Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · MMG at 1

  
 
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · MMG at 1


a bit similar to an image a couple of months back, and I so wish I had the same expression and positioning without the pacifier, but it is what it is.
Thoughts?

Thanks.
Scott



GoetzPhotoz 2014




Aug 05, 2014 at 07:58 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · MMG at 1


Pacifier and brim of hat seem slightly sharper than eyes. Maybe a judicious selective blur @ pac/brim coupled with a judicious selective USM @ eyes to reverse the focal plane.

I'd probably start with reducing the sharpness of the pacifier as it seems to be the stronger of the two, the brim may not be necessary once you pull up the eyes a touch.



Aug 05, 2014 at 08:34 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · MMG at 1


Very cute picture. I am sure the technicals will be less important than the memory.


Aug 05, 2014 at 09:05 PM
Bob Jarman
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · MMG at 1


There are times when nits are pointless - the only time I'd touch it is when I put it in a frame.

A keeper to be enjoyed many times in the future.

Wonderful, spontaneous image.

Regards,

Bob



Aug 06, 2014 at 06:11 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · MMG at 1


I was just saying that if the pacifier bothers Scott (as he mentions that it does), he could possibly reverse the direction of focal plane transition to shift focus away from it and on to the subject a bit more. That wasn't meant to suggest that there was anything wrong here. I was just offering up a potential variance to Scott's "it is what it is" ... as he expressed a displeasure with its current state.

+1 @ emotion vs. nits/technicals in the image, but Scott's emotion for the image is presented as +/- ... just trying to offer something that might bring Scott's emotion for the image a bit more toward the +. Never intended to be a nit, just a variance.




Aug 06, 2014 at 07:45 AM
DianeinCR
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · MMG at 1


I understood that to be so, Kent.

When I do post here I am looking for all the suggestions that one is willing to offer up to me. It's really nice to hear someone express a few of the things that I am actually proud of in my images, but I am really posting here so that each time I do post I am getting closer to being proud of all the elements of my shots.

My guess is that Scott already knew that this is a darling shot of an adorable child.

I think the lesson here is that more eyes are better than two sometimes. Often when I shoot something that I am attached to, I am less able to see the areas that could be improved upon. When this occurs repeatedly going unchecked I forget about the details of my images and I become stagnant.

I took the liberty of attempting to apply Kent's suggestions, and added a couple of my own ( removed tiny scab on nose, and added slight blur and toned down car seat on left side of image) for the sake of personal growth. I am hoping that I am not miss using this forum, and Scott's thread, by posting this revision in hopes of creating further C&C. If I am, please let me know and I will refrain from further such activity and remove my post.

http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-C96FHVEOBbM/U-I6U5vp-JI/AAAAAAAAA_s/w5p9WWSWRnY/w1000-h800-no/1008271d.jpg



Aug 06, 2014 at 09:39 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · MMG at 1


This is a critique forum, I never feel bad if I get critique or a redo, its what we do here. I like your rework.

No matter how well an image works as a personal memory, we want to be able to do better next time or correct anything we can in the image we have.

I did not mean to rain on Kents comments. When I have nothing else to offer, I like to say what I like about an image.



Aug 06, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Oregon Gal
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · MMG at 1


Very cute, you must be very proud. What draws my eye away from the subject is the grass top left. I might consider darkening or desaturating this area.


Aug 06, 2014 at 02:32 PM
FarmerJohn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · MMG at 1


Eyes in Diane's version definitely stand out nicely. If you are looking for nits... Maybe brighten the eye area under the hat and darken the pacifier area?


Aug 06, 2014 at 11:15 PM
stringfolk
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · MMG at 1


Rustybug, could you explain the technique of reversing the focal plane transition in greater detail? PM would be fine if you think that would be better. Thanks!


Aug 06, 2014 at 11:34 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · MMG at 1


Excellent!


Aug 07, 2014 at 12:41 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · MMG at 1


FarmerJohn wrote:
Eyes in Diane's version definitely stand out nicely. If you are looking for nits... Maybe brighten the eye area under the hat and darken the pacifier area?


+1 @ Diane applied a delicate touch to the changes.

stringfolk wrote:
Rustybug, could you explain the technique of reversing the focal plane transition in greater detail?


