Which process for a family photo?

My usual style tends toward dark, edgy, high-contrast.
I'm concerned that my natural inclination might not be the most suitable for a client's family photo. Opinions?

Note 1: This client didn't choose me based on my portrait style, but because of an existing working relationship, as I've done some commercial work for him before.

Note 2: I've got a little more cleanup to do in Photoshop after I decide what raw process I want to use - the reflection in the glasses, and the bright tree growing out of the middle subject's head.


I might just print one of each and let him decide. I dunno. Costs me almost nothing to do that, I guess.


1. Higher contrast & clarity, slightly boosted vibrance/saturation, whites pulled down from original.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …nathancarter/12​732860213/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …nathancarter/12​732857423/

if one had to chose between the two, I'd go for #1, #2 seems too tonally flat.

I prefer the skin tones in #2, I think there is slightly less red in them. However, I prefer the higher contrast in #1, especially on the shirts...

Yes #2 .. it just seems brigher and sharper.

#1 for me. The second one looks a bit muddy.

I also prefer the contrast in #1.

You also need to remove the umbrella reflected in the middle guy's glasses. It obvious that you used a strobe that was on the same axis as the camera. Always think of angles, if the light is on axis it will be flat and also reflected back at the camera.

Thanks for all the opinions. I'm second-guessing myself after reading other people's raw-conversation techniques. Someone had posted a couple of weeks ago, "the first thing I do is put highlights at -100 and shadows at +100" ... I was wondering if I'm missing something.

I'll probably start with #1 for the overall contrast # saturation, but use the softer skin tones in #2. Might bring down the pinkness a little bit, even though that's close to how they actually were.

PixelMagic wrote in post #16713913
I also prefer the contrast in #1.

You also need to remove the umbrella reflected in the middle guy's glasses. It obvious that you used a strobe that was on the same axis as the camera. Always think of angles, if the light is on axis it will be flat and also reflected back at the camera.

Thanks. See "Note 2" in my first post - I want to get the raw conversion figured out first, then I'll do pixel edits.

Well, I disagree with that suggestion. The adjustment to the sliders depends on the content of each image, not on some rote formulaic approach.

What would be the point of pulling Highlights down to -100 in this image? If you drag the Highlight and Shadows segments in the histogram you'd see that all you're doing is bunching your pixel in the middle (reducing contrast) instead of distributing them throughout the histogram.

nathancarter wrote in post #16714076
Thanks for all the opinions. I'm second-guessing myself after reading other people's raw-conversation techniques. Someone had posted a couple of weeks ago, "the first thing I do is put highlights at -100 and shadows at +100" ... I was wondering if I'm missing something.

I'll probably start with #1 for the overall contrast # saturation, but use the softer skin tones in #2. Might bring down the pinkness a little bit, even though that's close to how they actually were.

Thanks. See "Note 2" in my first post - I want to get the raw conversion figured out first, then I'll do pixel edits.

I prefer #1, but would brighten it just a tad, leaving other settings alone.

PixelMagic wrote in post #16714801
What would be the point of pulling Highlights down to -100 in this image? If you drag the Highlight and Shadows segments in the histogram you'd see that all you're doing is bunching your pixel in the middle (reducing contrast) instead of distributing them throughout the histogram.

I don't know what the point would be of that.

Here's the thread that I mentioned, see post #6.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1352638

I think I just need to stop wasting time on second-guessing myself, and stop getting hung up on what other people do.

The added contrast in #1 gives a more 3D impression, which I like.

I would try to fix the glare in the glasses on the middle man.

Here's what I think I'm calling final:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …nathancarter/12​763494054/

Looks good!