra-white teeth.
 11/09/2004 03:28:42 PM · #6
Originally posted by riotspyne:

ok what about this one?


Much more subtle.
 11/09/2004 03:29:22 PM · #7
It is more subtle, but why are you editting it?
 11/09/2004 03:30:01 PM · #8
I have to agree with both xion and Kylie, original is natural, after looks too smoothed out.

This is one of the problems with using PS or similar...sometimes, just because we know we alter everything, we tend to forget the original.

I was never a great believer in poast editing to any great extent, since starting to use PS, my average scores have dropped! And I keep getting the same comments about over lightening. I'm going back to my old software.
11/09/2004 03:36:34 PM · #9
Originally posted by xion:
It is more subtle, but why are you editting it?

i like the original, i gave her a copy of it and never showed her the edited ones... i was just practicing the editing part of it, this is really my first try at this much spot editing..just wanting to get some feedback on the that aspect...
 11/09/2004 03:37:08 PM · #10
Originally posted by xion:
I like the before image 20000000000 times better!


me too too too too too too
 11/09/2004 03:46:05 PM · #11
I can understand you wanting to try spot editing and all. My suggestion would be to choose another image.
In the image you have chosen, there's character. When you edit it like that, it takes out someone's character and personality. A face can tell a lot. And the person in the image, I think, is a great subject. I like the pose and the way she's looking so relaxed at ease. Your 'before image' is a beautiful. It doesn't need any editing like that. Edit only if you can make something better. In this case, your editing made a really good portrait of an interesting person look like a snap of a rubber doll (that's going overboard) But I think you get the idea.
 11/09/2004 04:13:50 PM · #12
Originally posted by xion:
I can understand you wanting to try spot editing and all. My suggestion would be to choose another image.
In the image you have chosen, there's character. When you edit it like that, it takes out someone's character and personality. A face can tell a lot.


i agree with this 100% i made a copy of the original and gave it to her and also put it in my album..i told her it was the james dean esque
shot, i am just learning all this editing crap and thought it had a lot of room for me to practice, incase in the future someone insists on me doing something like this i will know how.. and now i know from the comments it is "too much"..so thanks everyone for your honesty..i love that

kat
 11/09/2004 04:17:01 PM · #13
You are very welcome. If you can capture moments like that, you can do magic. All the best to you.
 11/09/2004 04:22:47 PM · #14
Again, I agree with Xion and I also want to add that you are doing a great job with your work and your progress. And a fantastic attitude on top of it.
 11/09/2004 04:30:52 PM · #15
Originally posted by Kylie:
Again, I agree with Xion and I also want to add that you are doing a great job with your work and your progress. And a fantastic attitude on top of it.


thanks again kylie, just a little validation like this can really carry someone like me a long ways
 11/09/2004 04:50:01 PM · #16
Like riotspyne, I'm trying to learn what nuances are generally regarded as better.

In the October Free Study, I submitted this version of a portrait:


when I intended to submit this version, which I prefer:


Which do you like better?

(not trying to hijack Riot's thread, but our aims are similar, and I was reluctant to get another new thread out there on comparisons)
 11/09/2004 04:58:09 PM · #17
Hard call for me. I am on a poor monitor here at work, but the editing appears light and for the little girl to appear slightly "perfect"/softer/more angelic" seems appropriate for the image. I wouldn't want it to be "here is my daughter in the woods before going out for Halloween" snapshot.
 11/09/2004 05:05:00 PM · #18
I applied my High Key Sketch Action to it and changed the background layer 3 to Soft Light instead of Screen. A little difference.

11/09/2004 05:06:10 PM · #19
Originally posted by wkmen:
Like riotspyne, I'm trying to learn what nuances are generally regarded as better.

In the October Free Study, I submitted this version of a portrait:


when I intended to submit this version, which I prefer:


Which do you like better?

(not trying to hijack Riot's thread, but our aims are similar, and I was reluctant to get another new thread out there on comparisons)


i like the brightened up version better
 11/09/2004 05:10:02 PM · #20
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
I applied my High Key Sketch Action to it and changed the background layer 3 to Soft Light instead of Screen. A little difference.


thats pretty cool thanks for the variation, i like seeing my shots with another vision to it
 11/09/2004 06:22:59 PM · #21
Originally posted by wkmen:
Like riotspyne, I'm trying to learn what nuances are generally regarded as better.

In the October Free Study, I submitted this version of a portrait:


when I intended to submit this version, which I prefer:


Which do you like better?

(not trying to hijack Riot's thread, but our aims are similar, and I was reluctant to get another new thread out there on comparisons)


The brighter version is much better.
 11/09/2004 07:06:04 PM · #22
Originally posted by riotspyne:
Trying to improve my editing, just a practice shot of a friend. what do you think?
Does it look too fake? I was trying to stay away from that
...
I also was trying out the "over exposed" shot... this was a candid of my son wearing my jeans as a jacket does it just look stupid?
...
or does it have potential


The one before is a zillion times more sincere and personal. As for the portrait of the kid, it looks photoshopped, but it has the potential. I would assume if you actually overexposed it, instead of trying to edit it, it would also be more natural. hth.
 11/09/2004 07:22:45 PM · #23
First reaction without having read any other posts, is that the BEFORE shot is much better than the AFTER. Your model has a "been around the block" air about her (don't tell her I said that) that fits well with the pose and the cigarette in her hand. That is totally lost in the edited version.

I then read some of the other comments and realize that I am not the first or only one to think so.

Nice work
 11/09/2004 08:10:26 PM · #24
Originally posted by wkmen:
Like riotspyne, I'm trying to learn what nuances are generally regarded as better.

In the October Free Study, I submitted this version of a portrait:

when I intended to submit this version, which I prefer:

Which do you like better?

(not trying to hijack Riot's thread, but our aims are similar, and I was reluctant to get another new thread out there on comparisons)


I like the second version, but the reds are a little too saturated. Try desatruating reds to about -10. Also, I think that warming it up hust a tad (take the blue channel down just a touch in curves) would be a further improvement on an already really nice shot.
 11/10/2004 11:22:00 AM · #25
The trick to doing photo enhancement like this, is to make the person look the best they could possibly be. Not the best that some clear skinned doll could be, but the best that they could be.

So you soften wrinkles - you don't remove them. You probably remove transient spots, but not identifying features like moles or other skin marks that are part of what that person 'looks' like.

You lighten bags under the eyes, you don't remove them - and so on.

Easiest way to do this is to work on a duplicate layer of the image. Use a soft healing brush and attend to most of the lines, wrinkles, crows feet and other detritus of life. Then dial back the opacity so most of the character shows through. Neat image can also be used, but I've rarely, if ever, seen it used well. Certainly if it is used, it should be masked to not trash the fine detail in the image. The plastic, smooth skin and soft features is a classic example of heavy handed blurring and neatimage like tools.

You want the person to look like they look after a week of rest, relaxation and plenty of H2O. Not how they'd look after a disasterous week in a California plastic surgery salon.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2025 09:57:43 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2025 09:57:43 AM EDT.