need feedback on headshot

[montreal]

This is a shot of my niece. I like it but I can't really be the judge because I just love the little girl. I need an objective point of view. And please don't be shy to tell me what you really think; I want to improve.

Taken with 300d and kit lens (18-55), Av 5.6, Tv 1/60, focal length 45mm, adjusted sharpness, saturation and white balance (the original was very blue because she was in the shade + the reflection from the pool was blue).

[KevC]

She's really cute! Try portrait instead of landscape (how you hold your camera), but using landscape worked here (her fingers above the ledge.

Possibly zoom out a little to have the fingers completely in the frame, make sure you don't cut anything off!

But this shot is awesome, has tonnes of expression!

[Inspired Photography]

Love it! Great framing, and your PP has brought out the best in it.

I personally don't think it would have worked in portrait mode, but you never know.

Looks great.

Rob

[exposingmyself]

yeah, i see what you mean. that face is way too cute to critique :D

the landscape mode works very well. as said before, careful with cropping of fingers. when shooting children i'm more careful now to keep limbs in especially since they grow so quickly.

again, she's toooooooooooo cute :D

[montreal]

This is exactly what I was looking for! The "cutting out the fingers" mistake seems so obvious now when I'm looking at the picture... But I just didn't notice it at all before. Thank you very much! :)

[tim]

Nice shot, I like it! :)

Now for the critiqie. The shot isn't really sharp - i'm not sure if it's out of focus or just needs sharpening. I suspect a little of both. Some unsharp mask makes it better. I did a slightly unusual crop and I think it works in this case, but I don't think everyone will like it. Finally I adjusted the levels slightly. Anyway, here's what I came up with - hope you don't mind, if you do i'll delete it from the post.

Edit - it doesn't look as good in the web browser as it does in photoshop, it looks a bit dark here, but you get the idea.

Edit2 - replaced the image with a less saturated version (ie saturation same as the original).

[tim]

And here's another one where I did more extreme levels adjustments. I used the teeth as the white point, and the hair as the black point. It's too much, but it's interesting.

[tim]

And finally, a B&W made using the calculations method, using the red and green channels, and the "hard light" blend mode. I was a little bored this evening, that's why i've made like 3/4 versions!

[montreal]

Thanks Tim for all those suggestions! :) I agree that the shot is not as sharp as it could be. I'll have to check out the original again when I get home (I'm at work right now). The pic doesn't really look the same at work because it's a totally different screen (I have LCD home... colors were a bit different). Perhaps the DOF is too narrow at 5.6? It is the kit lens also... handheld at 1/60.

[Andy_T]

I like the image a lot.

I think it gains with the sharpening that Tim applied, but I don't really like the other changes.

Best regards,
Andy

[schmoelzel]

I love the shot but feel it should have a tighter crop. I am partial to a square format for close-up head shots.......I also use the shadow/highlight tool to get a little more emphasis on the face (and a great face it is!!).

Really nice moment that you captured. Love the aqua background........

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/DRebelPix/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/normal_headshot1.jpg

[Spirit]

Wow. It's amazing what a little cropping and a frame can do.

Wall worthy, imo.

[jukas]

On the edits Tim did, I don't know if it's the USM or the other adjustment but there is some major haloing/artifacting going on there (look at the edges of the hair or fingers)

[tuggnet]

Great job, schmoelzel! I agree, very much wall or desk worthy

[tim]

On the edits Tim did, I don't know if it's the USM or the other adjustment but there is some major haloing/artifacting going on there (look at the edges of the hair or fingers)

It's JPEG artifacts, from the original compression done on the photo, and then me working on it then re-encoding it. Image quality isn't so important as getting the ideas accross.

[schmoelzel]

On the edits Tim did, I don't know if it's the USM or the other adjustment but there is some major haloing/artifacting going on there (look at the edges of the hair or fingers)

It's really difficult to work on a Jpeg that already has sharpening done to it.....I think Tim is just trying to convey his ideas. I am sure that he would ideally like to work on the RAW file or at least a TIFF file with no compression.

