Beautiful model and great compositions and poses. At first these were so striking that I didn't think they could be improved. That's a good thing, because it shows they are very strong images to start with.
So I decided to take my own advice from this thread, don't trust your eyes. I opened the first in PS and measured her skin and found it was very magenta vs yellow. Turned down the magenta:
Better? It is to my eye, and I didn't see it until I measured and made the adjustment. You might like her hair better before. It would be pretty easy to get the best of both worlds. The whites of her eyes are a good clue that the original really was too magenta.
With the second shot, I just hit the Auto Contrast button and got this:
Again, having true blacks improves the image to my eye though I didn't see it until I measured and corrected. Yes?
John, I noted the magenta in the image also when I looked at it, but I think your image is too yellow despite the numbers. I would use a blend of the two images 60/40 favoring Randy's version myself Yours may be technically more accurate, but not how I prefer to "see" it in my mind. Does that sound nuts, or make sense?
I noted that the whites of her eyes were positive in the a channel but were quite negative in the b channel in the original images, which adding yellow will help correct as well.
The added contrast in your B&W may or may not be seen as an asset. Some may actually prefer the softer tones of the lesser grey scale image. I will be interested to hear the opinions of other viewers on calibrated monitors only. Some fog shots do not always have a black or white, and can still be quite enchanting, can't they?
While I agree that a real black and a real white are usually essential for most images, I do not feel that ALL images must have them ALL the time, and I suspect you don't either.
John, I noted the magenta in the image also when I looked at it, but I think your image is too yellow despite the numbers. I would use a blend of the two images 60/40 favoring Randy's version myself Yours may be technically more accurate, but not how I prefer to "see" it in my mind. Does that sound nuts, or make sense?
I noted that the whites of her eyes were positive in the a channel but were quite negative in the b channel in the original images, which adding yellow will help correct as well.
There is no truth here, only taste. I strongly prefer my version even after blending with the original. If the hair and eyes were more like the original and the flesh more like mine, I think most almost 90% would choose that version.
As I read the pixels in your color edit, I agree that you used a lighter touch than I initially thought looking at the image. The yellow is still less than the magenta in significant areas of your image.
One of my concerns about skin numbers is that women use camouflage( make up ) to change them, and increase the magenta/red, and some are very skillfull at hiding it.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to look at these images and giving a discussion about them.
I have no doubts about either one of your expertise in this matter, but I do have some thoughts/questions. (back in my younger days, I was a Journeyman 4-color offset pressman)
I have (3) systems here at the house, all calibrated with HueyPro & active room light monitoring. BTW, these look almost identical on all (3) systems.
John; the corrected image that you reworked is just way too yellow for my taste.
Now, I read your write-up about the issue & Baldy's. Very good info
But, one thing that you didn't mention is the sometimes wildly variable of printing. There's no denying that if you send this file to (3) different labs, even if you've soft-proofed with the lab's ICC profile, that you're going to get prints that are of (3) different looks. Color shifts & luminous differences. Then, you also have the different print media that you order the prints on that's into the mix.
So, my question is this: You say not to trust your eyes, go by the numbers. In my experience, due to the printing issues listed above, the numbers alone will not always yield prints that match what the person actually looked like when you took the picture.
What to do?
BTW: I would also like to hear from others that have calibrated monitors, to hear their input as to what the pics look like to them.
I reworked the original image and posted below. This is the limit that I personally can stand to bump up the yellow.
On the B&W image: I do not prefer your version due to the following reasons:
1) You've added too much contrast. This has blocked some of the shadow areas.
2) It makes it look way overboard on the eyes. They are overpowering.
3) This model has a lot of freckles. Your version emphasizes them too much for this kind of "softer" image. At least for the look I was after.
So...not knowing too much about the technical stuff all that I can weigh in on is my taste...
Both are very striking images. Here's my opinion on the 1st.
Most pleasing to my eye is the reworked one in Randy's 2nd posting. Rutt's version is also too yellow for my taste.
