File :-(, x, )
sage !i/euDJmWr2
I'm not sure which of these I prefer...
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 WindowsPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:26 17:46:19Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width671Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
inb4 unsharp tree or my troll stalker.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 WindowsPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:26 17:51:22Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width671Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
or this one

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:12:02 01:13:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width450Image Height293
>> Anonymous
needs more halo around the guy.
>> Anonymous
>>190310

HAHAHA! OH SHIT. I burst out laughing instantly.
>> Anonymous
Shit sux.
>> Anonymous
Do one in between these two. The second one is OTT.
>> Anonymous
>>190308

can we see one without the shopping. im not sure you need the shopping.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190315
I'll try something in-between, it's supposed to be somewhat over the top, though, I'm trying to do a sort-of toned-down Dave Hill look.
>> Anonymous
>>190320I'm trying to do a sort-of toned-down Dave Hill look.

Yeah... no, just no.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190317
The original is basically an uncropped, less contrasting, and more dull version of the first. I had the flash power a little higher than I needed and it originally washed out a lot of his face.
>> Anonymous
>>190323

yeah i have to agree. this over shopping fad thats plaguing photography at the moment is fucking awful.
>> Anonymous
>>190320

The over the top is detracting from what could be quite good. You don't need to shoe-horn an otherwise good photo into another person's style or category if it doesn't fit or only makes it worse. Better to let it stand on its own or do what suits that image best.
>> Anonymous
>>190332The over the top is detracting from what could be quite good.

I like how sage thinks this is actually "toned down".
>> Anonymous
I'm normally one to actually support the heavy shooping of images (provided it looks good) as art integrated into photography, but you really need to find some middle ground here babe.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
better?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 WindowsPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:26 18:13:59Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width671Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190340
It IS toned down compared to Dave Hill...
On its own, no, it's not toned down at all.
>> Anonymous
The goddamn halo around his head makes it obvious you're fucking around too much in Photoshop.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
better?

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:02:15 21:39:17Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width248Image Height223
>> Anonymous
>>190344

tone down the green in the eyes....thats whats making it too much shopping for me...try it...make the corneas normal.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>190308

keep the same colortone as in 2nd pic.
lower down the unsharp mask radius a bit.
and that's probably all i'd do.

also, why do your eyes look shooped?>
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190346
that's not a halo from photoshop, the flash did that, though the shopping has made it slightly more apparent.

I'm starting over from scratch again on this one because Im not pleased with it either. The saturation in the eyes isn't the problem to me, though, that's just personal taste but I'm trying to keep the colorful bloodshot eyes.
>> Anonymous
>>190320
>I'm trying to do a sort-of toned-down Dave Hill look.

Don't. Dave Hill can't pull off Dave Hill.

They're both oversharpened.
>> Anonymous
>>190356

lol, flash adds halos around hair now?

That's a classic case of Photoshop getting confused as fuck because you're trying to over sharpen it where there is no data for it to add.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>190370

actually i think the halo is from his frizzy hair, note he is using f/1.8. so his hair + shallow DoF + light from flash = fuzz halo around his head.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190370
...yeah, actually. I bounced at a 45 degree angle from the corner of the ceiling/wall behind me, the stray hairs all around his head were exposed by the flash, but he wasn't standing near any walls and the flash fell off before lighting up the background.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
maybe? I dunno, the picture itself has potential, I'm just not sure what to do with it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:26 18:50:23Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>190417
Oversharpened still. Post an original JPEG at 12 or a PNG or something and let us have a stab at it.
>> Anonymous
>>190417the picture itself has potential

Uh, for a passport or driver license sure.

There's really nothing at all here. No amount of Photoshop can fix this.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>190417

a lot better than the others but yeah still a tad too much oversharpen
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>190417
I don't think you added enough red to the picture, jesus christ.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:26 18:50:23Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190428
he has red-tinted skin, not freakish zombie green.

>>190424
Not potential to be used for anything, just that it's optically pretty good for the conditions.
>> Anonymous
>>190436it's optically pretty good for the conditions.

And that means it has potential? lolwut
>> Anonymous
>>190436
Protip: 1) everyone has red-tinted skin, it doesn't mean you have to accentuate it, and 2) the strongest channel, by a slight amount, is actually blue not green. Get your eyes checked, too.

It's not "optically pretty good" either, it's a very bad portrait that is pretty unfixable.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190437
It's a random shot of a guy. It's not a controlled portrait where I had any control over lighting (except for the flash), it was a dark room with band lighting in the front.

What kind of potential do you expect? Potential doesn't mean marketability...
>> Anonymous
>> I dunno, the picture itself has potential
>> Not potential to be used for anything, just that it's optically pretty good for the conditions.

