Did I save it??

[txdude35]

Snapped this shot quickly of a friend at school before realizing that the iso was 1600. She wouldn't let me take another one, so I tried to salvage it with my meager PS skills. Comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Before:
http://jefft48.smugmug.com/photos/52483760-M.jpg

After:

http://jefft48.smugmug.com/photos/52483327-L.jpg

[lightwrite]

I think it looks good! Love her outfit too! I'm sure she'll love it.
;)

[jj1987]

I can tell that you've reduced noise.......but I work at a lab so Im more sensitive to that stuff (I notice in the soft skin and blurred hair lines). Either way, im much happier with this image as is rather than high grain 1600 speed.

[txdude35]

I can tell that you've reduced noise.......but I work at a lab so Im more sensitive to that stuff (I notice in the soft skin and blurred hair lines). Either way, im much happier with this image as is rather than high grain 1600 speed.

I did a curve adjustment, upped the color a bit on her and her outfit with a soft brush on soft light at about 15%, extracted her and blurred the bg just a bit, took the shadow from the hat from under her eyes, a little smartsharpen, and ran it through neatimage. My ps skills aren't that great, but I'm getting there, I think.

Thanks to you both for your comments.

[queenbee288]

You did a good job of saving it.

[Robert_Lay]

Very few people have such smooth skin, which makes me think that the noise removal is a bit overdone.

The two subjects shown above are different in size by about 3:1, and the tonality, saturation, brightness and contrast are modified as well. Therefore, it is difficult to compare noise in the two images. In fact, the one which I presume is the un-processed image becomes pixellated before you can find any noise, so I can't really see how much noise was supposedly in the original.

[txdude35]

Here's the original conversion in a larger size for a more accurate comparison. And yes, her skin really is that smooth. Hoping to get her to pose for me soon.
http://jefft48.smugmug.com/photos/52483760-L.jpg

[Robert_Lay]

The newer "before" picture allows me to find the noise artifacts more readily. I can see noticeable noise levels in the wood paneling behind the subject and a llittle in her jacket. Noise is funny - it decides which colors and which brightness tones it will affect (or infect) and you can predict that to some extent. Generally speeking noise seems to be most noticeable in the shadows. In my opinion, the amount of noise in this image could easily have gone un-noticed unless someone points you to it.

So, my conclusions about the efficacy of the post processing is divided into two separate issues - the noise and everything else. The noise is well reduced in the "after" picture. So, that's that!

However, in regard to other issues of post processing, I would say that two very distinctive changes have been brought about during post processing. The colors have become more saturated and the color balance has been changed to much warmer. I am quite comfortable with the change in saturation - it seems to be an improvement. However, I do think the white balance is a little bit too warm. I would guess that about midway between the "before" and "after" shots would be more natural looking. That's the best judgement I can give not having the actual model available for comparison.

Understanding your plight in regard to the model being reticent about posing, I would suggest that when you get to the point where you can present her with a sample of your work on this image, she may well agree to a more productive sitting. She certainly seems to have a lot of "presence" and potential as a model. Go slow!

[txdude35]

Thanks, Bob.