Image #2 - absolutely love this one - the lines are great. Here too I prefer the original one over the higher contrast version but I often prefer a "softer look to this type of shot. The one thing that does bother me about both renditions is the dark spot in her nostril.
Great stuff and I always learn a lot from rutt and pathfinder and everyone else.
It was actually a yellow scarf just wrapped around her head. As to the hair/shoulder -- It was windy, and you just got what you got. What the weather would allow.
So...not knowing too much about the technical stuff all that I can weigh in on is my taste...
Both are very striking images. Here's my opinion on the 1st.
Most pleasing to my eye is the reworked one in Randy's 2nd posting. Rutt's version is also too yellow for my taste.
Image #2 - absolutely love this one - the lines are great. Here too I prefer the original one over the higher contrast version but I often prefer a "softer look to this type of shot. The one thing that does bother me about both renditions is the dark spot in her nostril.
Great stuff and I always learn a lot from rutt and pathfinder and everyone else.
Hi Randy...nice looking model...you are the lucky one...lol..
Here's my take...I didn't add magenta...or yellow...I removed blue...and maybe that's what you were referring to.
Let me know what you think...the first is the original, the second has blue removed, but the numbers aren't quite there yet...and the last one has the numbers looking pretty much like they should. Just some food for thought. Hope this helps you. I did this in CS3...and I think I like LightRoom better for making tonal adjustments...it lets you use all of the RAW adjustments on your jpegs. Anyway, not saying one is better than the other...just showing a progression from the original to the final adj...
I did this on my uncalibrated new laptop...got to figure out how to calibrate it.
I did brush over the eyes with the dodge tool to pop them a little.
Hope this helps.
Original...............
A little blue removed...
This one is by the numbers...magenta is less than yellow...
After looking at them on my calibrated monitor...number two looks pretty good...hmmm...
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to work these up.
Yeah, that's what I did on my second edit also, pulled the blue a little. Although I did rework the eyes and hair due to this.
The image "by the numbers" just doesn't work for me. It makes her look like she has yellow jondus
Like I stated earlier; the image "by the numbers" may print better, but that's not set in stone either. Depends on a lot of other factors. Lab, ICC profile, paper type, etc...
I appreciate this, let's me know if I was way off base or not.
Randy, both of these images are stunning. The light on the first is simply outstanding. I won't get into the color debate as 1. my work monitor sucks and 2. it really is a matter of tastes and the final printed product is what really matters.
One thing, and I may be off here, but does her left (camera right) eye look a little soft? Or maybe not even soft but did you clone out a highlight or something in post? i just doesn't look nearly as sharp as the right eye.
You might have something here, let me give full disclosure:
First: During this online discussion, I've only been making changes to the image from a saved .jpg, then re-saving that. So, we are most certainly getting .jpg degradation going on here. Not to worry, I have the RAW file and a .tiff. I was just lazy enough to make changes on a .jpg file for this purpose.
Second: I'll post the original image with no crop nor adjustments, just converted to .jpg for posting.
I shot this with my 5DMkII. I can only imagine what this very aggressive crop would look like from another camera. Using what, maybe 1/15th of the image.
*****
I was out with another photog and this was his model portfolio shoot. I was just there to help out with lighting. Both he and the model stated that I should take some shots. I didn't want to interfere with his shoot, so the few shots that I did take, were not set-up by me, nor did I have my umbrellas with me & I didn't want to trouble him to use his umbrellas. So, I either shot with available light, as in the first image, or used my 580EX flash, as in the second image.
*****
In this non-cropped original, you can see that she is really posing for the other photog. (notice how pasty white her skin really is?)
Randy, both of these images are stunning. The light on the first is simply outstanding. I won't get into the color debate as 1. my work monitor sucks and 2. it really is a matter of tastes and the final printed product is what really matters.
One thing, and I may be off here, but does her left (camera right) eye look a little soft? Or maybe not even soft but did you clone out a highlight or something in post? i just doesn't look nearly as sharp as the right eye.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to work these up.
Yeah, that's what I did on my second edit also, pulled the blue a little. Although I did rework the eyes and hair due to this.
