Critique My Image

spraynpray

Meh, happens all the time in my camera club....

Ironheart

Makes a little Internet spat seem tame by comparison

WestEndFoto

vtc2002, in answer to your earlier question, I will describe my workflow with the following image, for which I post-processed late last fall.

I wasn't trying to please anybody but myself so if I had a client, I would decide if their requirement is of sufficient entertainment or education value before deciding on whether to try to meet their requirement.

I thought this model worthy enough to set up a semi-complicated light setup and take enough images to get several great poses. There is a single SB-910 (I have five if I need them) to camera right shot through a large umbrella. A flag is casting a shadow on the right half of the background. I had a white or perhaps silver reflector to the left of the model to fill in the shadows. Personally, I really like this lighting arrangement where the dark/light background is opposite the model.



I performed the editing in Photoshop. The first thing I do is to soften the skin by applying a mask and blurring everything completely with Gaussian Blur so that all detail is lost. I then reduce opacity on the blur - to 23% in this case. I find a lot of people are reducing opacity to only about 30-40%, but I prefer less "blurred" skin. A future project is to learn frequency separation which I suspect will replace this technique when I master that. Ultimately, for closer facial shots, I plan to practice a dodging and burning technique - with nothing else applied. It looks fantastic, but takes about 8 hours for a face. You would typically see this used in cosmetic ads.

I then whitened her teeth. If you look closely, you will see that somehow this mask has shifted and I have actually whitened her lower lip. I will correct that at some point.

I have then modified her eye colour and increased saturation. If required, I would dodge the catchlights (I should have in this case) and burn the pupils. I would also whiten the eyes if required, but this is not necessary with Ava.

I then slightly corrected the white balance.

Finally I applied a warming photo filter. I don't recall which one.

Each of these steps is done in its own layer.

I will often saturate the hair. In this case I did not, but I have done it on some other images of Ava. Depending on her clothes I might do something with them, even changing the colour. I did not with Ava.

If someone wants to critique either my technical decisions or creative decisions, feel welcome.

WestEndFoto

Here is a raw unprocessed image that I took.



It was shot at 1pm and I did not have time to wait for better light or conditions. I needed to be 300km to the south-east by dinner time. I only had time to detour off the highway a few kilometers to this location about 20km north. It is a big mountain.

WestEndFoto

I am populating the following:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/travel_by_westendfoto/albums

where I consider quantity more important than quality. I may shift that in the future, but for now I am showcasing where I have travelled, rather than trying to create perfect images. I spent about 10 minutes on the following image in Lightroom:



Certainly not perfect, but good enough for what I was doing. As Spraynpray pointed out, there are "halos".

I did like the image and posted it to the following, which most of you are familiar with:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/

I did not take the time to improve the image because for "other reasons", I try to post one image a day to this site and having been quite busy for the last couple of months, time has been a bit of a struggle. And for "other reasons" I am less discriminating on certain days and more discriminating on other days. This was a "less discriminating" day.

WestEndFoto

Frankly I did not think very much of the image, but this image has been quite well received on Flickr. Given the additional feedback on Nikon Rumours, I decided to double my time budget to 20 minutes and see what I can do to the image with Photoshop. So using the original raw file, I came up with this:



At a "gross" level, this reflects what I would consider the right amount of processing. I don't know how "real" it is, but I find it more pleasing to the eye than the other image and I found more or less saturation, contrast etc. less pleasing than what I finally selected.

I basically made three selections (sky, mountain, foreground INCLUDING hills in foreground) and processed those separately in Photoshop. Each selection is part of its own "group of levels" and each selection/group includes a level for contrast, Hue/Saturation, Blacks and Whites and possible a change in exposure.

If you can say I doctored something, it would be making the yellow in the foreground a little more green.

This image certainly has its flaws, but I gave myself a 20 minute time limit. If I had 5 or 10 more minutes, I would make a selection for the foreground EXCLUDING the hills and dodge the small trees which would show off more of their green. This is the one aspect of my Lightroom image that I like more. Probably a simple exposure increase in shadows would be simplest.

With another 5 or 10 minutes, I would further refine the edges, particularly on the mountain selection as you can still see a halo on the upper mountain.

I find on landscapes I like to create "zones" using the selection tool and process those "zones" individually. This is where Photoshop shines in comparison to Lightroom and typically results in images that I find more pleasing.

Again I welcome constructive criticism of both my technical and creative decisions. However, a suggestion that I should have found better light to capture the image, while true, is missing the point. I am not going to ignore so majestic a mountain simply because I am not driving by at golden hour.

