Natural Beauty - C&C Welcomed

[William W]

Thank you for the collage Bill

You're welcome.

Originally I set it up just roughly for me to compare an A/B to confirm the implied fact in your comment "I did feel your rendition had a hint of yellow in her skin-tone that she doesn't have" (i.e. I was making a simple A/B of the yellow content in her skin)

very helpful to see them in this format. I did have them enlarged on my Mac, but this is better.

Yes, then I thought that I’d like to see the development of this particular part of the discussion, displayed in image form, so I added the other two images (not including Manfred’s, because it appeared that he only cloned in the trees and did not change Colour Balance – forgive if I am incorrect).


Then I was thinking about the other thread concerning White Balance, particularly these two points. which were repeatedly made and are neatly summarized here by Manfred:

“I recently completed a colour correction course given by a long time commercial photographer, and this is one point that he hammered home; 100% "correct" white balance is impossible once you step out of the studio (and in theory there are things that prevent that from being 100% correct in a studio situation too).”
“With a few limited exceptions, the white balance call is often more of an artistic than technical call.”

So I thought that it would be useful to collage the four images to a allow a simple A : B : C : D comparison.

***

Your questions:

>

Here's my re-work of the image taking into consideration your comments and Janis.

> I did feel your rendition had a hint of yellow in her skin-tone that she doesn't have, so I tried to keep it as close to her real tone as possible.

> Hopefully this is an improvement.

> IMHO it appears the last rendition took the best of the previous three.

> Would you agree?

The rework shows good skills, well done.

Agree: Yes. The skin tones in Post #51 have a tad more yellow than in Post #55.
What is close to her natural skin tone is impossible for me to know, but, what annoys me is that I missed her hair: in Post 51 the tad extra yellow kills her hair: my error was simply not looking. Even though it was a quick redo as an example to get fill light into the face, the hair is a very important element in Portraiture, especially for girls, and I should not have missed that.

Agree: Yes it is an ‘improvement’, as mentioned: I am not too fussed about the comparison of the Skin Tones - if you are happy with the skin being a bit warmer, and less yellow, and closer to her natural colour, then that’s basically an individual artistic call.
What is a more important as a general artistic critique, is the ‘improvement’ in the hair, apropos colour, richness, depth and vitality.

Disagree: Your opinion as a Photographer is both valued and credible and it should not be humbled.

Agree: the four images show a progression which is predicated upon: sound interrogation, discussion and critique. Agree the final image is a result of those interrogations, discussions and critiques and that the image in Post #55 is, “the best” rendition of that shot.

***

. . . I'm going to jump into the discussion with a focus on skin tone. . .
“skin tone [#55] may be slightly blue and may be over saturated.”
“On the other hand, the third rendition (Bill's post #51) may have a slight yellowish hue

As previously mentioned, I concur concerning the yellow/ blue contrast between #51 and #55.

Concerning #55 being ‘oversaturated’, I think that’s even more an artistic call. My guess is the Subject’s skin is ‘tanned’. In cloud cover (also as previously mentioned) that skin tone can become ‘dirty’ or ‘dusty’. Redo #51 attempted to clean that ‘dirty’ up, by getting some facsimile of a ‘fill light’ into the face, therein the conundrum of maybe it being LESS saturation than what was required to produce a good rendition of the depth of her ‘actual’ skin’s tone.

On the other hand, #55, (my guess) rendered her face less ‘jaundiced’ and that employed a tad more saturation.

Interesting.

***

FYI -

When I was doing an A/B on #51 and #55, I ran the numbers on two patches of each image:
> Top R Shoulder patch of White Clothing
> Patch of Skin at Sternum

#51 - Top R Shoulder patch of White Clothing
RGB 238:230:227
CMYK 6% 8% 8% 0%

#55 - Top R Shoulder patch of White Clothing
RGB 241:241:243
CMYK 4% 3% 2% 0%

#51 - Patch of Skin at Sternum
RGB 159:96:65
CMYK 30% 65% 78% 17%

#55 - Patch of Skin at Sternum
RGB 156:92:73
CMYK 31% 67% 71% 17%

WW

[William W]

. . . adjusting skin tones is no easy task!

[KimC]

Hi Bruce. Skin tone in this image was def a tough task. She is rather tan. As I lifted the shadows in her face, I did actually decrease the saturation - so it's in negative territory. If I further reduced the saturation, the coloring became very unnatural and not at all flattering. This was the happy medium I found.

Kim, I'm going to jump into the discussion with a focus on skin tone. I'll begin by saying that I obviously don't know what colour your model's skin is and how tanned, or not, she was when you took the picture. As importantly, I haven't recalibrated/profiled my monitor for a few months so it may not be giving me an accurate rendition -- although it still seems okay with other photos.

