Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

#1: I highly suspect - NO, - this IS a superimposed picture - a real bad photoshop job. She has been put on a different background and the 2 don't match well.

#2: Since the sun is behind her, there would be, should be a very strong rim lighting around her entire body, her hair would have been lit up like a Christmas tree, her clothes would be strongly back lit around the edges. They aren't even remotely close to that. The shadows of the flash on her arm are black - not a red warmth from the backlit sun - a dead giveaway. The human eye instinctively knows that there SHOULD be bright sun on the back of her body. It definitely is not there - busted!!

#3: You have sunset warm red colors and light from directly behind her awash everywhere - that against a cold white flash - a lousy combination that just does not match.

#4: Flash on a camera is rarely any good. It is direct, harsh, removes all shadows thus reducing detail. Hate flash. IN this case, it makes her devoid of warmth. I would suspect that there was not too many options - but then again we don't know where it was taken from SINCE it is superimposed on a background.

#5: Girl is dead center - one of the worst places to put a subject. Horizon thru head etc. Any thing but dead center. Bad repositioning

#6: It is a posed shot. Bad pose. Unnatural. If it were 24 mm, the face is naturally fattened by perspective issues. If it were 24 mm, the background would have been smaller. Depending on sensor size, that 24 could act like a 36 - , still pretty wide for portraits though. 60-100 is better suited to people. My guess is that she was not even there!! of if she was, this was a nice sunset shot and wanted her in the pix - so was photoshopped.

#7, I have seen these before and it is a common mistake.

#8: The detail in her hair is missing around the edges - which means it was lifted and placed on the background. With flash or a sunset behind her, this detail would be jumping out with great detail. It ain't there. Busted! :)

Is that enough?
Cheers,
Take 5

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

skin tone is off. her arms are tanned but her face is pale? looks poorly photoshopped, not natural

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

I went back and looked at this closer and I have to agree that upon closer inspection, it looks like a composite. The halo around her hair (lower left of her head) is a clue. In any event, the wrong lens, horizon through her head, the color temperature mis-match, all contribute to a less-than-acceptable image.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

And the winner is...!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Not mention the poor focus.

altfox Loc: Central Pa.

I agree with the bent arm. Young girls seem to be able to bend therir arms like that. It's something to watch for. I had the same thing happen to me with my granddaughter. Yes a longer focal length is much better for portraits.

OonlyBonly

I agree with N3eg. The fill flash makes her head stand out too much - especially against the darker blouse she's wearing.

BermBuster Loc: Hi Desert S.Cal

Take 5, I really enjoyed your comments-because you think along the same lines as me :)
But...1) He sent the 'RAW' CR2 file to me(I converted it to 600x400.JPG to upload)
.........2) I "know" he doesn't have PhotoShop, and know he has no working knowledge of Photoshop.(i.e..he doesn't understand 'layers')

What worried me when I saw this picture, is I couldn't put my finger on it-but know something is WRONG, and I want to be sure I don't do this also. I put it in PhotoShop and tried some lens distortion...helped, but still not right..tried playing around with the color temperatures, shadows, cropping, reshaped the top of the head, even monochrome..all helped..but it never came out 'Good'.

There have been several great insights everyone on here has noticed...and I really am taking notes ... But it really isn't a (Poor) PhotoShop job.
Thanks to everyone with all the great advice!


:oops: :oops:

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

Sure threw me off. The only thing I can think of is that the original girl was SOOOO dark in the shadows, that the flash virtually overtook the picture and put in daylight on a sunset picture - a blend of red warmth sunset color corrected against a hard blueish daylight flash overexposed. Why the sunlight doesn't show up in her clothes and hair is beyond me.

As I previously stated, I hate flash - never use it, is most often messy and does not deliver the goods. This is a classic example. Natural light - even if you have to reflect it, bend it, chop it, whatever. I belong to a CC - a guy there has 185,000 pictures - never uses flash - his work is brilliant - and he only does people.

Takes more work but the results are astounding.

Cheers,
Take 5

BermBuster Loc: Hi Desert S.Cal

Take 5[/quote]
:oops: :oops:[/quote]
Sure threw me off. The only thing I can think of is that the original girl was SOOOO dark in the shadows, that the flash virtually overtook the picture and put in daylight on a sunset picture - a blend of red warmth sunset color corrected against a hard blueish daylight flash overexposed. Why the sunlight doesn't show up in her clothes and hair is beyond me.

As I previously stated, I hate flash - never use it, is most often messy and does not deliver the goods. This is a classic example. Natural light - even if you have to reflect it, bend it, chop it, whatever. I belong to a CC - a guy there has 185,000 pictures - never uses flash - his work is brilliant - and he only does people.

Takes more work but the results are astounding.

Cheers,
Take 5[/quote]

Sad thing is, I probly told him to use flash if he wanted to expose on the sunset AND capture the portrait, or else he would end up with a silhouette.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Hmm... I have to disagree with the use of flash. If done correctly, the results are fantastic, especially with portraits. I always hesitate when I hear a professional doesn't use flash; it makes me wonder if they don't know how. As an amateur, I've noticed that it takes a lot more work to use a flash than not. I could be wrong... I'm sure there are a lot of experienced photographers who know how to use flash but opt not to for whatever reason.

Ralloh Loc: Ohio

Hmmmm, it would have been nice to know up front that this was taken directly from the RAW file thereby eliminating the Photoshop possibility.

It still looks totally unnatural to me, but, perhaps only because of the harsh lighting on her face and the fact her body is turned to the side thereby effectively narrowing it and making her head look larger. If she had been totally facing the camera, the proportions may have been fine.

marty wild Loc: England

The bottom part is under exposed. I think it's causing a dreadful conflict which make the image look false. I just wonder would this image have benefited with HDR. So long you don't over cook it and make it look silly.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

I agree with most of the preceding comments. Just to take a different tack, I would suggest that any close photo with a wide lens causes distortion, with the portions nearest the lens appearing enlarged out of proportion. I tried to correct this by using the transform edit in Adobe. As I was not trying to show Adobemanship, this is just a quick attempt to show some difference. I would not try this with one of my pictures, just discard it.

Original


PPed

BermBuster Loc: Hi Desert S.Cal

I think this makes a positive difference-and shows there is some distortion going on for sure, let alone the amplifying it with the pose...hot flash/warm sunset etc...
I typically take 200-500 pics per outing, so I have taken 'thousands' of 'Bad' pictures. But I learn more from my bad pictures than my good ones. And I can usually figure out myself what I did wrong...exposure wrong-focus point missed-camera shake-etc...but this one...if I didn't know the source, I wouldn't have given it a second thought that they were not very good with PhotoShop. Thanks for the suggestions & taking the time to "tweak it" :)