Post processing critique, please

[opus]

I did a bit more bold post processing than I'm accustomed to on this one. Do you think it looks good or did I go too far?

[Tin-Cup]

do you like it??

if yes dont touch it

if no

i would bring down the facial brightness and bring up the lightness on the back...

its a strange shot really (hope you dont mind me saying) just the way you caught the cat might be different to how i wold have (not that that makes you wrong)

loverly cat though

what do you think kelly?

[opus]

I love the shot but I worry about the saturation, but then again I think the saturation makes the shot. There's no way I can bring up the lightness of the back because this kitty's coat just sucks up the light. I did the best I could with heavy sharpening to bring out the white tips. But for as much sharpening as I did, I don't see artifacts. Maybe someone else does.

She was sleeping in a ball and was mildly annoyed by my camera sticking in her face and these great white flashes going off all the time. Yet she didn't move, must've been too comfortable.

[Tin-Cup]

i wouldnt be to worried about saturation... its a nice shot what size are going to print it out at?

[opus]

Oh goodness, I don't know what application I have for this photo. Would I hang it on my wall? What would i do with it? Prolly just an album shot. What does one do with photos of their cat?

[opus]

I suppose I could make it a greeting card.... ;)

[Todd Patten]

Hey Kelly -- You purchased The Hodgification package, right? I am SO curious what it would do for this photo. I know it's generally meant for human subjects, but I'm just wondering what would happen

I think this image is a little sharp for my taste. I also think the eye's have a little too much green. Is this from the flash or just natural lighting? I'm just wanting to see this kitty softer for some reason.

Once again, this is just me. You may be going for a completely different look. That's the joy of photography!

[Chunk]

I did a bit more bold post processing than I'm accustomed to on this one. Do you think it looks good or did I go too far?

I'm afraid it looks over processed to me and seems a collection of cat parts rather than a well blended cat. There seems to be heightend contrast that makes the eyes seem outlined and the saturated nose jumps off the page. Something about the ears seems unnatural too. Sorry for the harsh sounding opinion. Hope you'll do the same for me.

[gahspidy]

I agree with what most of Chunk said. But to me , it does not look too processed, but rather just a harsh indoor flash thing to begin with. The composition and crop framing I'm not crazy about. I just think you have that harsh indoor flash thing going on here. Is this an in-camera flash? A seperate flash that sits in the hotshoe with a swivel head to bounce flash off wall or ceiling, and a diffuser cup that slips on the head can give you really nice results with indoor shots like these. A good one for the family album. My cat looks very similiar to yours.

[opus]

Thanks Gary, that helps a ton! I've been planning a flash purchase but I know so very little about flash. My dad puts a heavy emphasis on flash but is having troubles with his setup right now. So I need to do research on what type to get.


This shot was never intended to make it past the "download-off-the-camera" stage. But I'm really trying to work on my overall technique, from getting the right exposure into the camera, to post processing afterward, so I have been going back into my archives and practicing on some of these standard shots. The original had little color tone outside the grey family and was somewhat flat.

[opus]

Todd, I looked through my Hodgification system and the only action that I tried was the Softar; it was the only one that remotely fit into what I wanted to do. I wish I had a contrast action like he uses on some of his portraits, but so far I can't find it in his action set.