[montreal]

Yes, of course, If I make any changes, I will make them directly from the raw file.

Wow, I'm impressed with all the ideas people threw in. Thank you all so much! :D

[montreal]

Oh, by the way, I'm back home now and the sharpness looks different (compared to the screen at work, which is not LCD). At work, I liked Tim's first image better than the original. Here (with LCD), I find it oversharpened and would go for something between my version and Tim's version.

The problem is, who knows how it will come up when it's printed ;)

[tim]

I use an LCD at home, i'm using a CRT at work right now, the first one doesn't look oversharpened to me but it's all about personal taste.

[montreal]

You're right. Plus I'm guessing none of us really see the same thing with slightly different monitors ;)

[DavidEB]

I love the photo. great spirit, fun, the expression, the glint in her eyes, the blanching of her gripping fingers, everything. It's technically good too. Properly exposed, nice range of colors, good focus. I would not change it at all, but might agree with a little bit of unsharp mask (just a little).

Now for why I posted this reply --

I think the halos are from excessive USM and not from JPEG artifact.

Here are two clips of just the left hand area. One was USM'd (settings 100%, radius 2, threshold 2) and saved as a JPG at maximum image quality (12 on scale 1-12 in PS elements 3) and the other has no USM applied, but I ran it through 10 cycles of "save as..." JPG with JPG quality set to 8. The halo in the USM'd version is present even before the JPG save.

JPG compression causes loss of subtle detail in areas without much contrast, then more severe with loss of detail all over. USM artifacts are bright halos.

So, how much USM should be applied to this photo? My answer is never enough to causes halos. Sometimes even that is too much, for instance if you make zits or blemishes more obvious. Also you can get less halo effect by parameters 100% radius 1 threshold 2.

and by the way, your daughter is almost as cute as my kids, which is one great big compliment.


kind regards,

David

[DavidEB]

PS - the second clip is the one with USM. sorry about reversing the order from the text.

[montreal]

Thanks for that enlightening example.

By the way, I can't take the credit, she's not my daughter she's my niece :)

I have 5 nephews and nieces and she's the most photogenic one of them all. The pictures just all come out great. And she can take instructions too (for posing) which is quite rare at that age (in my family at least). She wasn't posing for this one though.

[exposingmyself]

I have 5 nephews and nieces and she's the most photogenic one of them all. The pictures just all come out great. And she can take instructions too (for posing) which is quite rare at that age (in my family at least). She wasn't posing for this one though.

i have about the same in my family but i can take credit for one 11 year old at home :)

the one niece who's is photogenic is 3 year's old but not 'till recently has been getting tired of my paparazzi attempts on her. just when i thought i had a good thing going she breaks my heart when she's had enough of me and tells me "no more pictures" with her hand in front of her face. :(

again, you niece is lovely. you're lucky. :D

[xseption]

I am relatively new to the photography game ... can you share a link to this "calculations method" for b&w conversion?

thanks!

[tim]

No problem. Open your image, then choose Image -> Calculations. Set the 2nd channel to green (or blue, have a play), then try different blending modes. Once you're happy, check the box that says to create it in a new document, and on that new document change the image mode to greyscale, otherwise you won't be able to save it as a jpg.

Get yourself this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735714118/qid%3D1113377332/sr%3D2-2/ref%3Dpd%5Fbbs%5Fb%5F2%5F2/002-3047575-5896047), it's invalauble!

[PeaPicker]

I like the original post. Looks natural and real. I have a grandaughter about the same age with two teeth missing in the same place. Can't get enough pics of her face. Yours goes in a frame for sure!

Jon :)

[montreal]

Thank you Peapicker. I'm actually thinking of printing a large copy of this picture (along with headshots of my other nephews & nieces). I would give it to my parents for Christmas.

[tim]

If you're printing it, i'd definitely do a levels adjustment and some unsharp mask.