Thank you all for looking and your helpful observations.
Scott re "acing" - perhaps but only after practice, practice, practice, and the many helpful comments, reworks, and criticism of many FM'ers over the years.
As far as I know, if you make a combined layer copy, you bump the mid-tones with USM and use the opacity to accomplish a similar effect to a fade. Fading a USM change is just one one to do it without using a separate layer. The separate layer method is more general and is easy to change your mind later and alter the degree of change. If I remember correctly, you applied the USM to a smart layer, you could change the fade later, too.
AuntiPode wrote:
As far as I know, if you make a combined layer copy, you bump the mid-tones with USM and use the opacity to accomplish a similar effect to a fade. Fading a USM change is just one one to do it without using a separate layer. The separate layer method is more general and is easy to change your mind later and alter the degree of change. If I remember correctly, you applied the USM to a smart layer, you could change the fade later, too.
Thanks Karen,
I've read about and used the technique (as described by Kilby) but really did not know the nuance versus opacity.
Oregon Gal wrote:
Great capture, really like Abby's expression. Karen's suggestions addressed any minor concerns I had.
Oregon Gal,
Thanks for looking and your comments.
She was, at the moment tolerating the whole thing since she was outside, on the go, in her stroller....a pleasant distraction from her inside disposition defined currently by how she feels about the 4 molars working their way toward penetrating the gums.
I think you overdid the darkening close to the bordes of the frame. Her eyes are such powerful magnets, you don't need much to draw attention to them. Your original image makes me feel "imprisoned" or "trapped" in the very center of the image, and it's already a tight crop, made it feel even tighter. Also, I believe some very little darkening of her right cheek (on the left of the image) would better delineate her face.
Here's an illustration of what I mean, hope you don't mind me playing with it, otherwise let me know and I'll remove it:
EDIT - image removed
Oh yeah, other than that, it's really nice. And OMG!, how come she has such beautiful eyes? If I ever have a daughter, I want her eyes like that!
I think you overdid the darkening close to the bordes of the frame. Her eyes are such powerful magnets, you don't need much to draw attention to them. Your original image makes me feel "imprisoned" or "trapped" in the very center of the image, and it's already a tight crop, made it feel even tighter. Also, I believe some very little darkening of her right cheek (on the left of the image) would better delineate her face.
Here's an illustration of what I mean, hope you don't mind me playing with it, otherwise let me know and I'll remove it:
Oh yeah, other than that, it's really nice. And OMG!, how come she has such beautiful eyes? If I ever have a daughter, I want her eyes like that! ...Show more →
gneto,
Thank you for the comments and re-work. I like the contouring of the cheek. The lighter ULHC & URHCs give me a sense of flatness where darkening adds, to my eye, perspective - perhaps somewhere in between?
I do ask however that reworks of my images not be hosted on Flickr - my hang up, I know.
That aside, thanks again, and, don't let the eyes deceive, she'll pop an attitude with very little, if any, provocation.
Bob Jarman wrote:
I do ask however that reworks of my images not be hosted on Flickr.
Sure thing, it's already gone. I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable uploading other's photos there as well, but I don't really have anywhere else to upload to.
gneto wrote:
Sure thing, it's already gone. I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable uploading other's photos there as well, but I don't really have anywhere else to upload to.
Not a problem and thank you, I think most of us upload directly to FM which requires a membership. And I understand there are no guarantees about FM posts being misused elsewhere.
My Flickr hang up: a good friend found some of her images posted on Flickr being used elsewhere plus it seems most Flickr posts have the Exif stripped from them. I think there is a conscious work-around but it requires extra effort. Too, I don't like the idea of images, anyone's images, being harvested and posted elsewhere by web-bots.
A common demo of newer programming languages is to snap together several modules that cruise Flickr (and similar sites) vacuuming up images and posting them on a 'wall' for display - Silverlight™ and Java™ to name two. Neat, quick, and very effective.
