Does anyone want to edit my picture?

[ababysean]

Is English your first language?
I think something is getting lost in translation...

 

[KmH]

Nothing is getting lost.

 

[Derrel]

Hi Gigi,
I've been following this thread throughout the day. I looked at the original photo large in PS this morning, and gave sort of a sigh...at that time, I spotted some technical faults that made me not want to try and retouch or post process the photo. Also, at that time, the thread seemed to be deteriorating,and I figured it wouldn't really help much. I then went to your blog, to see what your photos and you were "all about".

Here's my comments about the thread and your work. First, I think Sw1tchFX and Bitter and others are trying to tell you that it is always easier to get things right in-camera than it is to take a less than perfect image and try and retouch it. There seems to be shutter speed blur that rendered her hair blurry, so clipping path approaches will be a PITA. If you want a lighter background, shooting in front of a lighter,even-toned background is always,always easier. A background with a color scheme that is NOT found in the subject's clothing or complexion will allow very fast, pretty easy selective color hue shifts in the background using NO clipping paths, but just selective color in Photoshop. For example, if you shot that on black seamless, but lighted the background with a strong blue-colored gel, you could shift the background to yellow or orange-ish or green hues very easily, in seconds, without the need to do a clipping path or any masking...

The idea of digital photography is to work from good source material, or source material that is either 1) ideally or 2) realistically re-touchable or modifiable, without the need to knock one's self out doing it. If the photo had been shot on either a green or blue chroma-key backdrop, and had been rendered crisply with say an electronic flash fired through an umbrella, people could drop in backdrops for you in 1 or 2 minutes, clone out her skin blemishes, create a layer and soften it, then modify the layers (screen, multiply, soft light, whatever) and then merge the layers, flatten, and post up a modified JPEG for you,and it would look fantastic. The problem comes from the way the source file was photographed...it's not meant as a slam, but I know Sw1tchFX's background in studio/commerical photography and what he was telling you is spot-on advice...it's easier, much,much easier to simply do a re-shoot with a,lighter background than it is to re-arrange 3 million pixels after the fact. A quick under-the-chin placement of a white Foam Core board would produce lower-eyeball catchlights that would add shape,sparkle,and dimension and would look "real" and would save a huge amount of retouching effort.

I think you could use a good umbrella and electronic flash and a decent under-chin reflector system to good use with your kid photography. The "quality of light" that a good umbrella would bring would step your photos up several notches.

 

[gigiphotography]

Hi Gigi,
I've been following this thread throughout the day. I looked at the original photo large in PS this morning, and gave sort of a sigh...at that time, I spotted some technical faults that made me not want to try and retouch or post process the photo. Also, at that time, the thread seemed to be deteriorating,and I figured it wouldn't really help much. I then went to your blog, to see what your photos and you were "all about".

Here's my comments about the thread and your work. First, I think Sw1tchFX and Bitter and others are trying to tell you that it is always easier to get things right in-camera than it is to take a less than perfect image and try and retouch it. There seems to be shutter speed blur that rendered her hair blurry, so clipping path approaches will be a PITA. If you want a lighter background, shooting in front of a lighter,even-toned background is always,always easier. A background with a color scheme that is NOT found in the subject's clothing or complexion will allow very fast, pretty easy selective color hue shifts in the background using NO clipping paths, but just selective color in Photoshop. For example, if you shot that on black seamless, but lighted the background with a strong blue-colored gel, you could shift the background to yellow or orange-ish or green hues very easily, in seconds, without the need to do a clipping path or any masking...

The idea of digital photography is to work from good source material, or source material that is either 1) ideally or 2) realistically re-touchable or modifiable, without the need to knock one's self out doing it. If the photo had been shot on either a green or blue chroma-key backdrop, and had been rendered crisply with say an electronic flash fired through an umbrella, people could drop in backdrops for you in 1 or 2 minutes, clone out her skin blemishes, create a layer and soften it, then modify the layers (screen, multiply, soft light, whatever) and then merge the layers, flatten, and post up a modified JPEG for you,and it would look fantastic. The problem comes from the way the source file was photographed...it's not meant as a slam, but I know Sw1tchFX's background in studio/commerical photography and what he was telling you is spot-on advice...it's easier, much,much easier to simply do a re-shoot with a,lighter background than it is to re-arrange 3 million pixels after the fact. A quick under-the-chin placement of a white Foam Core board would produce lower-eyeball catchlights that would add shape,sparkle,and dimension and would look "real" and would save a huge amount of retouching effort.

