Christmas Angel:Portrait

ginger_55

Any advice appreciated. I think I can get a release on this and some other ballet photos. I know it is grainy. 1600 ISO, it had to be handheld, and no flash.

Other than that. I don't know if the dancer is in focus. Her face appeared to be, but her tiara does not.

I want to send it into POTD, but I am having problems with the "stories", I would send this and take a chance with the grain? Can't hurt, can it? They say they put weight on the stories, how do I say I just want it so bad I could die, don't know these people at all, but it is Christmas for me.

I did the minimum workup, I did crop it a bit. Then the very minimum. Except I sharpened it through USM RGB, USM LAB, and USM fade then luminosity.

ginger

yvonne

Don't know anything about stories, but I'm afraid from here, the dancer's face does not look sharp. Her eyes, I think, are slightly off, and the lips are completely off. But the little girl's face is completely sharp.Depends how much that bothers you. If you were to crop a lot tighter onto the little girl, then the adult would become less important in the picture, so you wouldn't really focus so much on her (if you'll pardon the pun).

Just my thoughts..

Mitchell

I find the dancer's undergarment distracting. It might just be me, but my eyes keep traveling between the girls face and the woman's bra. An unfortunate focal point in the center of the photo.
I find the lighting and graininess enchanting.

mitch

ginger_55

I had done this one, before I read about the undergarment. I don't think it is meant to be hidden, one of those strange styles we are seeing in young people. I came in tighter on the dancer's face, actually her eyes and lips are in focus, they just aren't much there. I think this works better as for some reason the little girl is all there, she is just grainy. Oh, I did use Kelby's suggestion on grain, with the blur in the LAB channels.

ginger (Thanks for the comments and the help)

ginger_55

Maybe I like the first one better, can't decide. The undergarment thing, I do think that is out of focus, but it is kind of in the middle of the photo, I am not going to try to clone it away, I can see how it might be a distraction. Many of the dancers were dressed like that, and they made no attempt to hide it.

ginger

lynnma

ginger_55 wrote:

Maybe I like the first one better, can't decide. The undergarment thing, I do think that is out of focus, but it is kind of in the middle of the photo, I am not going to try to clone it away, I can see how it might be a distraction. Many of the dancers were dressed like that, and they made no attempt to hide it.

ginger

Its a dance thing... it's the "in" cool thing...

Mitchell

lynnma wrote:

Its a dance thing... it's the "in" cool thing...

I'll be the first to admit I know nothing about cool dance things.
I'm just a 40 year old ear, nose, and throat doctor!!

ginger_55

Mitchell wrote:

I'll be the first to admit I know nothing about cool dance things.
I'm just a 40 year old ear, nose, and throat doctor!!

That is cool, too.

ginger

Tim Kirkwood

Tried to remove the noise. Not sure if it made it any better or worse lol

ginger_55

I don't know if you did either, smile. But what did you use. I would like to be able to do that.

I am going to use a different crop, the whole "neg", so to speak.

I am going to download something, probably. Did you use something like that.

I do like the smooth look. Thanks,

ginger

ginger_55

That is such a cute kid. The dancer doesn't look real. Lynne, how do they do that, the dancers? Kind of a Barbie look, don't you think?

g

snapapple

A beautiful angel
Ginger,
I love this photo. I thought it had such a classic look that maybe an oil painting or fresco look would disguise the grain. I used the watercolor effect after cropping and cloning. I also desaturated the color a bit.

ginger_55

That looks beautiful, Snappy. What did you clone? You just used the watercolor filter............I used to use it a lot. Purists hated it. In fact, non purists didn't seem to think it was worth much. I love to mess around and that was one of my favorite filters.

I really like what you did. But I wanted to enter it in kodak's thing, not that I should with all that grain, but they wouldn't take the watercolor filter.

I would like it for myself though. I am exhausted now. Until today I have been working on Thanksgiving family photos. Last night and today, I have worked on these, and probably will for the week. Then Sunday there are 3 baptisms.

Bill was watching TV tonight while I made prints for him to take to the ballet "master". I am trying to get releases. I printed some (releases) out, they look scary as heck. Say I can do anything with the photos...........That seems a bit much.

Thanks for working on that. Will talk to you more about what you did. I loved that photo the minute I saw it in the LCD window.

ginger

I like your crop, too. (PS, I saw what you cloned, the underthing, you did a good job.)

Thiago Sigrist

Hi Ginger!
First of all, I have to say I know *exactly* the feeling you had when you saw the photo on the LCD! The composition and lighting are pretty cool, that's why!

I'd also like to suggest that any kind of post-processing applied to this photo should not attempt to make it look sharper. In my opinion, sharpening would only make the noise more visible. Working to improve the soft look appears to be the better solution. I really like the treatment given by Snappy... it looks great, and certainly a step on the right direction.

Anyways, nice photo, and thanks so much for sharing!

Take care!

-- thiago

ginger_55

I could not duplicate Snappy's photo, will get more details from her later. I did want a straight photo, though. This is full frame, as taken.

