what would you have done differently? (PP)

[Ender2309]

most of my images end up printed in a B&W newspaper, so color and contrast doesn't really ever have to be perfect. however, it IS something i want to learn and something i'm working on.

here's the original,
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/mrlemon123/IMG_2497-1.jpg


here's the one i edited. does it look well done? do you see something you would change? do you see any glaring errors?
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/mrlemon123/IMG_2497-2.jpg

[screamoon]

off the topic but....how did you do that? the edited image is sharper and more digital !

[Mark Kemp]

This is a very subjective thing. there is no right and wrong but to my eye you have overcooked it a bit. I would have done roughly the same, a bit more sharpness, a bit more contrast and a bit more saturation. But I wouldn't have gone quite as far as you have. Also if you are using photoshop have a look at some of the warm up filters in the photographic filters section. An 85A or B will give it a 'sunnier' colour cast and you might like the result.

[Hermeto]

OP’s edited image is too much saturated and warm for my taste.
Here is my take:

http://i.pbase.com/o3/00/644000/1/89393352.MRhoPek3.IMG_24972.jpg

In my opinion, the major problem with this picture is that the runner #19 seems to be in focus, but not the runner #161, as composition suggests.
That’s why I selectively sharpened only him, runner #161.
That leaves runner #19 seemingly slightly unsharp, which is more logical – at least to my eyes.

Slightly adjusted levels and curves, USM Amount: 50, Radius: 0.2, Treshold: 1.

[Hermeto]

Damn Pbase!
Here is the link:

http://www.pbase.com/hermeto/image/89393352

[Ender2309]

thanks guys. after looking at it again this morning i do have to agree that it's a bit overdone.

and yeah, 161 WAS the intended subject, but you know how AI servo can be. I heard this before when i posted the image in sports for composition critique, which is why i threw this one "out;" in fact the only reason i used it was because it sported most of the color spectrum and as such makes it a little harder to do (when i was tweaking the saturation i was looking at the grass, which looks ok).


@screamoon: its called post processing, and its a gift from the photogods. there's several different programs out there to use, but in my experience photoshop and adobe lightroom are the two best. photoshop grants more options and more user control, but lightroom is easier to learn and use, especially for beginners.

[dlw3]

It is not necessarily overdone (too much contrast).
After having worked in the reprographic industry for many years, photos that go on newsprint should have too much contrast. Having said that; what newsprint is it going on? Is the newsprint like that of a paperback book (dark) or that of finer newsprint (light)? If possible, you need to know what quality of newsprint the photo will appear on beforehand.

[Ender2309]

It is not necessarily overdone (too much contrast).
After having worked in the reprographic industry for many years, photos that go on newsprint should have too much contrast. Having said that; what newsprint is it going on? Is the newsprint like that of a paperback book (dark) or that of finer newsprint (light)? If possible, you need to know what quality of newsprint the photo will appear on beforehand.

i agree fully; the first thing i was taught by my predecessor was to overcook the contrast. having said that, this one won't be appearing in the paper; i had a better one for that. i was just using this to learn off of.

as for the quality of the newsprint, well, i'm not really sure which it is. i think it's fairly dark; we use about 170 dots per inch for photos. its a high school publication, but we do put our PDFs online if you want to check it out.