Still getting used to my new flash, I took this photo.... Getting home I downloaded everything I shot, and this is the first one I deleted, for obvious reasons (at that time). When the young one in the shot heard that, I got some lip, but lucky for me it was still in the recycle bin....I retrieved it and tried two versions that I liked, and one she did on her mobile, posting it as profile pic all over, getting great reviews from her friends.
You shouldn't have any problem picking her shot. What I I'm trying to find out, (still trying to get a feel for portrait photography), is my versions so far out of the average acceptable norms?

(Upload went a bit out of order, but you'll know...)

[Johndav]

Your pose is fine with good amount of 'looking space' and the flash has put attractive light in the eyes and lifted shadows nicely in such a subtle way that many will not realise a flash has been used at all.
I am surprised that your original is quite as flat as it is, your #2 shot has retrieved a lot of detail (especially the freckles) but strangely has headed off in the wrong direction colour wise and is a bit lacking in colour, I think your #1 is the best result as they stand but if the colours were recovered in #2 it could trump #1

[Kozlok]

Contrast in # 2 looks a little high. I think the optimum is halfway between #2 and the original.

[Cee Cee]

this is a great shot, all I think is wrong is the black level doesn't seem right, looking at the histogram there is quite a bit of empty space between the left side (black) and the start of any recorded pixels, if you are able to do an adjustment using "Levels" and slide the black level along to the start of the recorded info and a small adjustment to white level the picture comes up a treat. ( I can post if you like )
cheers
CC.

[twitch]

#2 is the closest, but it's suffering from too much local contrast and maybe over sharpening.

I'd suggest take the original and dial up the global contrast, tweak the black and white point, but leave the local contrast alone. This "local contrast" is called "clarity" in Lr or "definition" in Aperture or "structure" in NIK, so if you are using one of those then back off on that slider.

[altopiet]

Thanks for the tips! @Cee Cee, and everyone else, feel free to show how you would've done it, it would give me an idea what to aim for in the future. I'm already getting the sense that portraits need to be softer and not as sharp as other type of shots...

I am surprised that your original is quite as flat as it is

This is the only one of a few that I took that looked like this, the others looked like this (jpeg out of camera), perhaps the flash was to strong, as I said, I'm still getting used to all the ttl and other settings, and also using a softbox on it

[altopiet]

#2 is the closest, but it's suffering from too much local contrast and maybe over sharpening.

I'd suggest take the original and dial up the global contrast, tweak the black and white point, but leave the local contrast alone. This "local contrast" is called "clarity" in Lr or "definition" in Aperture or "structure" in NIK, so if you are using one of those then back off on that slider.

Thanks twitch, luckily I shot Raw+, so I'll give it another try. I've got a program Zoner Photo Studio, and just got a Topaz adjust plugin, so I'll see if I can improve my PP skills the same time

[camerons]

Thanks twitch, luckily I shot Raw+, so I'll give it another try. I've got a program Zoner Photo Studio, and just got a Topaz adjust plugin, so I'll see if I can improve my PP skills the same time

Sorry to side track a bit but I use Zoner as well. Topaz doesn't list Zoner as supported. How did you do this?

[altopiet]

Ok, I've added #4 to my 1st post, trying the levels and all the other suggestions, I'm still not sure about the contrast (added 10 points where I normally do about 30) and sharpening(of which I did very little from the RAW file), but overall I think it looks better?

[altopiet]

Sorry to side track a bit but I use Zoner as well. Topaz doesn't list Zoner as supported. How did you do this?

I first tried the trail version of Topaz B+W a while back, it worked and I bought it, and yesterday Topaz Adjust, as I saw Adam's notice that it's 50% off, it works like a charm. As far as I remember I had to add the B+W plugin manually, but after I downloaded the Adjust yesterday, it was added to the plugin list at the bottom of Effects in Zoner automatically

EDIT: I use Zoner Photo Studio 15 Pro x64

[camerons]

I first tried the trail version of Topaz B+W a while back, it worked and I bought it, and yesterday Topaz Adjust, as I saw Adam's notice that it's 50% off, it works like a charm. As far as I remember I had to add the B+W plugin manually, but after I downloaded the Adjust yesterday, it was added to the plugin list at the bottom of Effects in Zoner automatically

EDIT: I use Zoner Photo Studio 15 Pro x64

Cool thanks. I'll give it a go.

[Cee Cee]

Hi altopiet, all I've done here is adjust the levels as I outlined simply to demonstrate what I was talking about with the levels. The shot may be improved with some other tweeks depending on taste but I kinda like it like this, perhaps a tiny bit of sharpening

[altopiet]

Thanks Cee Cee, I played around with Topaz Adjust and got this...?

[Cee Cee]

yeah, the last one's quite nice, I suppose its getting into an area of personal taste from here on in re colour tone, smoothing, contrast, sharpening etc (I personally like the more natural look with the freckles) and of course unless you have a calibrated monitor that also comes into play. The main thing is you were able to rescue a very nice shot from the recycle bin.
cheers

[altopiet]

Thanks everyone for your input, much appreciated😊