I think you could use a good umbrella and electronic flash and a decent under-chin reflector system to good use with your kid photography. The "quality of light" that a good umbrella would bring would step your photos up several notches.

So having seen my other photography do you think I have potential or do they all look like the post I posted today to you?

 

[tsaraleksi]

As a followup to Derrel's post (which is, I think, spot on), a great first step before investing in expensive lighting systems is doing work with reflectors. A reflector can be anything that is, well, reflective, which range from a $2 piece of foamcore board purchased at Wal-Mart to a $200+ photography-specfic foldable unit. A reflector lets you take greater advantage of available light and direct light where you want it to go. It is WYSIWYG so it's very easy to learn and can really help kick the 'pop' of your photos up a notch.

 

[gigiphotography]

I'm not trying to be nasty, mean, ugly, what have you... but I am confused and curious about something...

Didn't you mention earlier in this thread something about having cilents?? :scratch:

::goes back to check::

Edit: Yes, you did...

I have clients plural but this was not a client's picture. It is one of my daughters.

I know it's your daughter,

I'm just confused about the statement "I'd never take a picture of someone else if I didn't know what I was doing", but you have clients?? So are you just saying that you didn't know what you were doing in this *particular* situation as opposed to the ones you shoot your clients in??

Don't mind me... apparently I'm having trouble with the English language today... it's been happening to me a lot at work today too... :lmao:

I knew that it was doable bc of what I had seen online. I had the picture of my daughter knowing that it wasn't the best shot, but one of the best I had shot in that setting. Have no time to redo it. I would have never posted the pic for help if I had time to redo it on a different backdrop. I used black bc I wanted a solid back drop.

 

[gigiphotography]

Thank you so much. I will do that!

 

[gigiphotography]

As a followup to Derrel's post (which is, I think, spot on), a great first step before investing in expensive lighting systems is doing work with reflectors. A reflector can be anything that is, well, reflective, which range from a $2 piece of foamcore board purchased at Wal-Mart to a $200+ photography-specfic foldable unit. A reflector lets you take greater advantage of available light and direct light where you want it to go. It is WYSIWYG so it's very easy to learn and can really help kick the 'pop' of your photos up a notch.

Thanks I will def do that!

 

[Derrel]

So having seen my other photography do you think I have potential or do they all look like the post I posted today to you?

Your other photos do not look like this one. Your style is new and unpolished...you don't really have a defined, refined, 'predictable' style at this point. Photography is a life long learning experience,and you're busy with the kids and the house and the whole pageant thing, and blogging and other interests. You've got the basics of photography down, but this type of "glitz" type of photo could be done best with as much in-camera lighting help as is possible. Like tsaraleski (Alex) notes, reflectors can be a huge help, and their wysiwyg nature makes them easy to work with, and they can be really simple, like Foam Core or "poster board", or high-tech like the Lastolite Tri-Flector.

I'm not gonna bag on your photos gigi.:hug:: Keep at the photography thing, and it'll only get better and better. Learning the "secrets" of photographing people well involves learning how to do things the so-called right way, or the so-called "proven" ways, and that involves using the full array of tools and techniques available today. I learned most of my photography 10,15, 20 years before Photoshop was available,and before it was feasible to digitize images, so my approach is old-fashioned...I cannot do Photoshop nearly as well as many younger people, so if I want a highlight or a reflection or fill lighting, I actually think in terms of putting it there, in the real world...

 

[gigiphotography]

So having seen my other photography do you think I have potential or do they all look like the post I posted today to you?

Your other photos do not look like this one. Your style is new and unpolished...you don't really have a defined, refined, 'predictable' style at this point. Photography is a life long learning experience,and you're busy with the kids and the house and the whole pageant thing, and blogging and other interests. You've got the basics of photography down, but this type of "glitz" type of photo could be done best with as much in-camera lighting help as is possible. Like tsaraleski (Alex) notes, reflectors can be a huge help, and their wysiwyg nature makes them easy to work with, and they can be really simple, like Foam Core or "poster board", or high-tech like the Lastolite Tri-Flector.

