It's a nice shot that looks to be too dark, too red and too saturated. Easy enough to fix. A little hair light might have been nice to set her off from the background.
It's a nice shot that looks to be too dark, too red and too saturated. Easy enough to fix. A little hair light might have been nice to set her off from the background.
Thanks, David...I'll do what I can to fix it.
"Where there is no elegance of the heart...there is no elegance." Yves Saint Laurent
Well, just checked this one on 3 different calibrated monitors and it was not too dark, too red, nor too saturated...you're right, David...it is an "easy" fix, but you're obviously seeing what several of us are not seeing.
Sincerely,
Jon
"Where there is no elegance of the heart...there is no elegance." Yves Saint Laurent
She's gorgeous! Photographically speaking, I do agree with David, though. It appears a bit underexposed and the white balance seems off, unless you were going for a certain effect.
Elaine
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Well, just checked this one on 3 different calibrated monitors and it was not too dark, too red, nor too saturated...you're right, David...it is an "easy" fix, but you're obviously seeing what several of us are not seeing.
Sincerely,
Jon
Interesting, well, I did a very quick, imperfect edit to show what I mean, here. To my eye, the skin tones are much more natural in this version. What do you think?
Interesting, well, I did a very quick, imperfect edit to show what I mean, here. To my eye, the skin tones are much more natural in this version. What do you think?
David, thanks for taking the time to work on this - very gracious of you. Your edit is very light - almost an artificial glow to the skin that washes away most of the texture...the background is very light as well...but the skin tones - especially on the model's left side are slightly greenish - not much...but enough to be disturbing. In any case, if what I originally posted had the same effect upon as your edit has for me...I can see why you responded as you did! For me, your edit creates the impression that the photo was not properly exposed...needs saturation...too light...too green. I could easliy set up my monitor using your edited photo as a guide...but should I? What do you think?
Sincere Thanks,
Jon
"Where there is no elegance of the heart...there is no elegance." Yves Saint Laurent
Just curious...David's edit...IMO could still stand a bit more exposure and is still a tad red for my tastes. No green though.
I agree with David and Jeff. Pretty picture...just needs some adjustment.
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.
I agree with David and Jeff. I think you can now see that you have more on the too red and underexposed side than otherwise.
Thanks, Ed - actually, I can't see it, but I take your point! I have a number of photog friends who are also responding to this issue - appreciate the input from everyone.
Jon
"Where there is no elegance of the heart...there is no elegance." Yves Saint Laurent
Your monitor is reporting calibrated based on your device (i2 or spyder)? Does your image look good in PS/LR and then get the red cast if you bring up yor exported jpg in some other viewer? Perhaps you are exporting ProPhoto colors to an implied sRGB without actually saving the profile?
My LR lives in ProPhoto space:
Exported to sRGB:
Exported to AdobeRGB (but uploaded to flickr)
Exported to PhotoRGB and uploaded
Given how much greener she is getting, it might follow that you are accidentally exporting based on ProPhoto or AdobeRGB but once you post, the profile is lost.
The original is both too dark and lacks pop. It doesn't have a true dark point or light point. How's this look to you:
I lightened up a little with a false profile and then used a curve to get true blacks and complete range of contrast. One could play with the saturation or color balance, but that's not what bugged me most about the original.
The original is both too dark and lacks pop. It doesn't have a true dark point or light point. How's this look to you:
I lightened up a little with a false profile and then used a curve to get true blacks and complete range of contrast. One could play with the saturation or color balance, but that's not what bugged me most about the original.
I too, saw the original as too far into the red zone , but didn't see it as underexposed. This version is still too red, but almost blown out.
I think the real lesson here - and seeing adbsgicom's post of the same image in three different spaces, is that viewing images as we are on different monitors, laptops, desktops, and in a myriad of color spaces, we are going to see the same photo a zillion different ways. That said, given that a number of people all see this image as somewhat too red, Jon might consider how it's going to be seen by various viewers across the net, and want to adjust accordingly. Or not.
I too, saw the original as too far into the red zone , but didn't see it as underexposed. This version is still too red, but almost blown out.
I think the real lesson here - and seeing adbsgicom's post of the same image in three different spaces, is that viewing images as we are on different monitors, laptops, desktops, and in a myriad of color spaces, we are going to see the same photo a zillion different ways. That said, given that a number of people all see this image as somewhat too red, Jon might consider how it's going to be seen by various viewers across the net, and want to adjust accordingly. Or not.
i've collected input from 30 different viewers...10 see it as nearly perfectly exposed with great color...20 see it as too red, too dark, and too saturated...
I am going to adjust accordingly...this image is too red, too dark, and saturated! Good grief! No more input, please and Thank You!
"Where there is no elegance of the heart...there is no elegance." Yves Saint Laurent
Comments
Equipment: a whole bunch of black cylinders full of polished glass that cost way to much that I just had to have...
Thanks, Chuck - a little overboard, I think, but appreciate the kind word!
Best to you,
Jon
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Thanks, David...I'll do what I can to fix it.
Well, just checked this one on 3 different calibrated monitors and it was not too dark, too red, nor too saturated...you're right, David...it is an "easy" fix, but you're obviously seeing what several of us are not seeing.
Sincerely,
Jon
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
Interesting, well, I did a very quick, imperfect edit to show what I mean, here. To my eye, the skin tones are much more natural in this version. What do you think?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Equipment: a whole bunch of black cylinders full of polished glass that cost way to much that I just had to have...
EF 2.0x II extender BG-E6
David, thanks for taking the time to work on this - very gracious of you. Your edit is very light - almost an artificial glow to the skin that washes away most of the texture...the background is very light as well...but the skin tones - especially on the model's left side are slightly greenish - not much...but enough to be disturbing. In any case, if what I originally posted had the same effect upon as your edit has for me...I can see why you responded as you did! For me, your edit creates the impression that the photo was not properly exposed...needs saturation...too light...too green. I could easliy set up my monitor using your edited photo as a guide...but should I? What do you think?
Sincere Thanks,
Jon
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
Jeff,
Thx for weighing in - helpful.
Best,
Jon
What type of device are you using to calibrate?
Just curious...Davids edit...IMO could still stand a bit more exposure and is still a tad red for my tastes. No green though.
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
Jeff,
Monitor was calibrated with the Spyder Pro.
Jon
I agree with David and Jeff. Pretty picture...just needs some adjustment.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
Thanks, Ed - actually, I can't see it, but I take your point! I have a number of photog friends who are also responding to this issue - appreciate the input from everyone.
Jon
My LR lives in ProPhoto space:
Exported to sRGB:
Exported to AdobeRGB (but uploaded to flickr)
Exported to PhotoRGB and uploaded
Given how much greener she is getting, it might follow that you are accidentally exporting based on ProPhoto or AdobeRGB but once you post, the profile is lost.
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I lightened up a little with a false profile and then used a curve to get true blacks and complete range of contrast. One could play with the saturation or color balance, but that's not what bugged me most about the original.
I too, saw the original as too far into the red zone
I think the real lesson here - and seeing adbsgicom's post of the same image in three different spaces, is that viewing images as we are on different monitors, laptops, desktops, and in a myriad of color spaces, we are going to see the same photo a zillion different ways. That said, given that a number of people all see this image as somewhat too red, Jon might consider how it's going to be seen by various viewers across the net, and want to adjust accordingly. Or not.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
i've collected input from 30 different viewers...10 see it as nearly perfectly exposed with great color...20 see it as too red, too dark, and too saturated...
I am going to adjust accordingly...this image is too red, too dark, and saturated! Good grief! No more input, please and Thank You!