The image "by the numbers" just doesn't work for me. It makes her look like she has yellow jondus
Like I stated earlier; the image "by the numbers" may print better, but that's not set in stone either. Depends on a lot of other factors. Lab, ICC profile, paper type, etc...
I appreciate this, let's me know if I was way off base or not.
Randy,
I agree...lots of things effect the final product. I recently did a shoot and used SmugMug's EZ prints with custom color correction selected...the whole set came back too yellow. I emailed EZ prints and they told me that the auto color correction they use will add yellow if it feels the image is too pink...too much magenta...and that, that was what apparently happened. They hand corrected them free of charge and got them out to me ASAP. Very nice of them. The hand corrected images looked nice. It's the only time that that has ever happened, luckily. I'm very capable of color correcting my images...just thought I would try letting someone else do it. I will not do that again.
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Comments
So I decided to take my own advice from this thread, don't trust your eyes. I opened the first in PS and measured her skin and found it was very magenta vs yellow. Turned down the magenta:
Better? It is to my eye, and I didn't see it until I measured and made the adjustment. You might like her hair better before. It would be pretty easy to get the best of both worlds. The whites of her eyes are a good clue that the original really was too magenta.
With the second shot, I just hit the Auto Contrast button and got this:
Again, having true blacks improves the image to my eye though I didn't see it until I measured and corrected. Yes?
I like the lines in this shot. And the eyes. And the processing.
Is that like a cotton gauze wrap around her hair? Or a hoody? May have worked better without the hair on the shoulder.
I noted that the whites of her eyes were positive in the a channel but were quite negative in the b channel in the original images, which adding yellow will help correct as well.
The added contrast in your B&W may or may not be seen as an asset. Some may actually prefer the softer tones of the lesser grey scale image. I will be interested to hear the opinions of other viewers on calibrated monitors only. Some fog shots do not always have a black or white, and can still be quite enchanting, can't they?
While I agree that a real black and a real white are usually essential for most images, I do not feel that ALL images must have them ALL the time, and I suspect you don't either.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
There is no truth here, only taste. I strongly prefer my version even after blending with the original. If the hair and eyes were more like the original and the flesh more like mine, I think most almost 90% would choose that version.
As I read the pixels in your color edit, I agree that you used a lighter touch than I initially thought looking at the image. The yellow is still less than the magenta in significant areas of your image.
One of my concerns about skin numbers is that women use camouflage( make up ) to change them, and increase the magenta/red, and some are very skillfull at hiding it.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Thanks for taking the time and effort to look at these images and giving a discussion about them.
I have no doubts about either one of your expertise in this matter, but I do have some thoughts/questions. (back in my younger days, I was a Journeyman 4-color offset pressman)
I have (3) systems here at the house, all calibrated with HueyPro & active room light monitoring. BTW, these look almost identical on all (3) systems.
John; the corrected image that you reworked is just way too yellow for my taste.
Now, I read your write-up about the issue & Baldy's. Very good info
But, one thing that you didn't mention is the sometimes wildly variable of printing. There's no denying that if you send this file to (3) different labs, even if you've soft-proofed with the lab's ICC profile, that you're going to get prints that are of (3) different looks. Color shifts & luminous differences. Then, you also have the different print media that you order the prints on that's into the mix.
So, my question is this: You say not to trust your eyes, go by the numbers. In my experience, due to the printing issues listed above, the numbers alone will not always yield prints that match what the person actually looked like when you took the picture.
What to do?
BTW: I would also like to hear from others that have calibrated monitors, to hear their input as to what the pics look like to them.
I reworked the original image and posted below. This is the limit that I personally can stand to bump up the yellow.
On the B&W image: I do not prefer your version due to the following reasons:
1) You've added too much contrast. This has blocked some of the shadow areas.
2) It makes it look way overboard on the eyes. They are overpowering.
3) This model has a lot of freckles. Your version emphasizes them too much for this kind of "softer" image. At least for the look I was after.
Thanks again...
Original
reworked
Both are very striking images. Here's my opinion on the 1st.
