Kate Preview - Which Style?

[DGMPhotography]

Hey folks,

So with this shot, I decided to experiment with my editing style a little bit.

Typically, I go for a clean contrasty look; a prettier version of real life I like to think. A look that will never get old. But I wanted to try some new things, so check them out below and let me know what you think.


1. Base version - this is what I would normally use as my final product.

2. A matte-type of look. This style seems pretty popular right now. It might just be a fad, but there are benefits to following trends. I have a feeling this would get noticed more on Instagram than my normal style.

3. And a black and white.

Thoughts?

 

[smoke665]

No idea on Instagram but my preference would be #1 or #3. However because of the size of the competing elements in the composition, IMO bottom loading by cropping some off the bottom would make the young lady more prominate and create stronger leading lines with the walls.

 

[Jeff1547 47]

Number one for me...

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

It's just my opinion...

If you're going for the Instagram style then more of an *instant* look, people only glance and move on so kick it a little more.

I prefer the first, and I know I'm only looking at a small jpeg here that won't do the full print justice... But at first glance, and just a cursory one, it [the edit] looks too flat, as though the model is leaning back into the background. I would try to separate more, urban is more gritty, enclosed as in it is the whole world and people want to stand out in it, own the space, let the building lean back... Slightly more contrast on the subject, a background with less and a slightly cooler tone?

Just as a visual example of the direction...

 

[acparsons59 6]

#1. the other looks flatter.

 

[Derrel]

I like #1, but want to see the sides cropped off...those masonry walls do very little to advance the shot, and by including them,it steals a lot of physical size,and attention, from her.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I have a question for those experienced with Lightroom's new filters.

The preset I used for this was Color - Matte.

I looked at the histogram and couldn't for the life of me figure out how to replicate this manually:

It has those gaps at the end of the histogram. And when I tried to use the tone curve to move it, I was limited. It wouldn't let me move it up all the way, and I'm not sure why.

Here is the histogram and tone curve of the original (#1) for comparison:

Any ideas?

 

[DGMPhotography]

I have a question for those experienced with Lightroom's new filters.

The preset I used for this was Color - Matte.

I looked at the histogram and couldn't for the life of me figure out how to replicate this manually:
View attachment 168340

It has those gaps at the end of the histogram. And when I tried to use the tone curve to move it, I was limited. It wouldn't let me move it up all the way, and I'm not sure why.

View attachment 168341

Here is the histogram and tone curve of the original (#1) for comparison:

View attachment 168342
View attachment 168343

Any ideas?

Actually never mind. Just realized I have to click the box to remove the sliders from the tone curve, in order to move the curve like this. Idk why though.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Alright, I've made some adjustments based on people's feedback here.

I've made a compromise between #1 and #2. Highlights aren't so muted now, but I really liked the look of the muted blacks, but brought it back a bit to preserve some details.

Thoughts?

#4 - Compromise

#5. Tried cropping out the walls as per Derrel's suggestion. Not sure how I feel about it.

 

[smoke665]

You first mention LR filters then say presets. The latest versions have "Profiles", "filter brush" and "Presets". All if which work slightly different. Which one are you referring to?

 

[crf8]

Need the walls back but not the building slivers from the edges


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DGMPhotography]

You first mention LR filters then say presets. The latest versions have "Profiles", "filter brush" and "Presets". All if which work slightly different. Which one are you referring to?

They are all under the Presets tool window. Let's not worry about semantics please.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Need the walls back but not the building slivers from the edges


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good idea! I think I like this better.

And thoughts on the processing compromise?

 

[smoke665]

You first mention LR filters then say presets. The latest versions have "Profiles", "filter brush" and "Presets". All if which work slightly different. Which one are you referring to?

They are all under the Presets tool window. Let's not worry about semantics please.

In your post you say "I have a question for those experienced with Lightroom's new filters". "Lr filters" are located in the develop module just above the basic Basic Panel, in addition to the sliders available, they also give you the option to apply color, and make selective adjustments. Unless you are referring to the "filters" available for file management in the Library module.

"Profiles", a relativity new addition is located at the top of the basic panel and accessed by clicking on the four squares to the right to open the Profile Browser. It gives you the option of using Adobe standard profiles, your camera profiles and custom profiles (which are now being sold by third parties). Profiles determines how Adobe interprets the data in a raw photo to render on screen and affects color, saturation, contrast but doesn't change your sliders in the basic panel.

Then you refer to "The preset I used for this was Color - Matte" . "Presets" are in the develop module on the left under the drop down "Presets", which have been around for awhile, and are probably the most overused by the inexperienced. They can change everything from Basic, Tone Curve, HSL, Split Toning, Detail, Effects, even apply filters.

Each of the three editing tools above will affect your tone curve, sometimes in different ways, so knowing which term you meant was required to provide an answer to your question and not a case of semantics.

My mistake was assuming you actually wanted the correct answer, won't happen again Bud.

 

[Derrel]

Alright, I've made some adjustments based on people's feedback here.

#5. Tried cropping out the walls as per Derrel's suggestion. Not sure how I feel about it.

View attachment 168345

OKAY...55 millimeter tall woman in the original version; in the cropped version, she's 85 millimeters high, from foot to top of hair. Keep in mind, the on-screen measurements I am giving are when seen large, on a computer screen. When this image is shrunken down, to Instagram size, she will look like a grasshopper in size in the original crop. Of course, if that's what you want, by all means, include the masonry walls.