I used a technique in Scott Kelby's PS CS bk called Advanced
Skin Softening. It is on page 214 in the book. I used layers, I USED LAYERS, beyond anything I have ever tried before, and it worked! I think. As good as I would get. I think. So far this is my version.



This is my desaturated version. The watercolor did not get rid of the noise at all, not even with blur, etc.




I might have desaturated too much.
The link to my shadows gallery on smugmug, originals and all is:

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/gallery/305091/2/12205841


Ginger, thanks all for commenting.

lynnma

ginger_55 wrote:

I could not duplicate Snappy's photo, will get more details from her later. I did want a straight photo, though. This is full frame, as taken.

I used a technique in Scott Kelby's PS CS bk called Advanced
Skin Softening. It is on page 214 in the book. I used layers, I USED LAYERS, beyond anything I have ever tried before, and it worked! I think. As good as I would get. I think. So far this is my version.



This is my desaturated version. The watercolor did not get rid of the noise at all, not even with blur, etc.




I might have desaturated too much.
The link to my shadows gallery on smugmug, originals and all is:

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/gallery/305091/2/12205841


Ginger, thanks all for commenting.

Hi Ginger.. got your PM. I like the very first shot you put up at the start of this thread very much.. I also like this smoother version



I'm wondering if it's a tad too smooth.. not so much the child but the woman's face.. I don't mind the grain so much. I think I'd like a desaturated version too but not as much as you've done on the next one. I love the shot tho in any of your versions. I think the smooth one probably most if you could just unsmooth it a smooch.. They are all lovely..

lynnma

Couldn't resist having a little play with it myself.. just a quick version..

ginger_55

Thanks Lynn, and I guess I will fool with it again later. So silly, don't see how we are going to find the mother to get a release at this point anyway. I do love the photo.

Having looked at it so many times, I just noticed how high the woman's forehead is. Have you noticed that?

I know the word that comes to my mind when I see the child, it is Botticelli, now I have to find out why and check my spelling, too. Amazing the knowledge that is wandering around in our brains. There is a reason for my thinking of that, I am sure it is a painting of a child, baby or cherubs........... And that is a lot more than I could have thought of a few days ago.

ginger

lynnma

ginger_55 wrote:

Thanks Lynn, and I guess I will fool with it again later. So silly, don't see how we are going to find the mother to get a release at this point anyway. I do love the photo.

Having looked at it so many times, I just noticed how high the woman's forehead is. Have you noticed that?

I know the word that comes to my mind when I see the child, it is Botticelli, now I have to find out why and check my spelling, too. Amazing the knowledge that is wandering around in our brains. There is a reason for my thinking of that, I am sure it is a painting of a child, baby or cherubs........... And that is a lot more than I could have thought of a few days ago.

ginger

yes I agree...

snapapple

Another try
Ginger,
I got your pm. I took the uncropped version from the gallery that you posted. Looking at it close up, I saw lots of tiny speckles. I'm not sure if this is your smooth version or not. First I cropped it. Then I started with the blur tool thinking that I would only blur the skin, but I ended up using a large circle and blurring the whole thing. It's such a slight blur (even at 100% strength) that it worked fine. It took out all the speckles.
Then I took the clone tool at 18% to 23% strength and smoothed out the sharp line on the woman's cheek bone. I then cloned over the shoulder strap to remove the buckles and soften the shadows. I also lightened the undergarment and cloned out the spots on the womans chin and back.
I used the dodge tool with a very small point to highlight the hair. I made star-like lines on some of the hairs on the child and highlighted the curls on the right side of her face. I dodged the whites of their eyes and then cloned in tiny white spots on the whites of both of their eyes and blurred them to create highlights. I used the dodge tool with just one wide circle and one click at 9% strength(I think) to cover the childs cheek and then her forehead and nose. I desaturated the whole thing just a tiny bit. I think that's it. Here it is. It is also in the "Ginger" gallery on my site.

lynnma

NIce job Snappy

ginger_55

That is beautiful, Snappy. I have never been able to accomplish anything with my blur tool. Also it sounds like a bunch of work. Thank you. It is probably stuff you do, I have stuff I do and it doesn't seem like so much work.

I think I am going to visit your gallery.

Anyone think of the painter I am thinking of. I went from Botticelli to dutch painters. A lot of places selling the same posters online.

ginger

snapapple

Thanks Lynn and Ginger
It really wasn't a lot of work. Each thing only takes a couple of minutes. I use a light hand with the clone tool, going from very light strength of 13 or so to 60 to cover skin blemishes. You can still see a little bit of the spots so it looks natural. I took lots of art classes in school and did lots of painting, so you know I love to "paint" and I have lots of patience. After using a blur to soften the faces, it's important to replace some of the sparkle. You can use the sharpen tool around the eyes (I didn't) (oh, I did use the sharpen tool on the light bulb) and the dodge tool to bring back the highlights in the hair and eyes. I love the star highlights in the hair! I hated that shoulder strap, but I know Ginger likes authenticity, so I tried to minimize it while leaving it in. I can live with it now.