I'm not gonna bag on your photos gigi.:hug:: Keep at the photography thing, and it'll only get better and better. Learning the "secrets" of photographing people well involves learning how to do things the so-called right way, or the so-called "proven" ways, and that involves using the full array of tools and techniques available today. I learned most of my photography 10,15, 20 years before Photoshop was available,and before it was feasible to digitize images, so my approach is old-fashioned...I cannot do Photoshop nearly as well as many younger people, so if I want a highlight or a reflection or fill lighting, I actually think in terms of putting it there, in the real world...

Thank you so much. I appreciate your input!

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Wow, Derrel is feeling generous today. The good feeling you are getting from this is unfortunately not going to help you much in the long run.

Considering your reaction to the last time I tried to help you, I had no intention to even look at this thread but, I'm only human, and after 60 posts I just had to take a look. Sure was a popcorn thread.

If you want to make it here and learn something about photography in the process, you need to seriously grow some hippo skin and learn to tell who is helping from who is just making you feel good.

Feel good responses are of no help in the long run. Get over it. Or tell us you're not really interested in learning so we can ignore you.

 

[gigiphotography]

He said somethings in a nice way to help me out! DO YOU HAVE TO BE MEAN TO GIVE CC? I think not!!! There were plenty of people that weren't getting smart with me when they were helping me and that's the way it should be done. I don't intend on sticking around here long. I will go to a pro and get lessons not talk to people I don't even know nor have I seen their work. Now I am a good christian mom and I'm off to cook dinner for my family. I've had enough of this. If you all want to waste your time continuing talking about my picture go ahead.

 

[mwcfarms]

He said somethings in a nice way to help me out! DO YOU HAVE TO BE MEAN TO GIVE CC? I think not!!! There were plenty of people that weren't getting smart with me when they were helping me and that's the way it should be done. I don't intend on sticking around here long. I will go to a pro and get lessons not talk to people I don't even know nor have I seen their work. Now I am a good christian mom and I'm off to cook dinner for my family. I've had enough of this. If you all want to waste your time continuing talking about my picture go ahead.

Huh guess thats why my mom never made dinner. :lmao:

I stand by my first post. Switch wasnt being mean and neither was Bitter till you got all twisted out of shape. Sorry hon, Im not jumping on the band wagon just saying is all. Maybe you should leave it for the night and come back tomorrow with a fresh face forward. :coffee:

 

[c.cloudwalker]

No, nobody needs to be mean but "mean" is as subjective as art. Get over it if you want to learn. Bitter is NOT warm and fuzzy but he is not mean and has a lot to teach you. Plenty of people here will readily tell you (me first) that I am not warm and fuzzy either but I also have a lot to teach you. The question, again, is: do you want to learn?

I will point you to this thread
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lery/202840-first-glitz-shot-cc-please-2.html
in which you thanked a person that told you your photo was good when it is not. True, you also thanked shmne even though he was a bit more real, barely.

As far as I can tell I'm the only one who did any research into the glitz-shot thing before responding to you which means I'm the only one who gave you a useful response. Yet you totally ignored it. WTF?

Not the answer you were expecting? Fine, but don't overlook it because it doesn't please you. Or, again, tell us right now that you are not really interested in learning. Then, those of us who do try to teach something can ignore you and you will get only warm-fuzzy responses.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I could say a lot right now. I could be really nasty. I won't.

Thing is, seeing all this womans threads, and her website, I see a beginner, already in business, not knowing how to take good pictures. So much over-processing and use of gimmicks. Selective color, vignetting, that wierd "it's artsy" 30degree tilt, etc... Bad lighting, on camera flash and their accompaning very harsh shadows and ghosting. If I remember correctly, she has always asked how to fix things in post. I haven't seen here ask how to get better lighting. "Help me remove this shadow" was one of my favorites. She has a ways to go before she is "in business". But that doesn't matter, because I got the best response ever. Which is typical. "My clients are happy with my work". Well, great. I am glad to see the what the standard is for the industry.

Oh, yeah. I wanted to ask why it was necessary to throw in the "I am a good christian..." comment in there?
Does that make you better than an atheist heathen?