CC Welcome...

[m_mphotography]

I think I'm done with the post process work on this photo, but I thought I'd post it here for some feedback. Be honest please, it's the only way that I'll learn.

[jasonhuang]

i think the colors are way over saturated. it's a tad blotchy to me as well. overall, it's a great image, but i'm not a fan of the processing.

what steps did you take/what were you trying to accomplish?

can we also see the original untouched image?

[barP]

did you run some type of noise filter on it? it appears that many areas, like the jeans and the rocks, have lost their texture, and the skin appears over smoothed. it also looks like you processed all the detail out of the white shirts, and they are really hot..almost blown out. i think a more subtle approach would produce an image that was easier on the eyes.

wp.

[m_mphotography]

Well, I thought the image looked great, but I guess that's just an unexperienced eye for you. thanks for your critiques. Here is the original...

Yes, I did run a noise filter, because the picture was really noisy. And I thought the original image was a bit BLAH on the colors.

I'll have to sit down and write more on my steps for the post processing when I don't have my kids hanging all over me. thanks.

[toverman]

I think the original looks better, just needs some "pop" to it with probably minor adjustments. The catchlights in their eyes are small and right in the middle of their pupils, which some don't think is a problem. To me, it creates a small "deer in the headlights" look that could be avoided. Maybe the lights (or your flash, if that's what it is) is too far away.

Pose is OK. Arm positions are a little tricky (you can see some of his hidden arm and it's distracting with the bracelet). The man (to me) is in more of a feminine position vs. hers, which isn't necessarily manly but maybe a bit domineering. Although she has a very sweet smile on her face. Her knee being that high makes the pose look a little awkward, too, and seeing part of her right foot is also distracting.

Is it the worst photo ever? No, that one's in my collection!

[barP]

nope, sorry...i have to trump you on that. the worst photo in history is CERTAINLY in my collection! and, when i took it, i too thought it was just fine.

don't worry, marleney. your eye and your skill will develop. i'm still waiting for it to happen to me..... it's a journey!

wp.

[ara.bentley]

I think you got them to smile really naturally - great job on making them seem relaxed - that's the part you can't fix in post processing :)

[The Philos]

The first image looks like you tried to do a digital painting over the image. The original needs minor tweaking and cleaning up although it looks softer than it should for f/5.3.

[ramblinray]

Took the liberty of doing a little minor PP on the original. Hard to do something on a small jpeg. Did a medium contrast in Camera Raw in the curves tab and tweaked the recovery and blacks just a bit also. Opened in PS and did a multiply layer and masked out the skin and hair, flattened, and did another layer to brighten the teeth and whites of eyes. Only did a heal on the blemish on his neck and no other skin treatment.

[m_mphotography]

Okay, I've taken a lot of the advice/feedback given and tried my hand again at post processing this picture. Please C&C. Also, I know that in the size that this has to be posted it is not too obvious that this pic has a lot of NOISE. I've cropped it on my system to print out 8x10, but when I zoom in to 100% it is super noisy...what is the best method to reduce the noise?? My first attempt was to use Noiseware Professional, but you saw my results--the skin looked a bit "plasticky"...please help!

[jasonhuang]

best way to reduce noise is to shoot at lower iso. :-)

but, if you have to shoot at iso 800, if your exposure is accurate or slightly over-exposed, you eliminate some noise that way.

if you use noiseware, you can mask out the parts you don't want the noise reduction to occur...like on their skin.

but, really, i'd first suggest getting a better lens...maybe the 50 f/1.8?

[m_mphotography]

Yeah, if only I had the funds for the lens at this time. This shoot was done prior to getting my speedlight and it was in a really shaded area, so I had to shoot at a high iso. thanks for the input.

[barP]

noise is tough. there are cases where you can minimize or eliminate it with software, but in other cases - like this one - you're sort of stuck with it. when i get in that situation, i start experimenting with black and white. to me, color noise is much more distracting than bw noise because the latter sort of just looks like film grain, and can actually give a nice feel to the image.

wp.

[MicWayWal]

Originally Posted by m_mphotography

Okay, I've taken a lot of the advice/feedback given and tried my hand again at post processing this picture. Please C&C. Also, I know that in the size that this has to be posted it is not too obvious that this pic has a lot of NOISE. I've cropped it on my system to print out 8x10, but when I zoom in to 100% it is super noisy...

Marleny,
First of all, it is hard, if not impossible, to correct things that were not shot better in the first place. The original image looks flat, underexposed and soft. But this latest version looks like it is the best you could do under the circumstances unless you converted it to B&W. This latest version looks the best so far to me.

I like your cropping to help diminish the awkward looking leg of the girl. But I would go in just a little more. I think you did a good initial job of posing by putting the heavier girl behind him to help "hide" some of her. But the girl's leg should have been on the next step so it would not be so high.

It is the small things that can determine masculinity or femininity.The guy is in a feminine position. If his hands were extended forward in front of his knees and maybe fisted together, that would be a masculine position.

I would move heaven and earth to get a better faster lens. A lot of your issues are the result of your lens and not the camera. Most people spend their money on the camera and neglect the glass. Glass is everything in low light places. That will also help with the softness of the image.

I have posted a B&W version, that I might recommend for my client. It may fit the the scene better than color.

Some noise does not need to be taken out. In the old days of film, you learned that you COULD see things on the negative but you would NOT see them when printed. The same is true with digital today. You can see things on a digital file at 100% view in PS, but you may not see them when printed. Never view a file at 100% to determine what you will see when printed.

Most prints are made at 240-300 dots per inch. If you take the pixels for one inch and spread them out over 4 inches (100% view), of course you will see things like noise. If you size the file to print size on the monitor, it will be about right size but you still will not see what you can see on a print. I have found the perfect view to determine what is viewable on a print is 27%. But PS does not have a 27% preset view. So the closest view is 33%. For the most part what you can see on a monitor at 33% is what you will see on a print, when cropped to a particular size. That is the size to view and predict what will be seen on a print. If you can not see noise at 33% or even 50% you will not see it on the print.