Not much to say really, except that focus is kinda like a teeter-totter on a fulcrum. The sharpest areas then proceed to less sharp areas both in front of and behind that sharpest area. If we "re-arrange" the placement of relative sharpness, then we effectively move the fulcrum to a different location.

If we want the eyes to be the "sharpest" focal point, then everything in front of and everything behind should be "less sharp". If there are objects in front (brim/pacifier in this case) that are sharper, then by reducing their sharpness, we change the relative relationship between them and the eyes.

On one end of the spectrum, we can be somewhat limited @ how much sharper we can make an area point of constraint. On the other end, we can blur to oblivion if we so choose.

The key to keeping it natural looking is to pay attention to the reverse order/sequence/amount of blur/sharpness being applied (to multiple areas) so that that they transition in concert with normal vision / distance relationship for relative sharpness. Augmented use of contrast,sat can also help render distance variance to draw the eye toward perceived sharpness.




Aug 07, 2014 at 09:49 AM
stringfolk
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · MMG at 1


RustyBug wrote:
The key to keeping it natural looking is to pay attention to the reverse order/sequence/amount of blur/sharpness being applied (to multiple areas) so that that they transition in concert with normal vision / distance relationship for relative sharpness. Augmented use of contrast,sat can also help render distance variance to draw the eye toward perceived sharpness.


Thanks for the explanation. Subtle changes like this are so difficult to hone in on, but I will definitely keep this technique in mind to experiment with.



Aug 07, 2014 at 10:39 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · MMG at 1


First, thanks to all of you for your feedback, suggestions, debate, support.

Second, my apologies. I always find it frustrating to analyze an image and provide feedback, and then have the OP seemingly disappear from view.
I did not disappear. But I did just return from a busy family week attending my grandson's first birthday party and visiting family 1500 miles in a different direction after that.

My responses to your individual input is below.

Scott



Aug 09, 2014 at 08:13 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · MMG at 1


RustyBug wrote:
Pacifier and brim of hat seem slightly sharper than eyes. Maybe a judicious selective blur @ pac/brim coupled with a judicious selective USM @ eyes to reverse the focal plane.

I'd probably start with reducing the sharpness of the pacifier as it seems to be the stronger of the two, the brim may not be necessary once you pull up the eyes a touch.


OK, Kent you started this!
To me it is a nit. And represents careful attention to the technicals of the image. A few years ago this might have bothered me, since I thought the image was quite good and there was no mention of the positive aspects. However, I am more confident, more aware of your style and that of others, and I find the nits often educational. Coupled with your explanation of focal planes and a suggested tweak, I welcome your comment. And we all should expect some nits on Critique.

Scott



Aug 09, 2014 at 08:16 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · MMG at 1


ben egbert wrote:
Very cute picture. I am sure the technicals will be less important than the memory.


In counterbalance to Kent's observation. And what I hoped was the overall effect: emotion/comp trumping technicals.
Thanks for your input, Ben.

Scott



Aug 09, 2014 at 08:17 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · MMG at 1


Oregon Gal wrote:
Very cute, you must be very proud. What draws my eye away from the subject is the grass top left. I might consider darkening or desaturating this area.


Barbara,
I agree. I actually did darken it some and could darken it further and desat.
I debated how much to do and how much "mattered". This thread is an excellent discussion of the this kind of tension.
Scott



Aug 09, 2014 at 08:19 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · MMG at 1


FarmerJohn wrote:
Eyes in Diane's version definitely stand out nicely. If you are looking for nits... Maybe brighten the eye area under the hat and darken the pacifier area?


Nits are fine.
Big picture input is fine.
Both together really help out.

Thanks John.
Scott



Aug 09, 2014 at 08:20 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · MMG at 1


AuntiPode wrote:
Excellent!



Thanks Karen.
Hope the mending is progressing well.

Scott



Aug 09, 2014 at 08:20 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · MMG at 1


RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ Diane applied a delicate touch to the changes.

Not much to say really, except that focus is kinda like a teeter-totter on a fulcrum. The sharpest areas then proceed to less sharp areas both in front of and behind that sharpest area. If we "re-arrange" the placement of relative sharpness, then we effectively move the fulcrum to a different location.

If we want the eyes to be the "sharpest" focal point, then everything in front of and everything behind should be "less sharp". If there are objects in front (brim/pacifier in this case) that are sharper, then by reducing their
...Show more
Well-explained, analogized Kent.
Scott




Aug 09, 2014 at 08:21 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.