Incredible logic is incredible
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190438
One of our monitors must be calibrated farrr differently, then, because his skin-tone looks about the same in my picture as it does in person. Yours looks way unnatural for him.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190442
so tell me, internet wonder, what exactly do you expect out of it for it to have potential? I'll send it to the guy and more than likely it will end up on his MySpace or Facebook.
>> Anonymous
>>190448
And that's all it's really good for. Go look at some Cartier-Bresson to see how to do candid portraiture.
>> Anonymous
ITT, everyone else is wrong but OP.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190450
I wasn't really trying to do anything candid, it's just a snapshot I decided not to delete.
>> Anonymous
>>190417

That one is your best so far out of this batch.
>> Anonymous
>>190444
That's why I said get your eyes checked. You probably perceive things as too red. Someone else compare
>>190417and>>190428
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190455
My eyes are fine, thanks...

Look at the rest of your edit, do you see how it's now got far more green to it? You're trying to correct his skin color to what you expect a skin color to be instead of what he actually looks like. I know for a fact that he doesn't have green-tinted hair so that should clue you in that something is off in your edit.
>> Anonymous
>>190468My eyes are fine, thanks...

>> ITT, everyone else is wrong but OP.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190486
because Ive totally ignored every other bit of criticism, right?
>> Anonymous
>>190487
Yes. And simply rebutting that guy's post proves:
>> ITT, everyone else is wrong but OP.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190490
That guys? You mean yours?
>> Anonymous
Whenever everyone else is against OP, it's always "samefag" -___-

You should just abort the thread at this point.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Needs more razor.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190513
Not really...I've got one guy who trolls me constantly (the $10 CPL from Walmart guy) who I always (rightly) accuse of samefagging in my threads.

One person randomly accuses me of ignoring all C&C with no basis, and then two more quote and agree with the post still with no basis. That sounds a lot like someone quoting themself to me.
>> Anonymous
Dude, the picture is just bad from the get go.

The lighting is way too harsh for a portrait like this. That "sort-of toned-down Dave Hill look" doesn't work at all when the subject just sucks to begin with.

Composition, there's really no composition.

All these edits you're doing do not fix a bad picture.

Sure, you're going to say it's only for MySpace.

And that's all this thing is good for.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>190468
It's not very likely at all that it's your eyes. Your photo probably just need color calibration, and maybe tweezers.
>> Anonymous
>>190497
Exactly his and, growingly my, point. You're so shocked that more than one person in the world isn't retarded and is able to call you out on your crap when you post it, be it pictures or text. I didn't post that, but I'm sure you'll never believe it because you can't take criticism, which is why you'll never, ever, ever get anywhere in any creative art, never mind photography.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190528
Because it makes no fucking sense to say I'm ignoring everyone else's opinions when I've been ASKING for them the entire thread and modifying it as a result of that. I disagreed with one guy about the red tones of the picture, that's far from thinking that everyone else is wrong. I'm not even happy with the picture.

I can take criticism perfectly fine, thanks, but I like anyone else have a right to disagree with criticism that seems incorrect to me and has (as of yet) not been agreed to by more than one person.
>> Anonymous
>>190531
>I can take criticism perfectly fine, thanks
>, thanks
Not when you become a whiny passive-aggressive twat like that. That's not taking criticism, that's being a dick. A twat and a dick, that's impressive.
>I'm not even happy with the picture.
>I dunno, the picture itself has potential
>I dunno, the picture itself has potential
>I dunno, the picture itself has potential
Okay, I'm getting popcorn for this one.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
>>190538
I respond to criticism in the same manner that it is given. If the person offers a nice criticism, I listen, but when you're a dick offering it then fuck no I'm not going to kindly acknowledge it.

So anyway, fuck this picture now, I'm tired of working on it. I went with a radically different crop and converted it to B/W INSTA-ART. If you like it, good for you, if not...fuck right off <3

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:26 20:58:13Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>190564If you like it, good for you, if not...fuck right off <3

hahahaha, oh wow
>> Anonymous
>>190569
I'm pretty sure that was the joke...
>> Anonymous
>>190572
I'm pretty sure it's not and he actually types like that a lot.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190576
This is why /p/ fails at sarcasm. Sage is a girl, btw.
>> Anonymous
>>190577
A girl!? That changes everything! I really like your pic OP, the flesh tones are great and I really like the expression on his face. Such a wonderful picture for just a candid shot!
>> Anonymous
sarcasm doesnt carry well over text.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>190581
I thought it was pretty obvious I was being catty, what with the little heart and everything. You can dislike it if you want, I don't particularly mind.
>> Anonymous
so this is why sage is so easy to troll. its a she. they always seem to take things to heart much more than guys do.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>190310
Fucking LOL!