4th of July with the new 5DM3

[rokvi]

Ok this is where we need someone with a calibrated monitor, I see 3 different edits, all with different levels of brightness...

 

[mishele]

hmmm.... sorry I tried to help. I won't do so again!

Lighten up, Francis. If I didn't want feedback I wouldn't have asked. I get that the saturated, cross processed look doesn't suit every sensibility. The positive feedback from credible sources was within the context of a fun, alternative look. YMMV

For a more serious take, how about the revised version?

gsgary, do you think the revision is too saturated as well? The floaty and bathing suit are truly that vibrant. I had to drop the saturation and raise the luminance to keep them from overpowering the scene. Much more and they will deviate too much from what I know to be true.

Francis? (Ignored!)

Great quote and great movie.....lol

 

[ainsleyyip]

Ok this is where we need someone with a calibrated monitor, I see 3 different edits, all with different levels of brightness...

Is this better?

 

[rokvi]

Ok this is where we need someone with a calibrated monitor, I see 3 different edits, all with different levels of brightness...

Is this better?

View attachment 13457

On my screen, yea.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

I appreciate the effort but I don't think those are any better than the two versions I've left above. Other than a cute face there is nothing to draw the viewer into the main subject. With uniform brightness the eye wanders around a cluttered scene and the skin tones are washed out against the background. I think my versions did a better job of emphasizing the subject. Cute snapshots but nothing more. I think there is potential to do something more artistic with the image, but that probably falls in some middle ground between my original over saturated, shifted version and these relatively boring edits.

 

[cgipson1]

Ok this is where we need someone with a calibrated monitor, I see 3 different edits, all with different levels of brightness...

Is this better?

View attachment 13457

Far better than the overprocessed originals that were posted!

 

[The_Traveler]

I appreciate the effort but I don't think those are any better than the two versions I've left above. Other than a cute face there is nothing to draw the viewer into the main subject. With uniform brightness the eye wanders around a cluttered scene and the skin tones are washed out against the background. I think my versions did a better job of emphasizing the subject. Cute snapshots but nothing more. I think there is potential to do something more artistic with the image, but that probably falls in some middle ground between my original over saturated, shifted version and these relatively boring edits.

But there is a cluttered background with lots of things to attract the eye and her skin is uniformly lit because she was in the shade.
This is a pleasant family shot and no amount of 'something artistic' is going to make is much better.

 

[o hey tyler]

I appreciate the effort but I don't think those are any better than the two versions I've left above.

O rly?

Other than a cute face there is nothing to draw the viewer into the main subject. With uniform brightness the eye wanders around a cluttered scene and the skin tones are washed out against the background.

You are right. When a photo comes out of the camera as a snapshot, it will remain a snapshot. Still a nice memory though.

I think my versions did a better job of emphasizing the subject.

I don't.

Cute snapshots but nothing more. I think there is potential to do something more artistic with the image, but that probably falls in some middle ground between my original over saturated, shifted version and these relatively boring edits.

Yes, cute snapshots. That's what they are, and should be enjoyed as such IMO.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

But there is a cluttered background with lots of things to attract the eye and her skin is uniformly lit because she was in the shade.
This is a pleasant family shot and no amount of 'something artistic' is going to make is much better.

In my versions, the background doesn't appear nearly so cluttered and doesn't compete for the viewer's attention. Darkening and slightly desaturating them relative to the subject does wonders.

And, she is in the shade but there is a distinct shadow cast across the left side of her face (camera left).

"Artistic" was probably overstated. "Interesting" might have been a better choice. If we agree that the originals were oversaturated, I think there is a middle ground that has more punch but keeps attractive, tasteful skin tones.

Thanks again for the input.

 

[The_Traveler]

This picture, or any picture, does not become, as if by magic, interesting and charming and enjoyable by making the colors garish and otherwise beating the crap out of it with post-processing..

I think you have a blind spot here.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

This picture, or any picture, does not become, as if by magic, interesting and charming and enjoyable by making the colors garish and otherwise beating the crap out of it with post-processing..

I think you have a blind spot here.

Do you even read my posts? I'm pretty sure I covered that already.

Funny, that you're the one that asked for the original and all you've offered since are one liners that fail to add anything constructive or insightful to this dialogue.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

"I don't think that any photograph should be only an exact reproduction of what's in front of the lens without any more emotion or content than that... There is no individuality or any personality that shines through. Each picture... should bring with it some emotional impact, something that carries the viewer beyond the frame."

Sound familiar? It should because those words are taken from your own website.

I have an idea of what I'm trying to express with the processing. I probably haven't articulated it well enough here and I obviously haven't achieved it yet.

Maybe you should check your own blind spots before you go after mine.

 

[cgipson1]

This picture, or any picture, does not become, as if by magic, interesting and charming and enjoyable by making the colors garish and otherwise beating the crap out of it with post-processing..

I think you have a blind spot here.

Do you even read my posts? I'm pretty sure I covered that already.

Funny, that you're the one that asked for the original and all you've offered since are one liners that fail to add anything constructive or insightful to this dialogue.

Funny.... in your very first post, I remember you called yourself a "motivated beginner" and asked for C&C!

Lew is not a beginner... neither am I, nor is Tyler. Neither are some others who have commented about your choice of processing!

We are TRYING to give you advice... but you don't seem to understand that, or at least don't want to listen to it! All I can say is Good Luck with your photography!

 

[SoonerBJJ]

Lew is not a beginner... neither am I, nor is Tyler. Neither are some others who have commented about your choice of processing!

We are TRYING to give you advice... but you don't seem to understand that, or at least don't want to listen to it! All I can say is Good Luck with your photography!

With all due respect, you and I obviously have very different ideas of what makes an interesting portrait.

So far the advice has basically been toward what amounts to an accurate, literal portrayal of the scene. The submitted images reflect that ideal. I am looking for something between literal and my overdone original. You either get that, or you don't.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

I think I like this one best. A far cry from the original, but also not a literal translation.