Before is better....#2 has too much flare and the definition of the cleavage is gone. (Gotta vote for cleavage! ) Also, the skin tone looks better on the first...just a little too PS'ed in the second...sorry. Leave the face PS'ed though...the second face is nicer and less harsh. Good capture overall. She's quite attractive.
Amateur_Photog wrote:
Before is better....#2 has too much flare and the definition of the cleavage is gone. (Gotta vote for cleavage! ) Also, the skin tone looks better on the first...just a little too PS'ed in the second...sorry. Leave the face PS'ed though...the second face is nicer and less harsh. Good capture overall. She's quite attractive.
varmit wrote:
I think the bra needs to be ps'd out ..and I also like the before better.
You know, I didn't really notice it until you mentioned it. I don't think I pay the same attention to her bosem that some might. But now that you mention it I see your point. I'll probably ps it if that is one of the ones she wants.
TheObiJuan wrote:
bring back the cleavage line a little and you have a winnder. And also get rid of the bra.
The softer and warmer picture is inviting.
Great job.
I like version No. 2 but to be honest, it is a little too warm for my taste.
I almost forget it, I like the posing and lighting too and agree with those who made comments about the bra.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
I like No. 2 better, the effect is eye-pleasing. I know some may say 'take out the bra', but then you'd have to take out all hints of a bra, including the ridges that show thru on her right breast. Otherwise it will look like she's wearing a bra on one side and not the other. So my suggestion is, if the bra showing is so terrible, then clone in her top to raise the neck line over the bra. It'd be the least amount of work.
Daschund Woof wrote:
I like the original much better... I agree with the comment on retouching the bra, and just a bit of retouching on her face, it looks a bit blotchy...
Daschund
I'll take your suggestions into account when I rework. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
I would keep the sharpness in the eyes, but also make them brighter - there is no "twinkle" int them. A couple of other areas to keep sharp: cleaveage and lips. These three are areas that our eyes are drawn to.
LittleJim wrote:
I would keep the sharpness in the eyes, but also make them brighter - there is no "twinkle" int them. A couple of other areas to keep sharp: cleaveage and lips. These three are areas that our eyes are drawn to.
Hey Jim,
Points well taken.
I've read many references in different posts here about eye whitening. I'm (obviously) still developing a workflow and would love to hear some suggestions from anyone on the most effective way to do this.
Not that I want everything handed to me on a silver platter - but a walkthrough might be really helpful - not just for myself but for all the aspiring newbies here. It would be cool if someone was so inclined - I'm sure I'm not the only one who would benefit.
krieves wrote:
I agree about the bra thing, but I kinda like #2. It has a dream-like quality to it.
It doesn't make for the sharpest picture that's for sure. But after seeing a bunch of my shots that looked all the same, I wanted to try something different and sort of liked how this one came out. It obvioiusly needs some work to bring it up to par but it's somethign to work towards. Thanks for looking!
I say to go with the first one. I don't think anyone should use filters on a photo unless there is a specific conceptual need that requires it. Otherwise, it has no grounding or concept, and can't stand on it's own. Photoshop filters are cool, but I'm affraid that, in general, people use them too much.
the second one looks like a perfect senior portrait picture, but not for much else. without changing either, i'd have to go with the second. the first one looks too raw of an image and just kinda hard to look at