Thank you.

A couple of close crops (16:9) for my Windows wallpaper. Both shots used available light.

85mm f/2.8 1/200 iso1600

(Download)

85mm f/2.0 1/160 iso1600

(Download)

No. It is not.

I agree that on-camera it loses (or should lose) all TTL capability. Most contacts on the camera hotshoe don't match those on the foot of the flash. Off camera, you can still use it in TTL mode as a Nikon optical remote flash.

Or, if you use a yn-622c under the flash off-camera, it should recognize radio commands from a yn-622n-tx controller mounted on-camera, that will fire and adjust the power &/or zoom.

The quality (and ability to make acceptable large prints) of your image depends more on the number of pixels than on the (possibly compressed) file size (although file compression can/will affect quality). If your family image was originally approx 4000 x 3000 pixels (12mb uncompressed) and you made it fit on a 1500 x 1000 pixel background (1.5 mb uncompressed), and then saved it as a jpeg, Photoshop discarded much of the detail information available from the original family image. When cropped for a 20x16 the image would be only 1250x1000 pixels and would print at a resolution of approx 62 ppi. The results likely would not be pleasing.

To get a better print, you would need a background with more pixels at the start. Or, you could enlarge your existing background to approx 4000 x 3000 pixels (use same size as family image) before pasting the family cutout. Probably better to have Photoshop makeup extra pixels for the background than to have extra pixels made up for the entire image at print time. This image, when cropped for a 20x16 would print at about 188 pixels per inch. Much better than 62.

I have not used Elements in quite some time. But, as an alternative to the above option, you can:

Work with the family photo where you made your cutout/mask.
Copy the new background layer into that file (which is already larger).
Move it to the layer below the cutout/mask, and transform/resize the new background layer to fit the larger file. (If "free transform" command is available for Elements. I really can't remember.)

Isn't this "Diamond Ratio" very closely related to the "Rule of Rhom", where the main focal points of interest in your composition are strategically placed within a Rhombus overlay? (Named after the creators of the rule, The "Real Housewives of Miami")

Tom, I said the light looks hard, as in relatively crisp shadow transitions, not harsh. Hard is not bad. It just means your 21" box was some distance from the subject. If you want butterfly, try to keep the light centered perpendicular to the face of the subject and just high enough to get the desired shadow directly below the nose.

The closer the light, the softer the transition will be. If I want soft, smooth, shadow transitions with a smaller light source (such as a 21" or smaller), the light is usually much closer to the subject than I am. Sometimes it is so close that it may have to be cropped out of the photo.

You don't have to have 'soft' butterfly light ... varying degrees of 'hard' light work very nicely.

Very pleasing light, but it appears to be fairly hard loop light to me, not butterfly, and not a real soft shadow transition.

You can do color, contrast, exposure, and cropping adjustments with many different software applications. I do a good bit of re-touching on people images, and find that I frequently need to go beyond what Lightroom or ACR alone can do for me. A couple of examples follow.

The first is a re-touch of a scanned old photo. Much of this could have been done in Lightroom.

The second, from a prom photo series, had a pose that put fleshly areas of the body in non-flattering binds. It also had a section of bra showing above the gown. Both are relatively easy repairs in PS CC.

Since I showed the "before" image on example 2 (and the subject of the image is not me), the face was intentionally blurred.

To help answer what your time investment for using the software may be, I've been using PS extensively for five years. I improve each year, but I am still learning.

(Download)


(Download)

Thanks, dragonswing, sailorsmom, and Rob48, for your kind comments.

Once again, I apologize if I mis-read what the OP wanted, but this is from his earlier thread on the same photo.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-432157-1.html

“I currently do not have access to photoshop and am using paintshop in the meantime. Is there any way to fix, edit this brides bra that is showing out the top of her dress. ANY help is greatly appreciated. Feel free to copy and edit if need be to give me an idea of how to fix”.

Granted not everyone read both threads.

I hope you can accomplish what you want with your software and the options offered. If not, it can be done cleanly with PS CC. An example follows. I apologize if you just wanted to know how, and not have a repaired image presented for your approval.

(Download)

Thank you, Flyerace.

Thank you. Not sure if he believes he is a small human, or if he thinks we are big, ugly dogs.

Thanks, Mark.