Cheridan

[yogestee]

A beauty shot of my daughter Cheridan..Plus a bit of Photoshop Tom Foolery..

Canon 350D/Sigma 18-200mm
60th@f5.6
400ISO

Jurgen
Australia

[ladybugamanda]

Would you care to share the before the Tom Foolery version? I'm fascinated with Photoshop and trying to learn how to actually use it for good vs. evil!

[Overbeyond]

A bit strong on the Tom Foolery I feel Jurgen. There is something not right about her upper lip; as if Photoshop is melting it away. It's very in your face crop and looks better if I roll back from the monitor.
Tom

[walterick]

You're right, you have a very pretty daughter!

I have one complaint about this photo. The eyes seem over-sharpened. The eylashes in particular. I know as portraitists we like to draw attention to our models eyes. In this case however I would let the lovely, soft, high-key feeling of the shot convey its beauty and I would let the eyes go a little bit. That's not to say don't sharpen them, but back off a little and I think you've got it. Overall, successful shot imo.

Rick

[Alison]

Your daughter is very beautiful yogestee. Did you use one of my favourite filters (diffused glow). Your framing is wonderful. Gorgeous portrait.

[shutterman]

Jurgen,

I like it very much! Nice framing.

Thanks,
Wes

[ltilley]

I enjoy the Tom Foolery. Your daughter has the most beautiful eyes. I love the way her hair frames her face. I, too, would love the see the before-photoshop picture... I think it will give us an idea of what we can do with our own photos.

Thanks for sharing.

[McMadCow]

Jurgen, this one just isn't working for me. I feel like too much is lost through your heavy editing and I get the feeling I wouldn't recognize her if we met face to face. When that happens, I think the image has been worked too much in PS. I know I'm a bit old-fashioned (I am 29, after all), but I really don't care for the "digital" feel when it doesn't really tell me anything new about the subject.
But since I don't want to be a total downer, I do like your composition. Her face is framed nicely by her hair and I'm led right to her eyes (which I believe would be the case even without the excessive sharpening).
Thanks for posting.

[Ronnoco]

Wow! From the comments, I would say that a lot of photographers here have a lot to learn about portraiture. The framing could be a little more loose at the top. The guideline for portraiture is that despite soft focus, etc. the eyes should be sharp, which they are. Whether the eyes have been sharpened or not is irrelevant. What has also been ignored is the fact that the lighting/exposure is a little too bright with too much loss of detail on the left side of the photo. There needs to be about a third of a stop less on the left to bring about a little touch of 3D modeling but retaining your high key effect. Whether photoshop tom foolery has been involved or not is equally irrelevant, since the final product is really the only matter of importance. The smile is not quite "right" but not that noticeable for most viewers.

The hair is too often forgotten by portrait photographers and it is important. If it is not properly combed and in place, then why has the photographer shot it that way? What is he trying to say about the personality of the model through a slightly disheveled look? If it is carelessness or a less than close attention to detail by the photographer, then it is a problem and a weakness in technique. In this case, why has the photographer chosen soft focus for the hair? Does it work?

Ronnoco

[molaselake]

Your daughter is beautiful, but the white nothing areas don't really do it for me. I'd like to see detail there.

[yogestee]

Wow! From the comments, I would say that a lot of photographers here have a lot to learn about portraiture. The framing could be a little more loose at the top. The guideline for portraiture is that despite soft focus, etc. the eyes should be sharp, which they are. Whether the eyes have been sharpened or not is irrelevant. What has also been ignored is the fact that the lighting/exposure is a little too bright with too much loss of detail on the left side of the photo. There needs to be about a third of a stop less on the left to bring about a little touch of 3D modeling but retaining your high key effect. Whether photoshop tom foolery has been involved or not is equally irrelevant, since the final product is really the only matter of importance. The smile is not quite "right" but not that noticeable for most viewers.

The hair is too often forgotten by portrait photographers and it is important. If it is not properly combed and in place, then why has the photographer shot it that way? What is he trying to say about the personality of the model through a slightly disheveled look? If it is carelessness or a less than close attention to detail by the photographer, then it is a problem and a weakness in technique. In this case, why has the photographer chosen soft focus for the hair? Does it work?

Ronnoco

Ok Ronnoco you seem to know all the "guidelines" for portraiture,,how about you post some examples of your work in this forum...Quite frankly I don't give a toss about guidlines..I will enjoy an image even though it breaks the so called guidelines..These guidlines are the main reason I don't get involved with camera clubs which IMHO suppress free expression...This image just a bit of play around in PS and posted to stir a bit of interest as it has..Mission accomplished!!

I've included the colour original which was shot for Cheridan's C.V..

Jurgen
Australia

[ladybugamanda]

Beautiful work! I like both images - but I usually do like your work!

[yogestee]

Your daughter is very beautiful yogestee. Did you use one of my favourite filters (diffused glow). Your framing is wonderful. Gorgeous portrait.

Alison,,If I told you I'd have to kill you!!!Actually yes..

Jurgen
Australia

[Alison]

I thought you had. That was obviously the look you was going for.
I, personally, love that look.
You did a great job.

[yogestee]

Thanx Alison..

Jurgen
Australia

[Homer]

I like it a lot Jurgen, I'm just drawn to the eyes. I want to look around but keep going back to the eye. Very nice.

I also agree with going against the grain (guidlines). There are quite a few photographers out there that make a very nice living going against the grain. Keep it up and push the limits.

Jim

[paulnj]

yogestee,

You can't make everyone happy , now can you?
These images are both great(having an easy on the eye subject never hurts) , but what do I know as a paid nature photog ;)

Oh and Ronnoco, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stone my good man. The tone of some of your posts is a bit too harsh , so maybe you should try to be alittle more helpful and a bit less abrasive ;)