I think I overprocessed this one

quantum · 08-01-2009, 01:56 PM

Yesterday I made some shots of a friend and processed a few of them, but I can't shake the feeling I broke the limits on this one (on the volume modifying part).
On the left is the camera jpeg viewed in windows picture viewer and on the rest of the screenshot is Photoshop.

The stair artifacts and lack of skin texture are due to 33% zooming in Photoshop.
The funny thing is the processed picture looks more like her than the camera one

.
I'd really appreciate to know if you think it's overdone or if I could go further with postprocessing

.

Attached Images

**Ash** · 08-01-2009, 02:26 PM

Overprocessing is subjective.
What it looks like you've done is use the monochrome channel mixer or B&W function in PS with a predominantly red filter applied to it to create the soft skin tones. As a result it cuts out some of the detail in the skin and hair, which either someone likes or dislikes. I personally don't mind it as the intention is to smoothen the skin and create a high-key look, although the blanching out of the red lips as a result makes the portrait stand out somewhat less.
Again, this is a subjective opinion, but no, I don't think this is overprocessed.

**Kerrowdown** · 08-01-2009, 02:54 PM

Given the two shots I think your friend will prefer the second black & white image, as it's much more flattering.

"give the customer what they want"

mithrandir · 08-01-2009, 04:38 PM

I agree with Kerrowdown and Ash, it is a flattering rendition done high-key.

davemdsn · 08-01-2009, 07:13 PM

I really like the tones and B&W conversion. The softening is a little distracting for me, but as has been said already, it's subjective.

Duck Dodgers · 08-01-2009, 07:14 PM

Give her both options, but add one more: add the yellow back into the center of the daisy, while keeping the rest b&w. She might like that.

quantum · 08-02-2009, 12:07 PM

It looks like I was overconcerned on this one(I have a lot of things to learn)

.
I agree about the softening being distracting but it looks better on higher magnifications.

séamuis · 08-02-2009, 01:07 PM

I will be completely honest. I don't like it. it looks way over-processed. but as said above, its subjective. the female subject doesn't have enough contrast. it looks very flat and dull. note how the flower is completely white, both the center and the petals. that shouldn't be. almost like a strong orange or yellow filter was used. the softening is fine, and is commonly very flattering.

PDL · 08-02-2009, 03:22 PM

Did you run it through some noise filter? All the skin texture is gone, bland. The jaggies might come from how the software was "smoothing" with sharpening occuring as the last step. There is no depth to the B&W image, way over smoothed. The jaggies on the near vertical edge of the arm appear to be made with a dot matrix printer.

Yes, I think you over processed this way to much. Why is everyone so afraid of bumps and hair? We buy lenses that can resolve down to a gnat's whisker - then smudge everything together to give out of focus, blurry and plastic skin. Why?

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

quantum · 08-02-2009, 03:44 PM

I didn't ran any noise reduction but it was lacking texture in some areas and he jaggies are not there in the 100% version (Photoshop doesn't have the smoothest resizing algorithms when zooming out). However, I repainted the skin texture back but it doesn't show in this screenshot.
And now that you mentioned it does seem to need more contrast on the skin tones.
I'll fix some of the things you mentioned tomorrow.
And thanks for pointing out some nasty (and good) things (as far as i know it is the only way to learn

).

graphicgr8s · 08-02-2009, 07:40 PM

Forget about onscreen. How does it print?

Just from what I can see in your screenshot all of your adjustments apply to the entire photo and some may cancel out others. Use the mask to keep things like her hair sharp and her eyes.

quantum · 08-03-2009, 01:59 PM

Here it is with better contrast, some adjustments and proper downscale.

.
It looks fine printed on A4 matte paper but I got some trouble keeping the slight color tone in the actual print

. I printed he first version too and it looks flat compared to this one (thanks for the advices).
I still have some work to do on it (it is supposed to be a present for her) but I feel I'm getting closer.

séamuis · 08-03-2009, 02:07 PM

certainly better, and I don't want to derail your progress but its still severely lacking contrast in my opinion. of course I love contrast particularly in B&W. (look at my sparse blog for a few examples) but certainly very good overall.

quantum · 08-03-2009, 02:20 PM

I visited your blog and I see you really like contrast in B&W (it seems to give power to the pictures) bit I can't turn the contrast much higher because I need to preserve some of the dreamy feeling.

séamuis · 08-03-2009, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by quantum

I visited your blog and I see you really like contrast in B&W (it seems to give power to the pictures) bit I can't turn the contrast much higher because I need to preserve some of the dreamy feeling.

if that's the look you are really going for, then id say its rather good but im not a big fan of the look you are after. so I guess I cant be of any more real help.

