could use input??

BuddyLee · November 29, 2009

I'm not big into post processing, but understand the need for some to add a creative flair at times. These shots have only minor adjustments in photo shop. I would like to hear what you would do differently?

1.

2.

3.

marikris · November 29, 2009

Are you asking what I would do creatively to the photos? Do I have your permission to experiment on one of them

BuddyLee · November 29, 2009

marikris wrote:

Are you asking what I would do creatively to the photos? Do I have your permission to experiment on one of them

Yep, that's exactly what i'm asking.

you have my permission.

marikris · November 29, 2009

Ok, here goes lol:

I rendered a lens flare on the upper right corner, put several layers that played with curves and color, a masked blurry layer, slight vignette and topped it off with a masked colorful "bokeh" texture. All opacity adjusted to taste.

I wanted to enhance the romantic quality of the photo, make it dreamy and slightly isolate them for intimacy, but as with everything, it may not be to everyone's taste

Weisel · November 29, 2009

Good job on the experimenting. A huge improvement.

BuddyLee · November 30, 2009

marikris wrote:

Ok, here goes lol:

I rendered a lens flare on the upper right corner, put several layers that played with curves and color, a masked blurry layer, slight vignette and topped it off with a masked colorful "bokeh" texture. All opacity adjusted to taste.

I wanted to enhance the romantic quality of the photo, make it dreamy and slightly isolate them for intimacy, but as with everything, it may not be to everyone's taste

Thanks, that is what I was looking for. I can appreciate what you have done, but you are correct when you say it may not be to everyone's taste. Mine included. I think photographs are generally way to manipulated in today's times. But some clients want that manipulation, so I'm learning anyway.

I like what you did, but for me, I'm just not sure if it really gives it more romantic quality.

Good job on the experimenting. A huge improvement.

When you say "huge improvement" are you saying the image quality is not good? Should it be composed differently? Do you think the colors are not natural? I'm definitely looking for constructive critism in all areas so I can improve my craft.

Thanks for the input so far.

Lee

Weisel · November 30, 2009

When I say it was a huge improvement, I mean the post processing added a LOT for me. I know you are not into much Photoshopping, but that's the way things are now, and that's what you must compete with. Your technical photo quality is fine it seems. (I'm no expert for sure). It's just that your photos look so....well, straight out of the camera. That's a tough way to go these days, with what most people are doing. Heck, before Photoshop, it was all dark room and/or printing tricks. We just have it much easier now with Photoshop, and so many more variables available.
Consider major motion pictures. There's HUGE manipulation going on there of the video. It would be pretty hard to make a blockbuster film today with little to no effects or manipulation. (much of which is overdone. Too much CG)

Anyway, blah blah blah. You get the point by now, whether you agree or disagree. Photography is NOT about reality. That should make my point in one sentence. :photo Even that can be argued.

aj986s · November 30, 2009

I'm not a pro, but have been experimenting lately with gaussian blur/lens blur. Using a quick mask, I was able to do this:
dgrin pic2.jpg

BuddyLee · November 30, 2009

Thanks, yeah, I definitely get it. You are correct. These photos are basically straight out of the camera. Only slight cropping or levels adjusted. The couple loves them. But like you said, I may have to compete with more post processing art for other couples. I really appreciate the honest input. I'm going to process a few of these later this week and re-post them here to get more input. I need to find my style.

divamum · November 30, 2009

My problem with the last one - and probably why other people have used blur on it - is because all those bare branches are competing for attention with the couple. The lighting you have is quite nice, epecially on her hair, but the depth of field is deep and sharp, which means that they're not isolated as much as they could be (do you have others from that series with a shallower depth of field) and the branches and pergola are very visually "busy".

I played around with cropping it way down, but it will depend on whether you have the resoluation in the original file to do that. However, it might be worth playing with.

I'll be interested to see what you do with them - please do post back!

BuddyLee · November 30, 2009

divamum wrote:

My problem with the last one - and probably why other people have used blur on it - is because all those bare branches are competing for attention with the couple. The lighting you have is quite nice, epecially on her hair, but the depth of field is deep and sharp, which means that they're not isolated as much as they could be (do you have others from that series with a shallower depth of field) and the branches and pergola are very visually "busy".

I played around with cropping it way down, but it will depend on whether you have the resoluation in the original file to do that. However, it might be worth playing with.

I'll be interested to see what you do with them - please do post back!

What you are saying makes sense. I was so into getting the lighting right on these shots that I honestly didn't think a lot about depth of field except i knew i didn't want it too shallow because i wanted the two of them to be fully sharp and in focus. but... that said. I do have a tighter crop at full resolution and have plenty of room for cropping on this one. It's not cropped at all now.

