before & after...

[shadowwolf]

...request for critique/comment
The origional image info is as follows:
shot with 350D
used the 85mm
f 1.8
iso 200
580ex flash (on camera)
1/200 ss
Converted from raw via photoshop

The edit was basically a conversion to B&W using the photoshop adjustment...then created a background layer with a layer mask. Applied a fairly strong gaussian blur...used masking to achieve the posted result.

[jetboy]

The originals lighting doesn't seem too great to start with. Secondly, the original is soft. I don't really much like using f/1.8 for portraits due to shallow dof and my nifty-fifty is a bit focus fickle at that aperture. What was the reason for using gausian blur for this image? I wouldn't use that for a portrait except slightly for flawed skin/older subjects. This is a young pretty girl who doesn't need the "glamour" effect added.

[Thumbsup]

The originals lighting doesn't seem too great to start with. Secondly, the original is soft. I don't really much like using f/1.8 for portraits due to shallow dof and my nifty-fifty is a bit focus fickle at that aperture. What was the reason for using gausian blur for this image? I wouldn't use that for a portrait except slightly for flawed skin/older subjects. This is a young pretty girl who doesn't need the "glamour" effect added.

I'm not an expert at portraits however I agree with the jetboy on using f/1.8 seems too shallow of dof. Even though the blouse seems to have great detail, the face looks to be OOF.

[midnitejam]

Excellent choice of models. Nice pose. Nice expression. Nice camera awareness on her part. Not surpprised about the lighting being flat without much modeling because of the on-camera light source. Sharpening the eyes and supplying some detail to the irises using PP will really make a difference.

The soft appearance of her complexion reminds me of the air-brushing used in the old days. I like it.

DISH the B&W--it's not making it.

[SoccerRef]

With all of the PP you did, I am surprised you left so many shadows around her eyes. When I saw the "After", the first thing I did was scan back up to look at the eyes. The BW really brings out the shadows, so much so that I thought you darkened the shadows...

Why not alleviate them a little bit?

Other than that, I like the conversion. In the original, my eyes were immediately drawn to her necklace... it is in focus. In the conversion, you successfully changed the focal point.

[nailz]

Indeed, no reason to be using f/1.8 for a portrait because of the DoF "problem" .. seems the picture is severely out of focus. Also, once you get a bit more comftorable with the camera, one of the best advice I ever got was turn turn off Automatic Focus Points and start selecting them manually.

[picturepages]

you've erased her bottom lip as well.
the focus is on her necklace instead of her face...as others said a F1.8 setting just isnt good.
You have to really watch where you put the focus point.
Also not sure why the blur effect was needed as it is already OOF.
anyway...maybe Im just repeating whats already been said....
Keep at it.

[picturepages]

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z121/goldeneve/quinceanera_5461origifp3redo.jpg

played with it a bit...did a curves adjustment...a sharpen...and then a noise removal.

[Grimlock]

picturepages, Can you please share what you used for the noise reduction? PS only? Or plug-in/stand alone app?

Thanks in advance.

[tonydee]

I prefer the greyscale version... the eyes draw the viewer in, and the smile somehow looks less tentative, thought the bottom lip looks soft and vaguely bruised/swollen. Preserve a little more of the contrast between lipsticked-mouth and general facial skin, rather than smoothing right up to the teeth. The pink dress did nothing for me - another reason the greyscale improves. Overall very charming. Cheers, Tony

[picturepages]

Grimlock..I use Paint shop pro...I have a few versions of it but this one was in the X2 one.
Its a built in application. I really like it.

[Grimlock]

Thanks pages. Much appreciated.

[happymom]

I'm not an expert at portraits however I agree with the jetboy on using f/1.8 seems too shallow of dof. Even though the blouse seems to have great detail, the face looks to be OOF.


Correct me if Im wrong, but it seems that you dont recommend to use f/1.8 in a portrait. So what is the recommended aperture setting?

2. on comment - the dress was detailed but the face was not focus--does it help if you focus the eyes, half click the shutter, then compose?

Hope my questions make sense, Im a newbie... thanks a lot

[SoccerRef]

Correct me if Im wrong, but it seems that you dont recommend to use f/1.8 in a portrait. So what is the recommended aperture setting?

2. on comment - the dress was detailed but the face was not focus--does it help if you focus the eyes, half click the shutter, then compose?

Hope my questions make sense, Im a newbie... thanks a lot

Welcome to the Forum!

1.8 aperture gives one only about 2 inches of depth that will be in focus. When using 1.8 for a portrait one should compose the shot, then choose a focus point that focuses on the eyes. Depending on the focal points available in your camera this can be rather restrictive, but is the best way to manage this situation.

To do what you suggested, you could use the * button to focus if your camera allows you to program it to hold focus (I believe all Canon SLRs have this option in Custom Functions). The danger with that is that at a 1.8 aperture, the simple movement of the camera down to recompose will likely be enough to change the focal point and you will end up with a blurry photo.

Good Luck. Hope that made sense.