Emily

I only have two worth posting but I'll post 'em up. (I only have gimp, so don't hate on my color balance, I'm not sure how good they are in that aspect.ops

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …isphotography/7​889664676/

I like #1 except for the log
she has nice contemplative look on her face and looks nice.
I don't know how to work GIMP but if you can you need to go to "levels" and adjust to make image pop. a little contrast helps too. I also went to "shadows and highlights" to reduce the brightness of the highlights to concentrate more of the attention on her.
If you work in RAW then you need to consider the free Lightroom alternative at www.rawtherapee.com.

#2, did similar things plus added some skin color and sharpened

like the original shots much better than ^ that one

rick_reno wrote in post #14926198
like the original shots much better than ^ that one

I second that, but Liquid Dark has a good point about the log being too prominent in the 1st shot.

Thanks guys! I agree the log probably is too prominent, I could've raised the camera up a tad and to the left.

rick_reno wrote in post #14926198
like the original shots much better than ^ that one

I agree, but I'm also slightly biased.

i think a little touch up on the fore head would go along way

think I agree with Rik on this.....it may be my monitor but something about Liquid Dark processing of #2 seems to make it look unrealistic and too sharp.....

I agree, the first time I did edit it didn't come off well.
but the original photo is too cool with blueish cast, and to me appears flat. Maybe it is my monitor, I don''t know. But here is another attempt without the sharpening, (the original file was so small I shouldn't have even attempted sharpening in the first place)
Is this any better?

Pixil Studio wrote in post #14928339
i think a little touch up on the fore head would go along way

Here's what I could do with gimp on the first image.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …isphotography/7​900582362/

JMM8476 wrote in post #14930817
Here's what I could do with gimp on the first image.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …isphotography/7​900582362/
_MG_8255copy2 by JMM8476, on Flickr

No expert here, however, I notice that the image is almost exact as the first, minus beauty spots? I like the way it appears to be natural looking. My monitor is not calibrated, nor am I capable of real critique! I like them both by the way! I am learning GIMP on my MAC, and so far, I am lost on what to do, but, it appears to be going okay!

Liquid Dark wrote in post #14930177
I agree, the first time I did edit it didn't come off well.
but the original photo is too cool with blueish cast, and to me appears flat. Maybe it is my monitor, I don''t know. But here is another attempt without the sharpening, (the original file was so small I shouldn't have even attempted sharpening in the first place)
Is this any better?

I like LD's take on editing. The color balance change and sat/contrast/curves work makes the image pop a lot better and doesn't look unrealistic.

SoCalTiger wrote in post #14947343
I like LD's take on editing. The color balance change and sat/contrast/curves work makes the image pop a lot better and doesn't look unrealistic.

thanks!