A few people felt I had overprocessed my color portrait with neat image. It was less than 10% of the comments and not nearly as frequent as people who asked me to crop her finger out of the picture. I thought I'd post before and after for you and you can judge yourself how heavyhanded I was. This isn't a fighting post, BTW, people are fully entitled to their tastes. I just thought it was interesting. Other people can feel free to post their before and after as well...
With Neat Image and Gaussian Blur and some cloning:
Without those layers (but still with adjustment layers)
Doc, It seems to me that you got more comments about the easel legs or what ever it is in the bottom right corner than the neat imaging of this very cute shot..
TC
Ya, no I agree TooCool. It wasn't a huge problem with my shot and only a few commented. Like I said, I'm not bitchin about it. But I heard other people complain people thought their shot had too much NI, so I thought I'd start a thread where people can do before and afters and we can see just how altered some images were.
I quit voting after a while cause I couldn't make any more why did you NI the personality out of your model like that comments... Didn't think that one with your shot...
Maybe I'm a lone voice here, but I gotta say I much prefer the non-NI version. Obviously it's a personal preference thing, but I really don't like the plastic skin look, even when it's been carefully and subtly applied, as is the case with your pic. For what's it's worth I feel the same way about the other ribbon winners in this challenge as well. Don't get me wrong, all 3 of you deserved to ribbon for the quality of your photography - I am in awe of what you guys were able to achieve. But if I had your photographic talent, I'd have the confidence not to feel that I had to rely so much on PP. :)
A few people felt I had overprocessed my color portrait with neat image. It was less than 10% of the comments and not nearly as frequent as people who asked me to crop her finger out of the picture.
With Neat Image and Gaussian Blur and some cloning:
First, congratualtions of your excellant picture and red ribbon.
Why do you suggest NeatImage might be an issue in scoring this entry? Most viewers would correctly believe that your young model has very smooth skin to begin with. That explains why only two commentors mistook it for NI. Based on your comments and scoring distribution, NI obviously is a VERY minor concern compared to the distracting finger and blur on the lower right. Also, the blue backgound object on the lower left behind her hair is also distracting. Both could have been corrected in post. But your picture is so good that it overcomes those distracting elements. NI is a non-issue with this composition. The distraction on the lower right side is the real issue.
The more you look at this picture on the front page and later in the history, the more you will kick yourself for leaving the distracting elements in the composition.
Kiwiness's analysis and scoring of this picture made during the voting week is absolutely correct.
Okay, I'm going to be honest about this one, hope you won't blame me. I liked this photo, but this was one of the images I suspected of too much NI. Now you've shown the original I obviously can see that you didn't use it that much, but I still feel that this photo is better without it and it certainly didn't need it. Her skin is perfect. I can imagine NI is used on portraits of adults to make the look of the skin better, but this is one of the portraits of which I feel it certainly didn't need NI. So I definetely prefer the original, but I think it's all a matter of taste.
Actually your portrait didn't really need NI, I would've voted it high anyway and that little coloured finger in the low right corner didn't bother me either. I think it was one of the best portraits in this challenge.
For the first time in my life I used a little NI myself on my portrait, but I must've done it right, because nobody seemed to've noticed it.
Can't show the 'before' photo, I'm not home.
Except for yours, all portraits that I voted high, were voted much lower by others and what I expected: the (too) smooth, uninteresting, but maybe technical good portraits, were voted high and won ribbons.
That's why I don't give a shit about the final voting scores, the mass continuously will vote high on technically 'perfect', but totally uninteresting photos as it comes to composition or expression.
Yours had both in my book, including that little finger, which was essential in my opinion to express the 'fingerpainting' this little girl was occupied with at that time.
Why do you suggest NeatImage might be an issue in scoring this entry?
Ha, maybe because it was the very first comment and it stuck with me. "here we go" I thought to myself.
Originally posted by arti-elvi:
Okay, I'm going to be honest about this one, hope you won't blame me.
No, I don't blame you at all. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. I actually thought more people would post their own entries which received more criticism. Only 10% of the commenters mentioned over-processing or NI so it was a pretty low % on mine.
Side by side I like the non NI shot better. But only by a fraction. Overall the NI was not an issue for me. I though this was a great shot, beautiful colors and just really well done overall. I can only hope to come out with somehthign like this in the future.
Okay, I'm going to be honest about this one, hope you won't blame me. I liked this photo, but this was one of the images I suspected of too much NI. Now you've shown the original I obviously can see that you didn't use it that much, but I still feel that this photo is better without it and it certainly didn't need it. Her skin is perfect. I can imagine NI is used on portraits of adults to make the look of the skin better, but this is one of the portraits of which I feel it certainly didn't need NI. So I definetely prefer the original, but I think it's all a matter of taste.
I have to agree here. Neat Image on infant portraits is entirely unecessary, and even on adults should be used sparingly, if at all. I also prefer the original and think the slight imperfections and irregularity add realism and character to the shot. I didn't vote on this challenge but I remember seeing this photo (and many others) and literally thinking that she looks like a "plastic doll". Not to say this is a bad photo. Far from in fact. It is a well composed example with a great subject and is deserving of a ribbon in every respect. IMHO I just feel that the small amount of NI applied was unecessary and possibly put the image "over the top" so to speak, to solicit the few comments you recieved about NI.
Ok here it is the OG file and my failure (LOL) Please if you will show me how I could have improved this image without messing it up.
Oi Neat Image!
Edit: I did not have time to re-take the shot and her sister was with her making my life hell so this is the best shot I was able to capture.
One thing I have had success with Waz is using gaussian blur rather than NI. Make a layer, and set the blur for something between 1-3 pixels. Then mask it so the eyes nose, mouth and hair are not part of the layer (plus anything else you don't want altered). Finally lower the opacity until it just has an effect (usually its down in the 20% range). Sometimes this looks more natural than NI and helps with transitions where the "fakiness" can often show up (around the eyes, etc).
Ok here it is the OG file and my failure (LOL) Please if you will show me how I could have improved this image without messing it up.
Oi Neat Image!
Edit: I did not have time to re-take the shot and her sister was with her making my life hell so this is the best shot I was able to capture.
The original photo is exactly like I expected it to be. The original is much better than your submission. Man, you should delete NI from your computer! Just kidding ;-) I wish you submitted a crop of the original, I would have scored it higher. It's a good portrait.
Ok here it is the OG file and my failure (LOL) Please if you will show me how I could have improved this image without messing it up.
Oi Neat Image!
Edit: I did not have time to re-take the shot and her sister was with her making my life hell so this is the best shot I was able to capture.
The original photo is exactly like I expected it to be. The original is much better than your submission. Man, you should delete NI from your computer! Just kidding ;-) I wish you submitted a crop of the original, I would have scored it higher. It's a good portrait.
Live and Learn! I can promise you this...I will nerver make that mistake again! :-)
I was one of your "overprocessing" comments, but I didn't mean it in a negative way. I gave you an 8, after all. As I said in my comment, the paint reminds us that even as a photograph, this is still art. You can show originals all you want, the point is that it looks overprocessed. People may have misdiagnosed the symptoms, but the symptoms are still there. And do NOT remove the finger. sheesh. The finger is the source of the paint on her face. The conceptual connection between finger and face (which follows a lovely strong diagonal, btw), is practically the whole point of the picture, imho.
thegrandwazoo,
I blame the model more than you (though perhaps the ultimate responsibility belongs to the photographer always?) for that fake smile. A natural smile can accomplish so much!
I am understanding that a natural look is the most important. Presenting a more honest image rather than the heavily post processed one will make a better portrait.
