Help with Photoshop edit

[mcflickr]

Looking for some help on this photo of my daughter. I'm terrible with Photoshop at the best of times. Hoping to create a 16x20 canvas out of this, but need help removing my wife's hands from the shot. Any other adjustments that could improve I'm open to (exposure etc).

Thanks in advance

 

[JohnnyWrench]

The image you posted is too small for a 16 x 20 print. Here's a real quick and easy crop/edit that helps it. Without the full resolution file it's not worth spending much time on.

 

[mcflickr]

Could I send you the full size jpg by email. Can't seem to post a larger file size. Thanks!

 

[KmH]

JPEGs have little if any editing head room. Do you have a Raw file?

TPF has a 2.2 Mb file size limit when you upload directly from your computer.

As mentioned 1600 x 2000 means a 16 x 20 print will only have a print resolution of 100 pixels per inch (ppi).
100 ppi is about the minimum a decent canvas can be made at.
If the 1600 x 2000 image is cropped a 16x20 will not even be 100 ppi, which is about the lower print resolution limit many online print labs have.

To get to 150 ppi you need a photo that is 2400 x 3000 pixels to print a 16x20 canvas.

I would use a square crop myself instead of a 1.25 aspect ratio 16x20.

 

[MOREGONE]

JPEGs have little if any editing head room. Do you have a Raw file?

TPF has a 2.2 Mb file size limit when you upload directly from your computer.

As mentioned 1600 x 2000 means a 16 x 20 print will only have a print resolution of 100 pixels per inch (ppi).
100 ppi is about the minimum a decent canvas can be made at.
If the 1600 x 2000 image is cropped a 16x20 will not even be 100 ppi, which is about the lower print resolution limit many online print labs have.

To get to 150 ppi you need a photo that is 2400 x 3000 pixels to print a 16x20 canvas.

I would use a square crop myself instead of a 1.25 aspect ratio 16x20.

Your brain knows all that? LOL




I will see if I can whip up an edit later. I like the additional head room in the original file, just needs a little rotation and I will see if the hands can be cloned out or something.

 

[CameraClicker]

So, something like this?

 

[TheNevadanStig]

 

[bianni]

Here is an edit

 

[KmH]

Your brain knows all that? LOL

All I did is apply some basic 5th grade math.
The OP posted a under exposed and poorly composed 1600 x 2000 pixel photo.

pixels / inches = ppi
150 ppi is 1.5x more than 100 ppi. 1600 x 2000 x 1.5 = 2400 x 3000.
20 / 16 = 1.25.

 

[mcflickr]

Thank you all for the edits and the time you all put into them. Question - what tool do you rely on most in Photoshop to get rid of difficult areas (like the hands in this shot)?

Oh and btw - KmH (Keith) - Sincerely appreciate your added snub to my photo - you know - the "under exposed and poorly composed" line. Pretty sure you could have easily conveyed the message behind your post without that little tidbit. Have seen you provide very helpful advice over the years (as an observer on the forum). Just wondering why that was necessary? Wasn't presenting this as a masterpiece portrait - just a cute photo of my little girl.

Thanks again all!

 

[tirediron]

...Oh and btw - KmH (Keith) - Sincerely appreciate your added snub to my photo - you know - the "under exposed and poorly composed" line. Pretty sure you could have easily conveyed the message behind your post without that little tidbit. Have seen you provide very helpful advice over the years (as an observer on the forum). Just wondering why that was necessary? Wasn't presenting this as a masterpiece portrait - just a cute photo of my little girl.

Thanks again all!

Remember that you have an emotional attachment to the image; we don't, and when asked for advice, most of us try to be objective. The fact is, the image is at least 1/2 stop under-exposed, and the composition isn't ideal. That doesn't take away from the fact that it's an image which means a great deal to you.

 

[mcflickr]

Absolutely agree tirediron - And had I asked for C&C, I would have taken it in stride. I would absolutely agree that the image is underexposed and the composition not entirely ideal (noted for future shots with a very wriggly four month old). I just felt that KmH's post was meant to address a calculation issue for another poster, and really had nothing to do with the technical merit of the photo itself.

Appreciate the feedback though. Will not take things so personally going forward.

 

[The_Traveler]

Absolutely agree tirediron - And had I asked for C&C, I would have taken it in stride. I would absolutely agree that the image is underexposed and the composition not entirely ideal (noted for future shots with a very wriggly four month old). I just felt that KmH's post was meant to address a calculation issue for another poster, and really had nothing to do with the technical merit of the photo itself.

Appreciate the feedback though. Will not take things so personally going forward.

we have no idea what you know and don't know.
if you didn't know, had taken this picture and had a large image printed and realized only then that it looked underexposed, you could have been irritated that one of us didn't mention this defect while it was here.
any comments are meant honestly to help, if you take offense, it is totally your problem.

Looking for some help on this photo of my daughter. I'm terrible with Photoshop at the best of times. Hoping to create a 16x20 canvas out of this, but need help removing my wife's hands from the shot. Any other adjustments that could improve I'm open to (exposure etc).

Thanks in advance

 

[Santa_Claus]

Agreed: underexposed, needs a little CW rotate, highlights in skin tone are cool, could use a little skin smoothing, and I'd re-crop to put the face more in the top-right third. I'll be glad to take a crack at it if a better source is u/l'ed. Can you put the raw in a Dropbox and share the link?

 

[mcflickr]

Well Traveler, I appreciate your response to what I would have considered a moot point. I don't know what bothers me more, the fact that you and KmH have added absolutely nothing of value to this thread, or that you have admonished me for being offended. My personal opinion - KmH was not being helpful, he was being obnoxious. Regardless, let's say for the sake of argument that the two of you (and your supporting member status) are right, and I am wrong.

My humblest apologies for looking for assistance with an edit. Thanks to those who took the time, and even made exposure adjustments (kind of like the ones I referenced when I said to take liberties to "improve" the image).