08-01-2009, 01:56 PM	#1
quantum Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 53	I think I overprocessed this one Yesterday I made some shots of a friend and processed a few of them, but I can't shake the feeling I broke the limits on this one (on the volume modifying part). On the left is the camera jpeg viewed in windows picture viewer and on the rest of the screenshot is Photoshop. The stair artifacts and lack of skin texture are due to 33% zooming in Photoshop. The funny thing is the processed picture looks more like her than the camera one. I'd really appreciate to know if you think it's overdone or if I could go further with postprocessing . Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Overprocessed portraits?	sealisthenewbeaver	Photo Critique	8	07-10-2009 01:28 PM
Garishly Overprocessed	Mike Cash	Post Your Photos!	3	12-11-2007 05:44 AM

08-01-2009, 02:26 PM	#2
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Overprocessing is subjective. What it looks like you've done is use the monochrome channel mixer or B&W function in PS with a predominantly red filter applied to it to create the soft skin tones. As a result it cuts out some of the detail in the skin and hair, which either someone likes or dislikes. I personally don't mind it as the intention is to smoothen the skin and create a high-key look, although the blanching out of the red lips as a result makes the portrait stand out somewhat less. Again, this is a subjective opinion, but no, I don't think this is overprocessed.

08-01-2009, 02:54 PM	#3
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,819	Given the two shots I think your friend will prefer the second black & white image, as it's much more flattering. "give the customer what they want"

08-01-2009, 04:38 PM	#4
mithrandir Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,895	I agree with Kerrowdown and Ash, it is a flattering rendition done high-key.

08-01-2009, 07:13 PM	#5
davemdsn Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,413	I really like the tones and B&W conversion. The softening is a little distracting for me, but as has been said already, it's subjective.

08-01-2009, 07:14 PM	#6
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	Give her both options, but add one more: add the yellow back into the center of the daisy, while keeping the rest b&w. She might like that.

08-02-2009, 12:07 PM	#7
quantum Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 53 Original Poster	It looks like I was overconcerned on this one(I have a lot of things to learn) . I agree about the softening being distracting but it looks better on higher magnifications.

08-02-2009, 01:07 PM	#8
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	I will be completely honest. I don't like it. it looks way over-processed. but as said above, its subjective. the female subject doesn't have enough contrast. it looks very flat and dull. note how the flower is completely white, both the center and the petals. that shouldn't be. almost like a strong orange or yellow filter was used. the softening is fine, and is commonly very flattering.

08-02-2009, 03:22 PM	#9
PDL Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: PNW USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,128	Did you run it through some noise filter? All the skin texture is gone, bland. The jaggies might come from how the software was "smoothing" with sharpening occuring as the last step. There is no depth to the B&W image, way over smoothed. The jaggies on the near vertical edge of the arm appear to be made with a dot matrix printer. Yes, I think you over processed this way to much. Why is everyone so afraid of bumps and hair? We buy lenses that can resolve down to a gnat's whisker - then smudge everything together to give out of focus, blurry and plastic skin. Why? The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

08-02-2009, 03:44 PM	#10
quantum Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 53 Original Poster	I didn't ran any noise reduction but it was lacking texture in some areas and he jaggies are not there in the 100% version (Photoshop doesn't have the smoothest resizing algorithms when zooming out). However, I repainted the skin texture back but it doesn't show in this screenshot. And now that you mentioned it does seem to need more contrast on the skin tones. I'll fix some of the things you mentioned tomorrow. And thanks for pointing out some nasty (and good) things (as far as i know it is the only way to learn ).

08-02-2009, 07:40 PM	#11
graphicgr8s Guest	Forget about onscreen. How does it print? Just from what I can see in your screenshot all of your adjustments apply to the entire photo and some may cancel out others. Use the mask to keep things like her hair sharp and her eyes.

08-03-2009, 01:59 PM	#12
quantum Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 53 Original Poster	Here it is with better contrast, some adjustments and proper downscale. . It looks fine printed on A4 matte paper but I got some trouble keeping the slight color tone in the actual print . I printed he first version too and it looks flat compared to this one (thanks for the advices). I still have some work to do on it (it is supposed to be a present for her) but I feel I'm getting closer.

08-03-2009, 02:07 PM	#13
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	certainly better, and I don't want to derail your progress but its still severely lacking contrast in my opinion. of course I love contrast particularly in B&W. (look at my sparse blog for a few examples) but certainly very good overall.

08-03-2009, 02:20 PM	#14
quantum Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 53 Original Poster	I visited your blog and I see you really like contrast in B&W (it seems to give power to the pictures) bit I can't turn the contrast much higher because I need to preserve some of the dreamy feeling.

08-03-2009, 02:28 PM	#15
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by quantum I visited your blog and I see you really like contrast in B&W (it seems to give power to the pictures) bit I can't turn the contrast much higher because I need to preserve some of the dreamy feeling. if that's the look you are really going for, then id say its rather good but im not a big fan of the look you are after. so I guess I cant be of any more real help.