What's new

Opinions

I've decided to try a different approach to photo editing. For years I've been stuck on hitting portrait pro and letting it do the work, but have started to be frustrated with the ott effects, even at low opacity.

Skin 2.0 was recently added to my workflow and while it requires more time per shot, I hope the extra effort is worth it.

And that's where you come in. Which shot do you prefer?

$_DSC1d258-copy.jpg$_DSC1258-copy.jpg
 
upon first blush #2 jumped out at me,upon further review, I cant quite put my finger on why.It seems clearer somehow.ahha,less shadow on the face?
 
At first blush :laugh:, I liked #2 because of the shadow. However, the more I looked at the two the color and detail stands out. Both shots are great, however.
 
Thanks again!

BTW, as an aside, I had print for Paige delivered today. She was so happy with the results, couldn't stop beaming!
 
I've only read the OP so no idea what else has been said. I prefer the first of the two. To me the second looks over done. Viewing on a not too big laptop monitor for what it's worth.

Now i'll go back and read.

dave
 
I guess I should mention these things as different screens are different pictures to some extent. When I'm on here I have my laptop fed into a 32" LED screen.
 

cleanshaved

I’m stumped
At first glance I like #2, then I prefer #1 and then back to #2. Guess they are both good.
The second photo has more shadow with her hair appearing more blonde/brown.
Ah what do I know, I'll change my mind again and stay with the #1. It strikes me as more natural in skin tone and hair colour.

BTW which one do you think matches her shin tone and hair colour best? Can you tell us when you wind this up please.
 

Graydog

Biblical Innards
At first Glance I thought 2 because of the shadow effect, but the whites are nicer in the first photo. I would guess the subject choose 2
 
I like the depth in the second. From the lack of catchlight in the eyes, it looks like a natural light photo? Have you tried a reflector board? You can light up the face a little more which will decrease your exposure need a little allowing your background to be a little darker and not as washed out. A little less time in post that way.

I used Portrait Pro when I first got started in digital, I'm sure it was quite a few versions earlier than the one you have, but I noticed it liked to change the shape of the models face. It did a good job of cleaning up the skin, but sometimes it was just way too much. Looked plastic.

I graduated to lightroom, and then added photoshop. Now I use lightroom for exposure tweaks and photoshop to remove blemishes, slight skin softening etc...

Overall, despite sounding critical, it's a very good shot sir. Well done.
 
Sfeile, this was one of the first shot, in a five minute shoot. Reflector was added straight after and catchlights added. I would normally blip in some fill flash, but even in the shade was way above x-sync and I'm waiting for my birthday present of wireless HSS.

To round up. #2 was the portrait pro variant. Closer to natural tones/colours was #1. It was also the manually processed one. I'm still getting used to the opacity/brush settings but with a quick and dirty edit it's showing flexibility.

And Paige? Handed her a print yesterday, and she beamed like the midday sun, proclaimed "You made me look beautiful!" and said she was framing it for her boyfriend.

Thanks folks, it's lovely to see how we view the same shot, in 2 different process styles.

Keep the faith!
Carl
 
#2 has more exposure and more contrast as seen in the hair area.

Any other changes are hidden behind these major differences

proxy.php
 
Top Bottom