Suggestions that I should spend more time in post are also missing the point, as I only have a certain amount of time in the day and 10 minutes was all this image was getting given my purpose. However, suggestions on what to do if I have more time are certainly welcome, as I may yet do further work on this image starting with my two self-critiques above. Also, if you think I should have done something different in that 20 minutes, feedback to that effect is also useful.

donaldejose

Comment on the image of Ava: I like the lighting and the color. Your workflow would take too long for me to copy. I don't want to spend more than 30 minutes on an image. 10 to 20 minutes is a good time range. I am no PitchBlack! That guy was nuts with the time he spent post processing but, then again, his results were fantastic and mine are not.

vtc2002

@WestEndFoto My workflow question was about the process you go through when taking the photo not the post processing process. Do you take shots from different angles, different lights, poses, adding and removing background images, etc.? It was more related to the portrait of Marie.
For Ava, I like this image and it may be one of the best I have seen of your work. I tend to agree with donaldejose concerning the amount of time spent in post processing. I have used Gaussian Blur but personally I use the adjustment brushes for skin soften as I find it easier to use and takes less time. I can be more precise and have more control over. I think it is great that you are learning all of the tools and with time and experience you will find the ones that work best for you and what you are trying to achieve. I have different workflow for photos that I take of my daughter and her friends during their horse riding lessons or competitions than if it was for a client. Spending 20 hours on something for my daughter and her friends is just not practical and they probably would not notice the difference. Even with a client spending 20+ hours on a image is pushing the limits. It becomes a factor of time management and that why if you start with the best image possible you can cut your post processing time down so that you can spend more time taking photos, isn't that why we go into photography to start with. How you approach the process is your choice and dependent upon the direction you want to take your hobby and will change over time as you learn more techniques.

Concerning the landscape image, it is not a matter of it looking "real" or not. I think you are missing my point about better lighting. I was not suggesting that you go back at the golden hour but merely waiting a few minutes to capture better light. The majestic mountain is hidden in the shadows of the clouds and with all of your post processing it is getting lost in image. Your eye is drawn to the foreground and the sky as this is where the light and colors are focused. I was not there but there looks like the clouds are broken enough to allow light to hit the mountain in a few minutes. Even if it was enough to hit the peak of the mountain it would have given you a lot more to work with. I would have to agree with paperman on the Post Processing in Lightroom for Landscapes that I am not sure I would have bother to process this photo. The fact that you say you do not care that much for the image to me is a good thing. To me it shows that you can distinguish between a good image and a poor image. I would not recommend anyone to use Flickr as a source to evaluate whether a image is good or not and is probably worthy of a separate thread in itself. Like so many things in life the starting point is directly related to the finish product. As much as you would like to not discuss the initial image it is the critical starting point.

donaldejose

I just use flicker for two purposes: 1. as a convenient way to post photos on NR and 2. as a convenient way for people I have photographed to download an image of themselves. Many of the images I have posed to flicker are very poor images I wanted to be easily available to other people for one reason or another.

spraynpray

"I would not recommend anyone to use Flickr as a source to evaluate whether a image is good or not and is probably worthy of a separate thread in itself."

@vtc2002: I agree. Flickr is like a mutual admiration society. You like mine and I'll like yours. I don't comment on others work much on Flickr therefore I don't get much love back. That's OK.

WestEndFoto

spraynpray said:

"I would not recommend anyone to use Flickr as a source to evaluate whether a image is good or not and is probably worthy of a separate thread in itself."

@vtc2002: I agree. Flickr is like a mutual admiration society. You like mine and I'll like yours. I don't comment on others work much on Flickr therefore I don't get much love back. That's OK.

I disagree with this. However, given what I think your thought patterns are, I would come to the same conclusion if I shared that thought pattern. "What the hell am I talking about?" you ask. Well, I will start a new thread and we will discuss it.

WestEndFoto

vtc2002, I see. That is an interesting question.

The image of Marie is not really part of my typical process. I probably took about 50 or 60 images of Marie and I was varying things like exposure and ratios to fulfill the terms of the assignment. Getting a decent pose is entirely secondary - though I do like some of the poses I get.

If I am shooting a model with the intention of getting images I like, it is entirely different. I will often take over 500 pictures of a single model. Sometimes I will snap a single image, one at a time, of a certain pose. Other times I will have my D800 on continuous fast and shoot until the buffer is full. I will then select the best image from that selection to work on in post. Sometimes the choice is based on something as minor as how the fingers are resting. I shoot a variety of angles from each location and often move to a variety of locations.

Ava was shot like this. Marie was an assignment in my Speedlite course.

Here is another shot of Marie I took in my Advanced Lighting course:



The procedures that I performed in post are similar to what I performed on Ava, except with Lightroom. The only global adjustment is +10 on saturation (to warm it, I would probably do something different now) and the Tone Curve is set to high contrast. The lighting and edge effects you are seeing were captured in camera in raw.

Yes, regarding the mountain I did miss your point. I have often waited a half hour for a cloud to soften the light on a sunny day when taking a portrait or something smaller such as a flower, but I must admit it never occurred to me to do that for a whole mountain.

spraynpray

@WestEndFoto: You certainly had horrible viz to deal with for this shot. I had a short play in Lightroom and came up with my version. I would have selected the sky (easy) in PS, improved it and then selected the middle distance hills (not too hard) and improved them if it were mine.

