bathtime smile ADJUSTED WB

[allison_dcp]

Heres the orignal

Heres the one I just changed.
C&C?

 

[cgipson1]

Heres the orignal

Heres the one I just changed.
C&C?

WB change???? In B&W... a white balance change will shift things a little, but not like that. Looks to me like you went way to heavy on the contrast slider! The original is the better image, except there is only one eye in focus (his right eye), everything else looks soft... did you do that in PP?

 

[allison_dcp]

Heres the orignal

Heres the one I just changed.
C&C?

WB change???? In B&W... a white balance change will shift things a little, but not like that. Looks to me like you went way to heavy on the contrast slider! The original is the better image, except there is only one eye in focus (his right eye), everything else looks soft... did you do that in PP?

yea I did soften it. After looking at it again I agree with you. Still love the picture though but I do have my mommy goggles on.

 

[cgipson1]

Heres the orignal

Heres the one I just changed.
C&C?

WB change???? In B&W... a white balance change will shift things a little, but not like that. Looks to me like you went way to heavy on the contrast slider! The original is the better image, except there is only one eye in focus (his right eye), everything else looks soft... did you do that in PP?

yea I did soften it. After looking at it again I agree with you. Still love the picture though but I do have my mommy goggles on.

hahaha... yes! Mommy Goggles, definitely! Fake blur and over-softening do not good images make!

 

[amolitor]

Charlie's being unkind, but he's basically right. The original of this image is nearly as good as it's going to get. I'm not sure what you actually did to get the second image, it looks like upping the contrast and blurring some things. I would avoid the blurring entirely, and do about maybe half that much contrast adjustment.

We have a tendency, when making these adjustments, to do something (move a slider, make a change) a bit and say 'oo, I like that' and then move the slider over a lot more, and like it more. A small amount of change actually may be improving the image, but as some point we fall in love with the effect, and overapply it. You need to step back and take the whole image in again, give it a few minutes to sink in, and ask yourself if you've really made it BETTER or if you're just loving the visual POP of the effect.

This is a sweet photo of a little kid, I'm not feeling that it needs visual POP!

The only real flaw in the original is the extremely shallow DoF, one of the eyes is razor sharp and the other is not. There's no fixing that, so you're going to have to live with a slightly flawed image. That's ok. Punch it up slightly, sure. A little more contrast rarely hurts. Don't overdo it, let the image be itself.

 

[allison_dcp]

Charlie's being unkind, but he's basically right. The original of this image is nearly as good as it's going to get. I'm not sure what you actually did to get the second image, it looks like upping the contrast and blurring some things. I would avoid the blurring entirely, and do about maybe half that much contrast adjustment.

We have a tendency, when making these adjustments, to do something (move a slider, make a change) a bit and say 'oo, I like that' and then move the slider over a lot more, and like it more. A small amount of change actually may be improving the image, but as some point we fall in love with the effect, and overapply it. You need to step back and take the whole image in again, give it a few minutes to sink in, and ask yourself if you've really made it BETTER or if you're just loving the visual POP of the effect.

This is a sweet photo of a little kid, I'm not feeling that it needs visual POP!

The only real flaw in the original is the extremely shallow DoF, one of the eyes is razor sharp and the other is not. There's no fixing that, so you're going to have to live with a slightly flawed image. That's ok. Punch it up slightly, sure. A little more contrast rarely hurts. Don't overdo it, let the image be itself.

Thank you, very constructive I've been using 1.8 aperature on most everything, I think I'll try 2.8 from now.

 

[cgipson1]

Charlie's being unkind, but he's basically right.

Hmmmmm!

 

[e.rose]

Charlie's being unkind, but he's basically right.

Hmmmmm!

My thoughts exactly.

If THAT was unkind... never let me critique anyone's images ever again...

 

[amolitor]

You needn't be unkind to critique honestly, just don't be flippant or mean spirited. I should know, I'm flippant and mean-spirited at times, but it's usually on purpose. I'm not just critiquing an image, I'm being mean to the photographer for some reason.

Find the good, and there's always something good, and point it out.

 

[e.rose]

You needn't be unkind to critique honestly, just don't be flippant or mean spirited. I should know, I'm flippant and mean-spirited at times, but it's usually on purpose. I'm not just critiquing an image, I'm being mean to the photographer for some reason.

Find the good, and there's always something good, and point it out.

You really need to grow a thicker skin if you think what he said was "mean-spirited"

He stated facts.

WB change???? In B&W... a white balance change will shift things a little, but not like that. Looks to me like you went way to heavy on the contrast slider!

He simply explained that rather than a WB change it looked more like a heavy contrast change.

Nothing mean there...

The original is the better image, except there is only one eye in focus (his right eye), everything else looks soft... did you do that in PP?

A statement: "Your original image was better"; with a critique: "There is only one eye in focus, everything else looks soft"; followed by a question in order to gain clarification as to the source of his critique: "Did you do that in PP?"

I see nothing mean there either...

Then the OP answered:

yea I did soften it.

And then not only answered but responded POSITIVELY to Charlie's critique:

After looking at it again I agree with you. Still love the picture though but I do have my mommy goggles on.

To which Charlie responded using the OP'S OWN WORDS:

hahaha... yes! Mommy Goggles, definitely!

but I do have my mommy goggles on.

And then he finished off with a matter of fact type statement... (which is TRUE, by the way...) which was stated in a light-hearted manner and even ended with the ever popular "winky emoticon" to insinuate a friendliness towards the OP:

Fake blur and over-softening do not good images make!

.
.
.
.
So I'm sorry... WHERE again was his mean-spiritedness????

 

[amolitor]

He wasn't mean spirited, he was flippant.

 

[Starskream666]

Softened it way too much...

 

[jowensphoto]

flippant
flip*pant
[flip-uhnt]

1. frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness; characterized by levity.


No, I don't believe Charlie was at all flippant; not by the definition of the word, at least.



ETA: Op, as I previously suggested, I think you need to reshoot this. There will be plenty of opportunities!

 

[cgipson1]

So I'm sorry... WHERE again was his mean-spiritedness????

 

[cgipson1]

No, I don't believe Charlie was at all flippant; not by the definition of the word, at least.