A girl!! edit

LCLimages · Oct 18, 2014

All I've done lately is boys I swear :lol:

So I was super excited! I had a mother and 2 daughters and just shot these today. My eyes are killing me tonight so here's my only edit so far, I couldn't wait because the cuteness overload got to me.

EDIT: Warmed it up a touch. Better?

snowbear · Oct 18, 2014

Awwwwwww. Waiting to see the others. Maybe it's me, but she looks a little on the cool side.

tirediron · Oct 18, 2014

Cute shot, but the WB looks just a tad off.

Derrel · Oct 18, 2014

I like this. Very naturalistic and pleasant.

LCLimages · Oct 19, 2014

I will warm it up & repost tomorrow!

LCLimages · Oct 19, 2014

Ok I posted another one where I warmed up the WB a bit.

The_Traveler · Oct 19, 2014

Lovely child, lovely moment
This looks really bright to me and some other color stuff going on.
Looks really yellow and under-saturated in red.
That vignette is also a bit obvious, I think.

Derrel · Oct 19, 2014

Yeah, like Lew mentioned, the vignette is too much. WHat I liked the most about the first shot, and why I specifically mentioned it being "naturalistic" os that in the original shot, the child is ringed by little highlighted areas of backlighted foliage/grasses. One at her hand, the next at 10 o'clock behind her head, the next at 1 o'clock with the red, one at 3 o'clock,. and then at the 6 o'clcok position, just a couople blades of backlighted grass--with the child LIGHT, and ADVANCING from the background.

In the edit, the darkness at the corners just looks, well, obviously alrtered, manipulated, and the child is overall, much closer in tonal value to the entire background area. The naturalistic, light, airy feeling of the original has been replaced with what looks to me like an "edited" version of reality.

I am not convinced that the original's white balance was off, but then, I do not like scientifically accurate color when it comes at the expense of artistic interpretation, and I'm no longer a big fan of realistic color, especially 15 years into a new century. In fact, I am sick and tired of "accurate color" all the time, on every shot. I'm tired of white balance comments when the intent is obviously to have some type of interpretive color rendering. VPS is dead. Portra is almost dead. Kodakcolor Gold is dead. The MacBeth Color Checker was always annoying. The color looks of the 1980's are dead, long gone. This is the era of Instagram and Hipstamatic; the color in both of these is fine, but the vignette looks like Lightroom one-click vignette, which is why it looks "edited" to me.

The_Traveler · Oct 19, 2014

I'm not against artistic license.
When the picture is less attractive or interesting or the 'artistic' change draws attention to itself rather than the content, that's when 'non-natural color bothers me.

In the original here, the little girl just looks blanched and my attention goes to that, then the artistic choice seems inappropriate.

Derrel · Oct 19, 2014

The_Traveler said:
In the original here, the little girl just looks blanched and my attention goes to that, then the artistic choice seems inappropriate.

Blanched? She's a very young child.

Her skin doesn't have seven decades' worth of sun exposure and UV damage yet.

Remember the expression, "porcelain skin?" That's kind of what you call "blanched", apparently.

The_Traveler · Oct 19, 2014

So, what I get from this is that once Derrel decides the skin tone is OK - either untouched young child or artistic license, no other opinion is acceptable or sensible or possible.

No, I don't think that's the way it works.
Interestingly enough, everyone gets to have an opinion, even opinions that dare to not agree with Derrel and his Xty years of experience.

Gary A. · Oct 19, 2014

Very cute shot ... the boots are great. On my monitor the first shot, the little girl looks overly light.

Derrel · Oct 19, 2014

The_Traveler said:
So, what I get from this is that once Derrel decides the skin tone is OK - either untouched young child or artistic license, no other opinion is acceptable or sensible or possible.

No, I don't think that's the way it works.
Interestingly enough, everyone gets to have an opinion, even opinions that dare to not agree with Derrel and his Xty years of experience.

WHAT I GET from this is when Uncle John and Grandpa Lew proclaim the "white balance is wrong", Grandpa Lew with his Xty years of experience will post-process your shot to where he thinks it looks "perfect", and any other opinions are to be discounted, or ridiculed. Seems about right, part of a long-standing pattern here.

Apparently, three-year olds cannot have fair skin, or they look "blanched", which means briefly dropped into boiling water. Seems like a poor metaphor to begin with, but whatever...

The_Traveler · Oct 19, 2014

Derrel, I have the right to my own opinion and I don't think your rights extend either to making fun of my opinions or me.

Blanch means to whiten, from the French, although if you must look it up on Wikipedia, you will be misled to the cooking term.
It is an uncommon but proper name also; if you have ever seen Streetcar Named Desire, the female protagonist is named Blanche DuBois and she tells Stanley that it means 'white woods.'

You have a really difficult time when you aren't the ultimate accepted resource in everything.