FotoHouse and Ron, interesting, I didn't think they were overly contrasty, and I never thought my style as contrasty, but I guess I do gravitate to strong contrasts. The scenery here was pretty contrasty though
I always enjoy your work, Zalmy. Thanks for sharing.
Regarding contrast, man for me it really depends on my mood and what simply feels most emphatic in an image. Sometimes it's way high key, more often I like to feel the dimension and I rarely object when it's pushed a bit. Again, I like your style.
Perhaps the only bit of art advice that really stuck with me was from a teacher named Ms Sinnes in 7th grade telling us to not be afraid to go really dark. It changed the way I illustrated and the way I see things.
FotoHouse and Ron, interesting, I didn't think they were overly contrasty, and I never thought my style as contrasty, but I guess I do gravitate to strong contrasts. The scenery here was pretty contrasty though
No, not overall global contrast. The "tonal contrast", which is how the midtones gradate.
It is a bit diffused in tonal variation is what I was implying--reminds me of nik colorfx bleach bypass or ps hdr tonal contrasting boosted.
thanks Chuck!! I think I'm the same way, whatever "works"
Fotohouse, I wasn't sure what you meant with tonal contrast so I googled it and, well, it didn't make things any clearer. But I think I know what you mean.
Does this look any better (I also lightened the eyes as Nextel suggested)
the bokeh on that lens is phenomenal fooled the heck out of me.
in the eyes you brightened i would pull back just a hair, you want the shadow detail raised a bit so they arent black but dont push far enough where you start to see a push in saturation.
the bokeh on that lens is phenomenal fooled the heck out of me.
in the eyes you brightened i would pull back just a hair, you want the shadow detail raised a bit so they arent black but dont push far enough where you start to see a push in saturation.
I usually have zero interest in individually editing images, but I have to get over that. thanks for the tips!
I never understood why stating the time it took needed to be mentioned if not for using it as a cover garment for why the photos may or may not look pleasing.
They look good enough for 5, 10, 15, 20, etc, etc. mins if it's what you could do in that time
Mentioning the time it took, especially being really quick, already predisposes my "judgement" of said photos before I've laid eyes on them.
That said, my critique would be to just leave that out next time and let us find out for ourselves.
misternikko wrote:
I never understood why stating the time it took needed to be mentioned if not for using it as a cover garment for why the photos may or may not look pleasing.
They look good enough for 5, 10, 15, 20, etc, etc. mins if it's what you could do in that time
Mentioning the time it took, especially being really quick, already predisposes my "judgement" of said photos before I've laid eyes on them.
That said, my critique would be to just leave that out next time and let us find out for ourselves.
Thanks for sharing~!
I hear that
For one a normal session I'd expect a variety of backgrounds and interactions, and possibly more attention paid to lighting (and would have critiqued a "regular" session along those lines)
We work differently based on the time we have, which is why I'd critique a editorial session differently than I would a wedding
zalmyb wrote:
thanks Chuck!! I think I'm the same way, whatever "works"
Fotohouse, I wasn't sure what you meant with tonal contrast so I googled it and, well, it didn't make things any clearer. But I think I know what you mean.
Does this look any better (I also lightened the eyes as Nextel suggested)
No, your original edit is just as good. It's not that you went heavy on the blacks (nothing wrong with more shadows and I actually encourage not lighting everything up too much), it has more to do with the cleanliness on how your midtones become.
Basically, what is happening...is your diffusing of the tonal contrast is now blotching the skin and makes the details a bit messy--my idea of "tonal" denotes grays and midtones so on Google it could lead to different information.
A lil test you could try is...open up ps and with any file, goto Image/Adjustments/HDR toning and just run the scrubber where "detail" is located far right and then back to middle. This will give you an idea of why I felt your local contrast was a bit much. A fix-around to this would be to DnB the nuances that are causing it.
misternikko wrote:
I never understood why stating the time it took needed to be mentioned if not for using it as a cover garment for why the photos may or may not look pleasing.
They look good enough for 5, 10, 15, 20, etc, etc. mins if it's what you could do in that time
Mentioning the time it took, especially being really quick, already predisposes my "judgement" of said photos before I've laid eyes on them.
That said, my critique would be to just leave that out next time and let us find out for ourselves.
Thanks for sharing~!
Could also just be a figure of speech or rhetoric for short session.
