family of four

Elaine

We have family visiting and they wanted a Christmas photo. I struggled a bit with WB/skin tones. What do you think?

roentarre

Excellent lighting and colour. Good expression as well.

jeffreaux2

It looks good to me Elaine. What were the lighting conditions?

Shima

I like the colors and the slight tint of darkness in the corners brings attention back to the center. Looks good to me.

Elaine

Thank you!

Here's some info:
85mm
f/3.5
ISO 1000
1/80
all natural light at 4:45 pm
WB cloudy

This was taken at 4:45, quite a ways beyond the prime time of about 4pm. The light dies quickly this time of year, and I was having a minor panic attack about the darkness, shutter speed and ISO I was having to use. 1/80 with wiggly kids is not usually a good idea. And I was using an 85mm and shooting at 1/80, on a non-IS lens, which is barely a good idea. I was happy to have 4 natural expressions, all eyes forward and open, and it was sharp! Yippee!

I shot on cloudy and processed it the first time without changing that. It came out a bit cool and the skin tones looked a bit magenta. This was confirmed by the values when the magenta was always higher than the yellow on their faces. I tried it again and got this result. I like it a bit warmer, but now I have a hard time not seeing too much green. The yellow is usually equal to, barely higher than or barely lower than the magenta now.

Another issue...my sis-in-law loves the pic and she was watching me do some processing, which I thought was fine because I think it's good for folks to have some idea what goes into developing an image. I asked her which she liked better (cooler or warmer). She liked the warmer because it didn't "look as washed out" as the cooler. Hmmm...I explained to her that a back-lit LCD screen may look a bit brighter, but I showed her with the dropper that they were not "washed out/blown out" and told her that the prints always come out a bit darker than how they appear on the back-lit LCD. I remember when I was first learning about processing that I often thought some shots looked a bit "washed out." But then I realized/learned that the faces generally need to be pushing that edge of brightness in order to print properly. I'm wondering if this is a style preference or a right/wrong thing or an educated/uneducated (about proper photo processing) thing? Am I missing something or doing something wrong?

DavidS

I love it Elaine! I love the expressions. The kids are adorable.

I can't offer intelligent comments on white balance. I struggle with that myself. I personally prefer a warm photo and I think my clients do as well. I have a hard time judging what is right. Some photos can not be warmed up much. I have found that I can brighten the photos more, when adding warmth. Whether that is right or not, I do not know.

Do you have a profile from your lab and softproof in in Photoshop? I was having trouble with my prints until I started doing that. The photos I print go through a different process, than the ones I post online.

jeffreaux2

Just a matter of taste, but my initial thoughts were that it could stand even more warmth. I often warm images MUCH more than what the eyedropper tool says is right. Another way to add a hint of warmth without adding green is to simply use the photoshop warming filters. As with anything else a little goes a long way. I rarely use those at values over ten percent.

It is a very good portrait, will look great printed large, and the composition gives you limitless crop ratio possibilities. Smart shooting Elaine!

Matt336

Definitely add more warmth to it. Great shot!

zoomer

Nice picture, they should be happy with it.
If it were mine I would darken it a bit a couple points of contrast darken the background further and give it a bit of clockwise rotation as it look a bit crooked.

Looks warm enough to me.

angevin1

Elaine wrote:

Thank you!

Here's some info:
85mm
f/3.5
ISO 1000
1/80
all natural light at 4:45 pm
WB cloudy

This was taken at 4:45, quite a ways beyond the prime time of about 4pm. The light dies quickly this time of year, and I was having a minor panic attack about the darkness, shutter speed and ISO I was having to use. 1/80 with wiggly kids is not usually a good idea. And I was using an 85mm and shooting at 1/80, on a non-IS lens, which is barely a good idea. I was happy to have 4 natural expressions, all eyes forward and open, and it was sharp! Yippee!

I shot on cloudy and processed it the first time without changing that. It came out a bit cool and the skin tones looked a bit magenta. This was confirmed by the values when the magenta was always higher than the yellow on their faces. I tried it again and got this result. I like it a bit warmer, but now I have a hard time not seeing too much green. The yellow is usually equal to, barely higher than or barely lower than the magenta now.

Another issue...my sis-in-law loves the pic and she was watching me do some processing, which I thought was fine because I think it's good for folks to have some idea what goes into developing an image. I asked her which she liked better (cooler or warmer). She liked the warmer because it didn't "look as washed out" as the cooler. Hmmm...I explained to her that a back-lit LCD screen may look a bit brighter, but I showed her with the dropper that they were not "washed out/blown out" and told her that the prints always come out a bit darker than how they appear on the back-lit LCD. I remember when I was first learning about processing that I often thought some shots looked a bit "washed out." But then I realized/learned that the faces generally need to be pushing that edge of brightness in order to print properly. I'm wondering if this is a style preference or a right/wrong thing or an educated/uneducated (about proper photo processing) thing? Am I missing something or doing something wrong?

Great photo! And how great is it or her to actually see you process it and add her two cents..I think thats mahvelous!

I too have the same thoughts on the print/screen/light/dark front. And after calibrating until...well..just until...I do several things to check. I use EZ Prints ICC profile to look at the photo in my PS of choice and I use a hard copy of former prints up against the screen and look discerningly at the difference, if any of my monitor and my photo; in hand. I do envy the folks that can afford high$ monitors for processing their photos.

I think it most def is a style/choice thing on the light...potato/potahto kinda thing~

Cheers, tom

Scott_Quier

Elaine - I like the pose but can't offer any suggestions/comments on the WB as I'm on a monitor at work that is not calibrated.

IIRC, you've had questions about WB before. If so, have you read Pathfinder's thread on WB tools?

If you have a WB tool, the next step (the one I have the most trouble with:D) is you have to actually use it.

Failing that, dad's white t-shirt would make a very good first approximation for the correct WB.