Regarding stars in hair and eyes and all this stuff, it's important to know when to *stop*. Keep in soft, keep it natural!

ginger_55

That is just gorgeous, Snappy. I examined it carefully, it is amazing from the grain to that.

I looked at the child's hair, I don't know how you mean you did the stars, but it is beautiful. And I usually try to use the blur tool to get rid of brush marks from the clone tool, I have never noticed that it did anything. How do you get something from that tool?

The full sized one in my gallery, and I left my name as friend in your gallery, yours was in mine, so it is easily back and forth, anyway the full sized one is the Kelby instructed 4 layer, 3 pages of steps, darkening, lightening and blurring and whatever different layers.

I was kind of confused as to how to change the effect in the woman without changing it in the child, Lynn, when she/you mentioned that it was too blurred. I had just followed instructions. One thing in there, in the instructions, I took all the blur and everything off of the clothes and stuff as per Kelby's instructions.

With all that going on, I can imagine there were some speckles, or residue.

Bill is going to try to get a release tomorrow, or next week. The ballet company "artist in residence at the college of Charleston" told Bill that I should just go ahead and use what I wanted, or something like that, but on that one photo, he will get me a release.

Thanks again, will see what I can do. Let me know how you use the blur tool.

ginger

Mitchell

snapapple wrote:

Ginger,
I got your pm. I took the uncropped version from the gallery that you posted. Looking at it close up, I saw lots of tiny speckles. I'm not sure if this is your smooth version or not. First I cropped it. Then I started with the blur tool thinking that I would only blur the skin, but I ended up using a large circle and blurring the whole thing. It's such a slight blur (even at 100% strength) that it worked fine. It took out all the speckles.
Then I took the clone tool at 18% to 23% strength and smoothed out the sharp line on the woman's cheek bone. I then cloned over the shoulder strap to remove the buckles and soften the shadows. I also lightened the undergarment and cloned out the spots on the womans chin and back.
I used the dodge tool with a very small point to highlight the hair. I made star-like lines on some of the hairs on the child and highlighted the curls on the right side of her face. I dodged the whites of their eyes and then cloned in tiny white spots on the whites of both of their eyes and blurred them to create highlights. I used the dodge tool with just one wide circle and one click at 9% strength(I think) to cover the childs cheek and then her forehead and nose. I desaturated the whole thing just a tiny bit. I think that's it. Here it is. It is also in the "Ginger" gallery on my site.

Thanks for the tutorial. Beautiful job on this photo. Ginger, I think you now have a stunner!!

mitch

Michiel de Brieder

Hi Ginger!!
I like the composition! As others have tried their attempt at making the final result better, I also would like to chime in! Here's my try:

As for what I have done (all in photoshop CS):
1. to remove some noise from the blacks I like to do an adjustment layer 'Selective color' and in the black channel pumt up the blacks (this time I did 100%)
2. Copy the background layer and do a High pass filter for 10 and set the opacity to soft light (for sharpening)
3. copy the background again and put the copy between background and high pass layer. Add a Gaussion blur @ 3
4. Adjustment layer 'Channel Mixer' with in the red channel the reds pulled back to +88
5. An Adjustment Layer 'Hue Saturation' bump the saturation up to 10
6. resize, add frame yadada post
I hope this helps, and if you want the full size psd, send me an email and I'll mail it out to ya!!
Ciao!

photocat

ginger_55 wrote:

I don't know if you did either, smile. But what did you use. I would like to be able to do that.

I am going to use a different crop, the whole "neg", so to speak.

I am going to download something, probably. Did you use something like that.

I do like the smooth look. Thanks,

ginger

I like the grainy look too Ginger. It can work very much in favor for the mood of a picture. I think you did a great job here.

ginger_55

OK, I tried another one, too.
Thanks Photocat. Now I have taken Snappy's tutorial to heart, but without the crop, and I did not blur the photo. I did the cheekbone (makeup, I am sure), the eyes, the sharpening, some blurring, the bra strap, the blemishes, and this is what I ended up with. I printed both out, Snappy's and mine. And of course I printed out Snappy's "tutorial". For a release, these people can each have their choice of a print, lol. This has been some project. I learned a lot.
ginger photo taken Dec 1 (I keep thinking I am going to forget that)

ginger_55

Did I mess up on the strap? Will blurring smooth that out, if I did.

g

snapapple

Ginger,
It looks real good except for the strap. It looks like a double image on the strap to me. I don't know how that could be. Anyway, what I did was clone out the edge of the strap to make it narrow, then I blended the white of the strap upward over the buckles to make it look like a continuous narrow strap. I blended a light, maybe 20%, bit of skin tone over the shadows near the right edge of the strap, to lighten them. Zoom in real close and don't use too small of a tip. The bit larger one leaves no edge. If you get any edge at all, go to a smaller number on the opacity. I never use the blur tool to finish it off, I just keep doing it over until it leaves no visible mark.
Good work so far.