To my eyes, the last rendition is not quite right (on my monitor). My inexpert view is that her skin tone may be slightly blue and may be over saturated. On the other hand, the third rendition (Bill's post #51) may have a slight yellowish hue (on my monitor).

This all leads me to two conclusions: a properly calibrated monitor, etc., is critical and adjusting skin tones is no easy task!

[KimC]

Thank you.

Your questions:

The rework shows good skills, well done.

Agree: Yes. The skin tones in Post #51 have a tad more yellow than in Post #55.
What is close to her natural skin tone is impossible for me to know, but, what annoys me is that I missed her hair: in Post 51 the tad extra yellow kills her hair: my error was simply not looking. Even though it was a quick redo as an example to get fill light into the face, the hair is a very important element in Portraiture, especially for girls, and I should not have missed that.

Agree: Yes it is an ‘improvement’, as mentioned: I am not too fussed about the comparison of the Skin Tones - if you are happy with the skin being a bit warmer, and less yellow, and closer to her natural colour, then that’s basically an individual artistic call.
What is a more important as a general artistic critique, is the ‘improvement’ in the hair, apropos colour, richness, depth and vitality.

Disagree: Your opinion as a Photographer is both valued and credible and it should not be humbled.

Agree: the four images show a progression which is predicated upon: sound interrogation, discussion and critique. Agree the final image is a result of those interrogations, discussions and critiques and that the image in Post #55 is, “the best” rendition of that shot.

Yes, she was very tan, and as I mentioned to Bruce above, I desaturated her skin (-15).

Concerning #55 being ‘oversaturated’, I think that’s even more an artistic call. My guess is the Subject’s skin is ‘tanned’. In cloud cover (also as previously mentioned) that skin tone can become ‘dirty’ or ‘dusty’. Redo #51 attempted to clean that ‘dirty’ up, by getting some facsimile of a ‘fill light’ into the face, therein the conundrum of maybe it being LESS saturation than what was required to produce a good rendition of the depth of her ‘actual’ skin’s tone.

On the other hand, #55, (my guess) rendered her face less ‘jaundiced’ and that employed a tad more saturation.

Interesting.

Very interesting. Thank you for ALL your help on this thread!

When I was doing an A/B on #51 and #55, I ran the numbers on two patches of each image:
> Top R Shoulder patch of White Clothing
> Patch of Skin at Sternum

#51 - Top R Shoulder patch of White Clothing
RGB 238:230:227
CMYK 6% 8% 8% 0%

#55 - Top R Shoulder patch of White Clothing
RGB 241:241:243
CMYK 4% 3% 2% 0%

#51 - Patch of Skin at Sternum
RGB 159:96:65
CMYK 30% 65% 78% 17%

#55 - Patch of Skin at Sternum
RGB 156:92:73
CMYK 31% 67% 71% 17%

WW

[William W]

. . . Skin tone in this image was def a tough task. She is rather tan. As I lifted the shadows in her face, I did actually decrease the saturation - so it's in negative territory. If I further reduced the saturation, the coloring became very unnatural and not at all flattering.

Understand what you did. Ta.

*

For the past several days, I'd been meaning to research the typical weather conditions in your corner of the of the world - having just done so, and assuming the venue where she was photographed is typical of where she resides, I have a better picture (pun intended) of her tanned skin.

*

Beaut Subject. She has more to give. A second session would be sensational now that you have established the initial Rapport. Also I'll bet another Mars Bar your more comfortable driving that Camera daily and just as a matter of course.

Is the Camera feeling like an extension of your hand yet? On the odd occasion when you get into 'the zone'?

WW

[KimC]

Perhaps later this summer - hopefully she will be easier to convince this time.

It actually feels like an extension of my eye now. Also, I have def found, when it comes to shooting people, I def like to feel a connection with them, even if I don't know them (for example at the K-9 Olympics this weekend). Certain people I am just drawn to (it's a feeling I get from them)...

Thanks for the smile tonight Bill.

Beaut Subject. She has more to give. A second session would be sensational now that you have established the initial Rapport. Also I'll bet another Mars Bar your more comfortable driving that Camera daily and just as a matter of course.

Is the Camera feeling like an extension of your hand yet? On the odd occasion when you get into 'the zone'? WW

[123llamedos]

Prefer no 1 feel it is less posed than no 2 beautiful lady

[KimC]

Thank you for your comment. Yes she is; it radiates from within.

Prefer no 1 feel it is less posed than no 2 beautiful lady

[Acorn]

All I will say is that the lady has a lovely face.