Is this too much?

KTBoom2006-E510

My partner and I were just messing around with the pictures and came up with this... Don't mind the weed on the side, there is another one that it is cropped out.

Before:



After:



Before:



After:

KTBoom2006-E510

And why is it when I mess with the pictures in Adobe Elements it makes my pictures grainy? The original doesn't look like that.... And I didn't mess with the sharpen AND the pictures are darker! grr..... Oh well, at home I have the photoshop and lightroom I use

beetle8

I like the top one,
the bottom one...not so much

KTBoom2006-E510

beetle8 wrote:

I like the top one,
the bottom one...not so much

Would it be to much if I brought down the pink a little?

Qarik

the top one I am split on. One one hand teh sky effect adds some drama to the picture. On the other hand it appears you did not change the lighting on her at all...so it looks a bit out of sync. I would expect to see softer "golden" light on her and I don't.

Same with the bottom picture but to a lesser degree. The sky in the 2nd picture is a couple of shades too pink for my taste

KED

Personally, I like reality. If you catch a beautiful sunset for a shot like these, it's a glorious serendipity. Re-creating that serendipity in Photoshop seems to me (and I speak only for myself) like cheating, and the people being cheated the most (since you are not going onto any magazine cover with this) are you and your subject; it also cheapens the power of the shot when you DO capture it under real conditions. Image manipulation that is obvious on its face (split toning, greyscale, etc) is a different matter.

Please don't get me wrong -- she's a beautiful woman and it's a nice setting (good luck geting most people to lie down on RR tracks ); all the more reason not to have 'PHOTOSHOPPED" written all over them.

KTBoom2006-E510

KED wrote:

Personally, I like reality. If you catch a beautiful sunset for a shot like these, it's a glorious serendipity. Re-creating that serendipity in Photoshop seems to me (and I speak only for myself) like cheating, and the people being cheated the most (since you are not going onto any magazine cover with this) are you and your subject; it also cheapens the power of the shot when you DO capture it under real conditions. Image manipulation that is obvious on its face (split toning, greyscale, etc) is a different matter.

Please don't get me wrong -- she's a beautiful woman and it's a nice setting (good luck geting most people to lie down on RR tracks ); all the more reason not to have 'PHOTOSHOPPED" written all over them.

That is a GREAT point... Thank you!

beetle8

I disagree with KED (no offense)
we all see different things.
Photography is art
In the extreme of that thought we wouldn't be able to pose someone because it's not real it's just a pose.
Studios, backdrops, light modification on site, any form of post processing, make-up on the subject, camera angles can make someone look different than they really are. B&W, after all we live in color, I definitely don't believe in reigning in your creative process because your result is not reality.

jonh68

I like the touched up shots. If you had not posted the before and after, I don't think it would have been noticed too much.

I also agree with beetle. Since this is not journalism or trying to capture reality, I don't see a problem tweaking the backgrounds to suit the look your are after. Besides, I don't think there is such a thing as a "true" photograph. With all the WB, saturation settings, etc, photography is about making the best possible picture, not so much about reflecting truth, unless of course it's journalism.

mike_k

I don't mind touched up shots, either - beetle and John make good points - but if the end result could never occur in nature then it screams Photoshop and to me that takes away from the shot. In other words, I would prefer manipulation like these to enhance the shot, but in a way that doesn't take away from it.

For the first example, I like it, but my focus is on why it seems off rather than on the subject (and I think it seems off because I would expect the lower part of the sky to be darker than the upper part).

On the second example, I'm totally focused on the pink sky when it seems like my attention should be on the girl. She is a beautiful girl and shouldn't have to compete with the sky for the viewer's attention.

So I would say enhance, but don't distract. Although the originals are fantastic shots and don't really need enhancing...

Richard

I am not a "purist"...as long as it's not PJ or forensic photography--where real world facts are the whole point--anything goes. These are both very nice shots, but IMO the processing makes them less believable. There is too great a difference in the color temperature between the subject and the sky. It is especially noticeable because the model is wearing white. My eye would expect a hint of orange in the first and pink in the second, but all I see is neutral. So I guess I would say that either you went too far or you didn't go far enough.

Cheers,

Scott_Quier

#1 - This is a good start. I think you need to take it the next step and warm her up just a bit. Apply a Photoshop warming filter layer and then mask the effect so that the light on her more closely matches the new ambient. It will make the image more believable and, I believe, more acceptable to the client.

#2 - Oh boy, is that too pink or what? For playing around this is fun. For delivery to the a senior portrait client, I don't think it will float (unless we are talking about my niece who seems to believe there's no such thing as too much pink ). And, again, the light on her doesn't match the ambient.

As for keeping it true. IMO (FWIW), placing a restriction like that on the production of art is counter-productive. It's art, and manipulation of the variables is what one does to translate am image of "what was" to one of "what I saw". Now, if you are doing documentary or PJ work - yeah, SOOC is the ONLY way to go.

KTBoom2006-E510

Wow! Everyone has such great points!!! I am going to try and do the picture again (just b/c I am bored at work) and this time not so much and I will warm the temperature up on her.... So please everyone come back and see if I made an imporvement

evoryware

I don't think it adds interest by changing the sky. I'd probably crop it to bring more focus to her and make her pop more in #1.

KED

mike_k wrote:

I don't mind touched up shots, either - beetle and John make good points -

Yes they do, and so do you. Photography is, indeed, art, and we all have our own styles. I shoot sports mainly, so my thought processes kinda run along PJ lines. I stand by my comment but completely respect the alternative POV.