You may not even like it as a lot of editing is personal taste and desired end look.

WestEndFoto

Yeah, it is a challenging place to start. I wouldn't plan for an important shot at this time of day. But neither am I going to drive by just because it is this time of day.

Your image is certainly an improvement on the original. It is certainly more accurate than mine. But I can't see myself stopping there unless my objective is realism. However, that is not so say my taste won't evolve. Next year I may be ending up in a completely different spot. But not today....

VTC2002 made another point about getting the best possible image in camera so you can spend less time in post. I actually spend a lot of time thinking about that. It is also a point continuously driven home in the courses I take including the Photoshop course. So I think I do it. How successful I am is certainly debatable, but I am definitely thinking about it when I set up the shot as evidenced by my approach to portraits that I described earlier. In fact, the whole point of taking most of the courses is so I can do that better.

donaldejose

As far as doing something unusual or out of the norm: that is one way artists set themselves apart from all the others practicing the same craft. If we do "normal" post processing and don't think outside the box we many not develop or discover something new. Sometimes it is ok to press or go over "the limits" and see what happens.

spraynpray

Yes, getting it right in camera is always my priority too. I always ETTR as much as possible to get a file I can work with if the light is poor, but you have highlights in those clouds that prevent that without data loss so yes, it is what it is. I would have bracketed it to enable me to make an HDR in Photoshop.

WestEndFoto

Bracketing is a good technique that I was not doing at that time. In Spain and Portugal, every shot of a non-moving subject is a 5 shot bracket in 1/3 EV increments. With my AIS lenses I start at -1/3 EV and work down. With my G lenses I start with +1/3 EV and work down. I am often wondering why I need to do that.

I either bracket manually or use the bracket function.

With bracketing this way and Nikon's new sensors and their superior dynamic range I rarely, but occasionally, find the need to use HDR.

spraynpray

I think that mountain shot would have benefited from at least one other shot at +1EV. Only the highlights would have come out of the flat shot, the +1 may have provided enough to get through the gloom, if not a +2 definitely would I reckon.

WestEndFoto

You are probably right.

vtc2002

@donaldejose I agree with you but I think the challenge is finding your style that is either unique or stands out. I struggle with this as it is a fine line between being unique and going to far. I have a small group of people that have different backgrounds that I will bounce my work off of to get their feedback. I trust them and they know I expect them to be brutally honest. It has been very helpful and has helped me to grow my photography skills more than any thing else except actually taking photos.

donaldejose

Agreed. Once you have "found your unique style" the next challenge is having it appreciated by others! Remember, Vincent Van Gogh sold only one of his paintings during his lifetime. I sure wish I had been there and bought all the rest! But if I were living at that time I too probably would have thought they were all crap.

vtc2002

The following image is a image that I would like to throw out there for feedback. I took this shot for my daughter earlier this week because she needed a image for a banner for a competition that she is entering in a few weeks. This only has adjustments for the lens and whatever Flickr adds in the uploading process (one of the things I do not like about Flickr). It was taken with my D810, 70-200mm f2.8 at 150mm, f 5.6 at 1/320 sec and ISO 64. She wanted a image of her horse Boe with his tail extended and in a full canter, those were her only requirements. What would you guys recommend to improve the image? I have my thoughts but would like to see your thoughts.

spraynpray

Cut it out and put it on a better background? The end of the tail would be tricky, but the rest would be easy.

donaldejose

Try producing more separation between a dark horse and a dark background. Then see about possibly extracting more detail from the horse by lightening it at bit. The cross lighting works well on your daughter but throws most of a dark horse into a dark shadow. Just some thought.

WestEndFoto

First, I think it is a great composition. There is motion and she is moving into the image. The tail and the pose of both beast and beauty is perfect.

You deal with what you get. It is a difficult background as Spraynpray pointed out. With this one I would add a vignette to deemphasize the background and provide more emphasis on the subject. I would “move the sliders around” but since you are dealing with a client, I would likely end up with Spraynpray’s approach instead of my own.

I would try desaturating the background, perhaps all the way to black and white, to see what that looked like.

Now I will take a liberty. This is a staged shot, as it is requested by your daughter, as opposed to a candid shot. You therefore have the ability to set it up very carefully. So my thoughts are:

Focal length at 150mm looks good.
Aperture at f/5.6 looks good. I would take try some at f/4.0 if I was not going to change anything down below.
ISO at 64 looks good.
Shutter speed at 1/320 second is something I would change. I would experiment with 1/10th of a second to a full second and pan to see which speed produces the best results. The problem is that given the light you cannot reduce it without overexposing the image. I would put a five stop ND filter on which would get you to 1/10th of a second. Stopping down or stacking another 3 stop filter would get you to a second. I would fool around with that. Autofocus may be an issue. She will go around in a circle for a while as you dial this in and nail a great composition. The background is now motion blurred, which I think would look great.