A few more from the series are here. http://www.leediehr.com/People/Engagement/Scott-and-Terri/10477609_voPRP#726934296_erzRj

I'm really not processing this shoot until later this week because my 'real' job is getting in the way.

That's why i'm all over this feedback before i dig deep to make these photos awesome for my clients.

marikris · November 30, 2009

I totally agree with Diva, and I'm glad you do too

While there *are* 'togs who shoot at a very wide depth of field, they usually have a background that enhances the image - one example that comes to mind is a couple who specifically requested a fashion treatment, and the 'tog placed them in front of an urban background. Very grungy. But that's not what this shoot is about.

I like this shot http://www.leediehr.com/People/Engagement/Scott-and-Terri/10477609_voPRP#726930672_aqPZS-A-LB the most out of your gallery. The background is interesting, but my eyes inevitably goes back to the couple. The b&w treatment really helped this, too, I think, as it made me focus on their expression and less on colors.

Weisel · November 30, 2009

I hope it's ok if I throw out a version also. This is a quickie version I did in 2 minutes, but it is in the general direction I personally would go with it. I like desaturated colors and some color shifting, as well as some slight glam blur on them and the area. Slight gaussian blur on the branches all around. I did a slight crop also, just to help reduce some branches and also to place them slightly more to the "third".

Just my .2c

Your photo was very easy to work with, as you did a great job on the lighting and exposure. I think if you take your experience with making quality photos on the front end, then you could really hit some home runs on the back end with some post processing. Tweak to taste of course. That's the fun of it.

Mox · November 30, 2009

^I love that version!

marikris · November 30, 2009

I took off the blur layer, and I kinda like this better than my first one:

BuddyLee · December 2, 2009

Ok, I tried a couple of edits this morning. Keep in mind this is my first engagement shoot and I can take the criticism.... bring it on.

1.

2.

zoomer · December 2, 2009

Take the photo at a larger f-stop that blurs the background naturally. Adding blur in PP does not normally look good, I personally think it bad.

Choose your backgrounds and compose the photo in your head then place the couple into the photo. Stay away from busy cluttered backgrounds unless the couple is far enough away from the background and your f-stop is large enough to blur it enough that it is not a distraction.
Don't follow the couple around and just shoot them wherever...

The photo of the couple kissing is never going to be a winner because of the background.
But.....try doing a vignette...darkening all the clutter and making the couple the brightest part of the photo.
Your new revision 1 is going the right direction...crop it even tighter and make it a true black and white. Then you can put a dark vignette around it and highlight the couple.

Photo 2 has the same problems as the first one. Poor background and to much clutter in the photo, to much depth of field.

Weisel · December 2, 2009

I think your new #1 is too dark and gray. You may want to try the B&W thing like he said.

#2 may be better cropped into a vertical portrait style shot. Crop out the BBQ thing or whatever it is, and use the building as the main backdrop, with the couple on the lower left of the frame. Just my opinion. It does need to be simplified, since you shot with a smaller aperture.

BuddyLee · December 2, 2009

Weisel wrote:

<table style="width: 507px; height: 152px;" id="HB_Mail_Container" unselectable="on" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr unselectable="on" width="100%" height="100%"><td id="HB_Focus_Element" unselectable="off" width="100%" background="" height="250" valign="top">I think your new #1 is too dark and gray. You may want to try the B&W thing like he said.

#2 may be better cropped into a vertical portrait style shot. Crop out the BBQ thing or whatever it is, and use the building as the main backdrop, with the couple on the lower left of the frame. Just my opinion. It does need to be simplified, since you shot with a smaller aperture.</td></tr><tr unselectable="on" hb_tag="1"><td style="font-size: 1pt;" unselectable="on" height="1">
</td></tr></tbody></table>{/quote]

I should have prefaced that the backgrounds are all from a historic mill in our area. It's what the couple wanted. So, some of this is about the client. I understand shallow DOF and framing tighter, but sometimes people do want the surroundings and it doesn't matter if we like it.

That said, I shouldn't have even tried to manipulate that first shot this morning, after some sleep, wow, it's terrible.

Maybe a better way to have asked my original question would have to to say, how would you manipulate these photos to enhance the couple, yet keep the aspects of the photo they like and want.

P.S. the good thing is they love them. I'm enjoying the feedback and debate about what and how to handle these shots.

marikris · December 2, 2009

BuddyLee wrote:

Maybe a better way to have asked my original question would have to to say, how would you manipulate these photos to enhance the couple, yet keep the aspects of the photo they like and want.

I think I should apologize. When I read "creatively" change the photo, I took it and ran with it and probably started us on the wrong direction. I forget that I was an art major, and "creative" for me is probably a little too out there for others.

So anyway, keeping your preface in mind, I think you have to remember that whatever it is you use in Photoshop, it should *add* to the image as well as to whatever it is you were trying to "say" with the images you produced.

