C&C

[miss_jaclynrae]

They are edited.

1.

2.

In 1, I am a bit confused as to whether it is saturated to much, and whether the cropped limbs ruin the picture.
2, I love the look on her face, but not sure if there is something I could work on!
TIA.

 

[tevo]

Can you post the originals? Cropped is fine.. I'd just like to see the originals so I could suggest some things to edit

These seem overprocessed.

 

[MTVision]

#1 is oversaturated in my opinion. Some people like oversaturated photos. Her hair is glowing tho. I also think the arms look weird cut off at that point. She looks a little on the orange side.

#2 her face and chest looks overexposed. It's weird their is a place right below her shoulders where the skin gets darker. Did you edit it this way? It looks a little desaturated. 1 elbow is cut off - be aware of this when taking the photo. Her expression is nice but she looks odd. Can't put my finger on it. Almost like she is flattened or something.

 

[miss_jaclynrae]

Can you post the originals? Cropped is fine.. I'd just like to see the originals so I could suggest some things to edit

These seem overprocessed.

I added them!

#1 is oversaturated in my opinion. Some people like oversaturated photos. Her hair is glowing tho. I also think the arms look weird cut off at that point. She looks a little on the orange side.

#2 her face and chest looks overexposed. It's weird their is a place right below her shoulders where the skin gets darker. Did you edit it this way? It looks a little desaturated. 1 elbow is cut off - be aware of this when taking the photo. Her expression is nice but she looks odd. Can't put my finger on it. Almost like she is flattened or something.

As for the saturation, I felt the same way. The way I took this the sun was setting behind her, it gave her a halo. She is REALLY tan too, but I definitely agree she looks orange.

I hate that I missed her elbow because I usually try to keep from cutting limbs [it was something I was told early on not to do] I think the darkness is actually caused by her hair? It is the only idea I have... Thanks for the input!

 

[MTVision]

Not to be nitpicky but you spelt photography wrong on the 2nd picture.


It disappeared but I thought you said you didn't saturate the picture....which it was obviously oversaturated. The original looks much much better - she doesn't look so radioactive. She is tan but she isn't orange in the original.

The darkness isn't caused by her hair - its caused by the processing. In the original the chest area is a little lighter but not that much.

I think you should lay off on the creative editing and learn how to process a picture properly - like fixing the exposure, the WB, doing some touching up of the skin, teeth, eyes

 

[tevo]

Not to be nitpicky but you spelt photography wrong on the 2nd picture.

@tirediron LOL


The originals arent half bad.. don't really need much processing imo.

edit: clean up the skin on the face a little bit, and MAYBE a touch of saturation.

 

[miss_jaclynrae]

Not to be nitpicky but you spelt photography wrong on the 2nd picture.

I wish there was a :suspect smiley.
ROFL, spell fail. Oh man, what a bummer.

 

[subscuck]

Cutting off limbs is OK as long as you don't chop them at or too near a joint, or laterally. Check the settings for "picture styles" on your cam. #1 is definitely over saturated, but that may be because of your "picture style" settings. I have my 50D set for neutral, so I can saturate a little or leave as is. They're both a little soft, so don't be afraid to use any of the various sharpening tools in PS. All digital pics need some sharpening as the anti aliasing filter will soften them. If you're not shooting RAW, I would suggest you do. The amount of editing latitude you have with RAW files is huge compared to JPEG. I would also suggest changing "my photos are not OK to edit" to "my photos are OK to edit". That will give us the opportunity to show you some alternatives in editing. I might also suggest you remove the UV filter from your lens in order to get the most from it. I prefer #1 to #2, mostly based on post processing. Keep shooting, and keep posting.

 

[MTVision]

It disappeared but I thought you said you didn't saturate the picture....which it was obviously oversaturated. The original looks much much better - she doesn't look so radioactive. She is tan but she isn't orange in the original.

The darkness isn't caused by her hair - its caused by the processing. In the original the chest area is a little lighter but not that much.

I think you should lay off on the creative editing and learn how to process a picture properly - like fixing the exposure, the WB, doing some touching up of the skin, teeth, eyes.

I have pictures that look like these as well!!

 

[tevo]

It disappeared but I thought you said you didn't saturate the picture....which it was obviously oversaturated. The original looks much much better - she doesn't look so radioactive. She is tan but she isn't orange in the original.

The darkness isn't caused by her hair - its caused by the processing. In the original the chest area is a little lighter but not that much.

I think you should lay off on the creative editing and learn how to process a picture properly - like fixing the exposure, the WB, doing some touching up of the skin, teeth, eyes.

I have pictures that look like these as well!!

Agreed. and @subsuck I keep my UV filter nice and shiny clean, and I've taken 2 of the exact same photo, one with and one without a UV filter, looked exactly the same. Maybe I just have a goot quarity UV filter?

 

[subscuck]

I think you should lay off on the creative editing and learn how to process a picture properly - like fixing the exposure, the WB, doing some touching up of the skin, teeth, eyes.

This ^^^

 

[tevo]

I think you should lay off on the creative editing and learn how to process a picture properly - like fixing the exposure, the WB, doing some touching up of the skin, teeth, eyes.

This

 

[subscuck]

Agreed. and @subsuck I keep my UV filter nice and shiny clean, and I've taken 2 of the exact same photo, one with and one without a UV filter, looked exactly the same. Maybe I just have a goot quarity UV filter?

Urgh. I don't want to derail her thread with a UV or no UV flame war, but here's my opinion. A cheap UV filter on a consumer lens will degrade IQ. A high quality UV filter on any lens, not as much. I've never been a fan of adding glass between the lens and sensor unless it's a polarizer, ND, etc. A lens hood is more effective, IMHO, at doing what a UV filter is supposed to do. It is a personal choice, and if someone feels better having it on their lens, who am I to argue?

 

[tevo]

Agreed. and @subsuck I keep my UV filter nice and shiny clean, and I've taken 2 of the exact same photo, one with and one without a UV filter, looked exactly the same. Maybe I just have a goot quarity UV filter?

Urgh. I don't want to derail her thread with a UV or no UV flame war, but here's my opinion. A cheap UV filter on a consumer lens will degrade IQ. A high quality UV filter on any lens, not as much. I've never been a fan of adding glass between the lens and sensor unless it's a polarizer, ND, etc. A lens hood is more effective, IMHO, at doing what a UV filter is supposed to do. It is a personal choice, and if someone feels better having it on their lens, who am I to argue?

On the note of the lens hood, I completely agree. However the reason I have a UV filter on my lens is b/c I will happily replace a UV filter if it gets scratched. I will shit out a small animal if I scratch my lens and have to replace it.

 

[MTVision]

Not to be nitpicky but you spelt photography wrong on the 2nd picture.

@tirediron LOL

I don't get it. I don't think tirediron has even posted on this thread!!