Which one?

[24Peter]

Original (with some brightness/contrast adjustment):

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/upload2/large/IMG_3458.JPG

Significant curves adjustment:

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/upload2/large/IMG_3458edit.JPG

[barb1686]

I'm no professional, but I prefer the original one more. The light in the other one is primarily in her face and it just looks like a bad flash to me. Again, no professional. ;)

[timmciglobal]

I don't like from the neck down I don't know exactly why. #2 definitely looks more "Dramatic" model kind of shot.

Overall #2 better but something about the neck down doesn't do it for me.

Tim

[RichNY]

Definately the first overall but I like the eyes in the second one better.

[AdamW]

I agree with Rich. If you could apply the processing of #2 to just the eyes in #1, it'd be just right.

[NewTekBuzz]

I like the first one, the second seems to be a bit to bright. nice shots either way!

[D Thompson]

Just my .02. I like the skin tones better on the original and overall it looks better to me. There are a couple of things you could take from the 2nd shot that would help. The highlights in the hair - it's the first thing I noticed in the 2nd shot. Also, like others have said - the eyes in the 2nd shot although they appear a little too white to me. I played with them a little and IMO keep the original, add a few highlights to her hair and slightly lighten her eyes. Nice shot.

[Dawoofo]

Original IMO. Looks much more natural, but I guess it depends on what kind of look you're going for.

[aparmley]

Hey Pete!

Good to see you working with the single frame arts again!

I much prefer the second to the first. The first is a little to underexposed for my taste and the second hasn't gone too far . . . so the second one for me.

[Nickcanada]

Hey Pete!

Good to see you working with the single frame arts again!

I much prefer the second to the first. The first is a little to underexposed for my taste and the second hasn't gone too far . . . so the second one for me.

I second that.

[24Peter]

Hey Pete!

Good to see you working with the single frame arts again!

I much prefer the second to the first. The first is a little to underexposed for my taste and the second hasn't gone too far . . . so the second one for me.

Andrew - you and I (and apparently Nick too) have similar tastes. I also prefer the second. The first is too flat for me (you should have seen how it came out of the camera. :( )

Anyway our tastes are so similar, I'm thinking of testing out a D80 very soon. Really like that Nikon pop right out the old camera there... :eek: How is that 18-135mm Nikkor kit lens? (You know how I love kit lenses!)

[adam75south]

i think number 2 is better than number one. but still missing something. number one looks flat on my screen.

peter have you ever tried unsharp mask for contrast? i just started using this and it works great.....try this:
go to filter>sharpen>unsharp mask and use these settings.
15%
150 pixels
0 threshold

[24Peter]

Here's the original straight from the camera. Have at it...

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/upload2/IMG_3458_2.JPG

[aparmley]

Andrew - you and I (and apparently Nick too) have similar tastes. I also prefer the second. The first is too flat for me (you should have seen how it came out of the camera. :( )

Anyway our tastes are so similar, I'm thinking of testing out a D80 very soon. Really like that Nikon pop right out the old camera there... :eek: How is that 18-135mm Nikkor kit lens? (You know how I love kit lenses!)

Ya, I know how you love them Pete. . . LMAO.

I took a little hint from you by the way. It took me a while to understand the hint, but I got there. The kit isn't bad. Keep it 25-135mm with light that afords a 1/3 -2/3 stop from wide open and your golden to be honest. It is my goal to use that cheap kit, the cheap 55-200 to produce the best images I ever have - why, because I (you) can. I have two high quality primes, after that I'm all bottom shelf. Its all about the light and it took me ages to understand that . . . Any way, I can't say for sure if the D80 and the nikon are for you - but I think its great that you're interested. Everyone should be interested in the other side - you won't know until you shoot with it (outside the store).

[24Peter]

It is my goal to use that cheap kit, the cheap 55-200 to produce the best images I ever have - why, because I (you) can.

Is that the new VR 55-200? PhotoZone's test muy bien. Can/have you post(ed) some pics (somewhere)?

[aparmley]

Is that the new VR 55-200? PhotoZone's test muy bien. Can/have you post(ed) some pics (somewhere)?

indeed.

Ya sure. . . give me a bit ya. . .

a quick one - but I've got others:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1089/541411783_f624c4dbf2.jpg

[D Thompson]

Pete - thought I'd give it a try.

[zmikers]

#2 definitely. It has more of the "Magazine" look to me, if that makes any sense. #1 may be better for something like a family portrait but this is not, it's a model shot and #2 is way more dramatic, artistic and just better IMHO! Nice shot!

[24Peter]

Pete - thought I'd give it a try.

Yes, we have a wiener! Very nice Dennis. Care to share your processing?

[D Thompson]

Yes, we have a wiener! Very nice Dennis. Care to share your processing?

Thanks Pete for the compliment. You always have some good shots to work with. If I were doing a full retouch I'd get rid of a few more of the stray hairs though. Also, would clean up a few other areas a little. I'll try to remember what all I did.



Levels adjustment - slight S curve for contrast.
Clone/Heal - used either clone stamp or healing brush for the major flaws.
Liquify tool to smooth the little hump down on shoulder and arm.
Skin smoothing - used a gaussian with the history brush set to darken and/or lighten with a low flow. Lowered layer opacity to bring back some of the underlying texture.
Selective dodging & burning with a softlight layer. Added a few highlights to hair.
Eyes - removed some of the red, whitened, added a little saturation and sharpening.
I think I did a very slight levels adjustment at the end.



I don't think I've forgotten anything, but could have :confused:.

Thanks again.

[24Peter]

Great - thanks for sharing that. What's a "softlight layer"?

[D Thompson]

Great - thanks for sharing that. What's a "softlight layer"?

I don't use the dodge/burn tool at all. I always create a new layer, set the mode to soft light, and then check the "fill with soft-light neutral color (50% gray)". I then use a very low flow soft brush and paint black to burn (darken) and white to dodge (lighten). You can also set the mode to overlay and do the same thing. I prefer softlight mode as it's a little softer than overlay and just seems to be easier for me. You can always overdo a little and then lower the opacity of the layer to get it just right.

Hope this helps.