Most pleasing to my eye is the reworked one in Randy's 2nd posting. Rutt's version is also too yellow for my taste.
Image #2 - absolutely love this one - the lines are great. Here too I prefer the original one over the higher contrast version but I often prefer a "softer look to this type of shot. The one thing that does bother me about both renditions is the dark spot in her nostril.
Great stuff and I always learn a lot from rutt and pathfinder and everyone else.
Comments and constructive criticism always welcome.
www.mikejulianaphotography.com
Facebook
It was actually a yellow scarf just wrapped around her head. As to the hair/shoulder -- It was windy, and you just got what you got. What the weather would allow.
I like the lines in this shot. And the eyes. And the processing.
Is that like a cotton gauze wrap around her hair? Or a hoody? May have worked better without the hair on the shoulder.[/quote]
Thanks for weighing in on the subject. I appreciate it
Is your monitor calibrated?
Comments and constructive criticism always welcome.
www.mikejulianaphotography.com
Facebook
Here's my take...I didn't add magenta...or yellow...I removed blue...and maybe that's what you were referring to.
Let me know what you think...the first is the original, the second has blue removed, but the numbers aren't quite there yet...and the last one has the numbers looking pretty much like they should. Just some food for thought. Hope this helps you. I did this in CS3...and I think I like LightRoom better for making tonal adjustments...it lets you use all of the RAW adjustments on your jpegs. Anyway, not saying one is better than the other...just showing a progression from the original to the final adj...
I did this on my uncalibrated new laptop...got to figure out how to calibrate it.
I did brush over the eyes with the dodge tool to pop them a little.
Hope this helps.
Original...............
A little blue removed...
This one is by the numbers...magenta is less than yellow...
After looking at them on my calibrated monitor...number two looks pretty good...hmmm...
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
Thanks for taking the time and effort to work these up.
Yeah, that's what I did on my second edit also, pulled the blue a little. Although I did rework the eyes and hair due to this.
The image "by the numbers" just doesn't work for me. It makes her look like she has yellow jondus
Like I stated earlier; the image "by the numbers" may print better, but that's not set in stone either. Depends on a lot of other factors. Lab, ICC profile, paper type, etc...
I appreciate this, let's me know if I was way off base or not.
My reworked one
your first reworked one
One thing, and I may be off here, but does her left (camera right) eye look a little soft? Or maybe not even soft but did you clone out a highlight or something in post? i just doesn't look nearly as sharp as the right eye.
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
Thanks for the comments.
You guys are good
You might have something here, let me give full disclosure:
First: During this online discussion, I've only been making changes to the image from a saved .jpg, then re-saving that. So, we are most certainly getting .jpg degradation going on here. Not to worry, I have the RAW file and a .tiff. I was just lazy enough to make changes on a .jpg file for this purpose.
Second: I'll post the original image with no crop nor adjustments, just converted to .jpg for posting.
I shot this with my 5DMkII. I can only imagine what this very aggressive crop would look like from another camera. Using what, maybe 1/15th of the image.
*****
I was out with another photog and this was his model portfolio shoot. I was just there to help out with lighting. Both he and the model stated that I should take some shots. I didn't want to interfere with his shoot, so the few shots that I did take, were not set-up by me, nor did I have my umbrellas with me & I didn't want to trouble him to use his umbrellas. So, I either shot with available light, as in the first image, or used my 580EX flash, as in the second image.
*****
In this non-cropped original, you can see that she is really posing for the other photog. (notice how pasty white her skin really is?)
Hope that helps...
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
Randy,
I agree...lots of things effect the final product. I recently did a shoot and used SmugMug's EZ prints with custom color correction selected...the whole set came back too yellow. I emailed EZ prints and they told me that the auto color correction they use will add yellow if it feels the image is too pink...too much magenta...and that, that was what apparently happened. They hand corrected them free of charge and got them out to me ASAP. Very nice of them. The hand corrected images looked nice. It's the only time that that has ever happened, luckily. I'm very capable of color correcting my images...just thought I would try letting someone else do it. I will not do that again.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed