Yep, I agree with the others. It needs a bit more contrast to bring out the detail, possibly decrease the highlights a bit and up the clarity a tad which will in their own rights make a big difference, and it will look sharper as a result.

Best Regards,
Tom

Hi Andrea,

Here is one rendition I worked on rather quickly. I did not do anything abnormal, but merely selectively enhanced your image. I used PS and the Camera Raw Filter to begin with, making selective changes in Exposure, Clarity, Highlights, and Dehaze. I then actually opened it in PS and used various layers, and selective adjustment layers, dealing with saturation, brightness, lightening and darkening using curves layers as well as some selective sharpening. I also used the spot healing brush to take out some red lines on camera left in the trees - not sure what they were?

Hence, no dramatic changes, but a more realistic enhancement trying to produce a very esthetically pleasing scene from your image. Thanks for allowing me to practice and utilize my PP'ing skills.

P.S. I believe you or someone else posted this image before, or one that was very similar, based on my memory. It is definitely a very pleasant and scenic setting - no wonder it is so popular, and so many people arrive there to take photos.

Best Regards,
Tom

(Download)

Greetings Andrea,

WB and snow is a touchy/feely subject in my opinion. What do you like, what is considered realistic, what affect are you going for . . . I think these are all questions YOU need to answer for yourself and the picture you are taking. I am including your image with just one change. I opened it in PS and then brought up the Camera Raw filter in a separate layer. All I did was use an eyedropper and clicked on what I felt was representative of your sky in your image. This, of course changed the WB, but I feel it looks better and more realistic, but that is my opinion and not yours and I do not know what that scene looks like, or looked like, when you snapped the shot. Hope this has some meaning to you and possibly helps you out??? Thanks Andrea.

P.S. Of course, you can always go back into the image and tweak the greens and/or browns for trees, as well as the blues for the sky, depending upon what you want and saw when taking the shot.

Best Regards,
Tom

P.P.S. - I forgot to change the color space to sRGB, so the image may or may not look how it does on my computer screen - sorry.

P.P.P.S. - Oh, by the way, an old standby or trick when taking a picture of a snow scene is to set your white balance by shooting a shot of your hand extended out as far as you can and then use it for WB when processing your image. You can also merely take a shot of the sky and use it as your WB. I have done both of those several times.

Tom's Rendition Just WB changed by clicking on the Sky!

(Download)

Lorima,

I love the soft gently falling mood of the snow flakes, the somewhat darker mood of the 2 deer and the trees and the coloring of the high dead grass basically in the foreground, and the pièce de résistance of the stark white snow, quietly and gently resting, yet, majestically perched on the forward protruding heavier limbs on the trees. Everything about this image seems to be balanced and well captured. Excellent shot, and one that needs to be printed and placed on a wall with a nice frame.

I looked at your site and this picture

https://www.facebook.com/623908587629745/photos/a.966097483410852.1073741847.623908587629745/1373254906028439/?type=3&theater

is brought up much larger - very nice, indeed!

Best Regards,
Tom

Greetings Ron,

I have to admit, I usually try to seek out natural framing whenever I see the possibility when taking a landscape shot or even an outdoor portrait pose. I much prefer the first image framed by the bridge opening. It serves as a natural tunnel vision aspect to your photo. To me, no pun intended, it seems to provide 'closure' and a type of needed definition to whatever is being framed. I just think it promotes the viewer a defined pathway toward the main subject or object at hand.

I guess another way to look at it is if you put a vignetting to an image . . . same concept and idea in my mind, just more naturally 'blended,' providing a portal (port hole) and better fit so to speak, to the main subject, object, idea of an image. I have to agree that this is a super topic/thread for excellent discussion and ideas for drawing a viewer into the objective of the image.

I will have to take a look for some possible naturally framed shots I might have available, and will post later. Thanks Ron.

Best Regards,
Tom

Hey Tom,

Sorry, but not even close to short lighting, but I am chalking it up to a typo on your part. I do think the Frequency Separation did a nice job on this gal. Her skin looks very good, complexion and lighting looks quite even and flows nicely, and I think it is a 'plus' on the basic appearance of your daughter-in-law.

Oh, maybe try to get her to extend her chin out and up just a hair to get rid of some of that double chin and thin out her neck, naturally, a tad?

As an aside, hope your pain is doing well/better.

Best Regards,
Tom

SS,

You referred to my comment I had made:



I must disagree that loyal customers would be lost. My goodness, look how many people 'move up' in their equipment and still buy the same manufacturer's products!

I know an extremely good photographer, just as one example, who owns a D800 or D810, and just bought a D500 so he can use it as a bird camera since it can shoot something like 10 fps, or maybe even more, allowing him a better opportunity of capturing that perfect bird shot. He did not switch manufacturers and is very pleased with Nikon, just as others are very pleased with Canon, Sony, Fuji, Hasselblad, and whatever other maker they chose.

Now, I'm sure if a company wants to delve out/invest in very large sums of money into R&D and come up with a brand new super fantastic, marvelous, amazing new camera body/model, their customers would greatly appreciate their efforts and expense . . . if they are successful and if the customer can afford this new magic camera which would most likely be quite expensive and out of reach, monetarily, for most common people and photographers (such as myself and maybe even you?). Who would be their target audience - just very well to do and extremely successful professional photographers? If so, I doubt very much that those chosen few could buy enough of the new cameras to support and justify all the money invested in R&D by the company, such that they would not take a loss on their endeavors. And guess what, other camera manufacturers would then be able to get their hands on the new product, study it, and maybe even improve upon it making their version (if copyright laws did not immediately forbid it, but it takes quite a while to get copyrights, I believe, and I'm sure there are ways around that, as well as company espionage) at an extremely reduced price for the common market and common photographer - Hmmm? Just like things have been done for years and years.

A very few loyal customers would say thank you, but the majority of the amateur, hobbyist, Mom & Pop photography businesses would say thanks, but no thanks - just can't afford your new camera. Now that is being realistic in my honest opinion. Let's face it, everything in our society is governed by money and expense - those are the two necessary evils that make decisions and control what happens in our world - honestly, just think about it and be honest with yourself and with all the others reading/contributing to this thread you began.

You were very successful in getting reactions you most probably were looking for, and for getting people involved on the UHH Forum Site, so my hat goes off to you. Was there a secondary reason you started this thread - one only wonders, if the time is taken to think about this in more depth. It is/was entertaining to read such a wide array of comments and information people have put forth and contributed to your thread. Congratulations, SS. Cheers, my friend.

Best Regards,
Tom

Alissa,

That composite is very cool. You did an amazing job with the original! I like how her hair is sticking straight up, evenly, on both sides of her head - Hmmmm, this composite is quite an improved accomplishment over the original. Very nice, indeed.

Best Regards,
Tom

Everyone,

It seems like my post was added before I finished, so here is the full version of what I was saying!!!!! Sorry about that.

SS,

Well, you certainly got the ball rolling on this one. You were very successful in getting a discussion going which has involved many opinions from former times - kind of like resurrecting the dead, so to speak.

I have Nikon DX & FX camera, and a fair number of lenses that suit me. I also like the fact that Nikon lenses, old and new, seem to still mount on newer Nikon camera bodies so they are still useable and do not get thrown in a scrap pile or 'dead file' pile, so to speak. With all that invested, I just can't see changing camera bodies due to my personal monetary considerations, and satisfaction with Nikon.

I presently have a Nikon 24-70 mm f/2.8 lens that is giving me problems and have been trying to get pictures from it like it used to do. I have ruled out my D800 sensor being dirty, and I have even taken apart my lens removing the concave lens inside the 24-70 mm lens and cleaned it very carefully. I have contacted Nikon, twice, and they have no idea and told me to send it to them, but it is not covered under warranty any longer, so I have hesitated. Now that Christmas is over, I may bite the bullet, pack it up, and see what they can find, and, if possible and not too expensive, have them repair the lens.

If I did make a change to a different camera body manufacturer, I might very well consider going to Sony. One of my sons has had a Sony for a long time and it seemed to take very good pictures, way back when, and so I suspect they are excellent with all the newest and latest technological advancements made.

Also, it generally is considered GOOD business practice to not necessarily be the leader or innovator, but to improve upon existing products made by other manufacturers. Why? Because they then do not have to spend so much money in the R&D phase, but can try to slightly, or vastly, improve upon an already produced product which is found to be widely, gratefully, enthusiastically approved, accepted, desired, and greatly wanted by the general consumer audience. In other words, make something better that is already developed and proven to be wanted by the public. Basically, isn't that what most auto manufacturers generally do, with an occasional real new product or model eventually coming out?

Hence, this discussion you successfully began will and can perpetually continue from now until eternity. So, congratulations in promoting probably a very old age debate that has most likely happened countless times before in regard to countless categories of consumer products based on need and desire.

Best Regards,
Tom

SS,

Well, you certainly got the ball rolling on this one. You were very successful in getting a discussion going which has involved many opinions from former times - kin=d of like resurrecting the dead, so to speak.

I have Nikon DX & FX camera, and a fair number of lenses that suit me. With all that invested, I just can't see changing camera bodies due to monetary considerations and satisfaction with Nikon. If I did make a change, I might very well consider going to Sony. One of my sons has had a Sony for a long time and it seemed to take very good pictures, way back when, and so I suspect they are excellent with all the newest and latest technological advancements made.

Also, it generally is considered GOOD business practice to not necessarily be the leader or innovator, but to improve upon existing products made by other manufacturers. Why/ Because they then do not have to spend so much money in the R&D phase, but can tr

Dave,

Sorry about that. Once I started to look at it and 'critique' it in my usual manner, I guess I saw more things that caught my eye, and, hence, I expanded upon my critique and got carried away compared to what you may have been expecting. She is a lovely lady and I was just thinking that she needs a picture that does her justice.

Yours is a decent start, but continued thought and set-up would result in a much better image. I guess I take portrait shots quite seriously, so I try to point out things I see and don't really mean to be negative - just positively critical.

If I gave you more than you wanted or I overstepped my bounds, I offer my apologies and hope you understand where I was coming from. She really is quite an attractive lady, indeed, and deserves the best in my opinion. Thanks Dave.

Best Regards,
Tom

Dave,

Yes, I prefer this version of the image on UHH over the first. It has more warmth, but I guess that is personal choice. I wonder what her true skin tone is? If you had used an X-Rite color checker during the shot, that is what I would truly be interested in seeing. Without that, perhaps clicking on a true grey in the image with the eye dropper would help bring out her true skin tones, say in LR?

This second image seems pretty close in the download view, but perhaps now just a tad too reddish? See, I have no idea what her real skin tone is, so I am just grasping at straws and my personal preferences. You would know best, as well as this lovely gal, so I am just a mere onlooker with thoughts and preferences of my own. Not trying to be difficult, just a sense of realism is what I am going for in this image.

Best Regards,
Tom

P.S. Maybe lighten her eyes a tad in PP'ing since you apparently did not have a reflector or a fill light? The eyes are so important (in a portrait shot) to be shown lit up to a degree and also to be sharp and focused. Lastly, I feel you were just tad low with your camera position and it should have been a little higher so one doesn't feel they are looking up to her for this shot. Of course, it could be the darkness below her eyes that gives me that impression as well?

P.P.S. The more I look at the image, the more I see a circular shadow below her nose - almost a perfect circle shape. It also makes me wonder if the light was too high and perhaps maybe starting to get raccoon eyes? Hmmm - something just isn't correct about the lighting IMHO. The lighting is just not doing this beautiful Columbian lady any true justice - haven't quite put my finger on it yet. Perhaps the lighting on her face is too bright with not enough blended light on her eyes. It is as if she is wearing a mask of light too bright in many places but not equal and blending on her eyes. Perhaps the light needs to be stopped down one step, and/or it is too direct? Her nose, her upper cheeks, her chin, and her forehead are all very bright while her eyes are left in shadows, need more light, and it all needs blended together so the light flows across her face.

Hi Dave,

I would say you need to change the WB in the image of the young lady. She is way too yellow/orangish in the download. Decrease the degrees Kelvin in Post Processing, if you can, (make her a little cooler) and she will be quite lovely.

Best Regards,
Tom

Paul,

Welcome. Regardless whichever PP'ing (Post Processing) program(s) you choose (Photoshop, LR, On1, and many others), after getting your image converted to B&W, seriously consider going back and fine tuning your image using the Color Sliders available (Yes, Color Sliders) in your PP'ing program. That can make all the difference in the world in how your B&W image appears.

Also work with the various other sliders like highlights, whites, and blacks, white balance color temperature (Degrees Kelvin) slider (move toward the yellow for more warmth or blue end (more coolness) to see the differences), clarity, vibrance, shadows, and even the Dehaze slider if your program has that available. Have fun and experiment to your liking and see what changes occur when moving the various sliders around. Have Fun!

Best Regards,
Tom

Tom,

Definitely not Rembrandt lighting as Cliff already attested to, but also quite interesting with the odd lighting you ended up with . . . and not all bad as I may reiterate. Let's see some more with good lighting, even though it may not be Rembrandt Lighting. Merry Christmas, Ho, Ho, Ho!

Best Regards,
Tom