(I think it would help also if we could see the original image vs the enhanced one.)

In the above, the blur and the desat doesn't add to #1 because it took away the vitality of the couple. It added a lot of dark shapes that enhanced the creepy lines of the trees. Instead of saying "couple in love kissing in the woods," it makes me read, "Kissing couple in a spooky wood."

#2 has very low contrast (probably from the blur) and lots of solid-like dark objects and shadows.

So how do you want to portray this couple? I think you have to start from there. Just keep playing with it. If you want to show their happiness, go for brighter, sunnier, backgrounds. Maybe play with the colors so it's got the look of afternoon sunlight. What changes would add to that image? It's hard to ask someone else that question because his/her answer might not ever satisfy you.

BuddyLee · December 2, 2009

Absolutely no need to apologize. I like what you did with the photo. Especially the last one you posted.

The second shot was done at f2.8. It wasn't posed. They were trying to do something else and it was one of the few times during the day they looked natural to me. So I'm hoping to save it somehow.

Here's the original

A try at what Weisel suggested... which I think I like.

marikris wrote:

I think I should apologize. When I read "creatively" change the photo, I took it and ran with it and probably started us on the wrong direction. I forget that I was an art major, and "creative" for me is probably a little too out there for others.

So anyway, keeping your preface in mind, I think you have to remember that whatever it is you use in Photoshop, it should *add* to the image as well as to whatever it is you were trying to "say" with the images you produced.

(I think it would help also if we could see the original image vs the enhanced one.)

In the above, the blur and the desat doesn't add to #1 because it took away the vitality of the couple. It added a lot of dark shapes that enhanced the creepy lines of the trees. Instead of saying "couple in love kissing in the woods," it makes me read, "Kissing couple in a spooky wood."

#2 has very low contrast (probably from the blur) and lots of solid-like dark objects and shadows.

So how do you want to portray this couple? I think you have to start from there. Just keep playing with it. If you want to show their happiness, go for brighter, sunnier, backgrounds. Maybe play with the colors so it's got the look of afternoon sunlight. What changes would add to that image? It's hard to ask someone else that question because his/her answer might not ever satisfy you.

zoomer · December 2, 2009

The second very close crop does not work. The photo is not sharp enough and it is starting to pixel out at that extreme crop. If you change it to black and white you might be able to get away with it, having it in color adds nothing.
If the intent was to capture some of the background in the photo it should have been taken from the sun at your back position so there would be some light on the background.
Leave the second photo as it was in your original, would be my advice.

nicoleshilliday · December 2, 2009

ahhh I know this spot well. I love shooting there, such beauty in a small spot.

I am not a big post processor either. A few small things here and there, but I do always look at each picture and see how it might be better...a little sharpening, brighten a bit, maybe it's just better in black and white...items like that. I use a slight vignette on many photos to help bring the eye to the subject.

If it helps any, and you want to see what I did at my last shoot there check out the link below: http://proofs.shillidayphotography.com/Engagement-Session-Catherine/Katherine-and-Chris/10221083_4fUbs#704623500_F6jBV

BuddyLee · December 2, 2009

nicoleshilliday wrote:

ahhh I know this spot well. I love shooting there, such beauty in a small spot.

I am not a big post processor either. A few small things here and there, but I do always look at each picture and see how it might be better...a little sharpening, brighten a bit, maybe it's just better in black and white...items like that. I use a slight vignette on many photos to help bring the eye to the subject.

If it helps any, and you want to see what I did at my last shoot there check out the link below: http://proofs.shillidayphotography.com/Engagement-Session-Catherine/Katherine-and-Chris/10221083_4fUbs#704623500_F6jBV

Nicole - Chris and Catherine are friends of mine! I saw these photos the other day. Nice work. Too funny that you posted them here.

zoomer · December 2, 2009

Well I am trying to help but you don't seem to be paying attention so I am out...

BuddyLee · December 3, 2009

zoomer wrote:

Well I am trying to help but you don't seem to be paying attention so I am out...

I am paying attention... what do you want me to say? Your comments and your site have both been very helpful. I'm taking everything everyone is saying in and processing it. Most of your help has pointed me toward more technique for the next shoot, which thank you for.

nicoleshilliday · December 3, 2009

BuddyLee wrote:

Nicole - Chris and Catherine are friends of mine! I saw these photos the other day. Nice work. Too funny that you posted them here.

No way! Small world. I am working on their wedding photos now. Such a great loving couple. They introduced me to this place and now I love shooting there.

BuddyLee · December 7, 2009

For those who might like to take a look. I ended up keeping it simple. They are happy with session and result so this is gonna be the final product. http://www.leediehr.com/People/Engagement/Scott-and-Terri/10477609_voPRP#729892002_LhStF

could use input??

Comments