Pascaline

[Chataignier]

A friend who makes jewellery - a portrait showing some of her creations

[selig1656]

Nice lighting a soft touch.

[The amateur]

David, can I comment and edit your portrait ?
Thanks !

[Chataignier]

David, can I comment and edit your portrait ?
Thanks !

Yes, of course.

[The amateur]

Thank you David for allowing me to manipulate your image in some way.
I asked because it is a portrait of a person, and that could somehow hurt sensitivities.

The first thing that caught my eye and that needed some retouching, is the area between her right shoulder and neck. It seems too bright.
Another aspect that also caught my attention is the fact that the catch lights are rectangular and not round as usual.

Then I think, and here it is a matter of my personal taste, that the overall aspect of the image would be more interesting if the face stood out in the portrait.
And since the lady is dedicated to jewellery, the pieces shown should also be the subject of a treatment that makes them a little more visible and attracts attention.

I almost forgot that I started the treatment by exporting the shot to Photoshop where I arranged the general shape of the head at the top, giving it a softer shape. I used Liquify.
I used LR in all other arrangements.

But I admit that even a professional photographer can not be able to take the trouble to make so many adjustments because they are highly time-consuming and sometimes times is money.
I also brightened the eyes and tried to make the catch lights round not very successfully in fact.

I hope that in some way I have contributed not only to the improvement of the image but also to a healthy exchange of impressions about our work, as is customary in this forum.

[Chataignier]

Thanks for your comments Antonio.
I fully agree with the change to the bright shoulder/neck area, I had already toned that down in my latest version, but it was not done before I uploaded to CiC. However, the change to the shape of her head is a step too far for me. I see post production as a means to improve the photo, not to improve the subject, so I'll pass on that.

Regarding the rectangular highlights, that was due to laziness on my part. I had been using a stripbox to light the model when standing and when we took this portrait, I moved the stripbox to use it as a fill light rather than replacing it with an octabox which would have given more usual highlights. Personally it does not bother me a lot. And speaking of eyes, I had already brightened the eyes a bit, you have gone further, and I think it is an improvement.

Thanks again for your comments and mods.

PS, switching directly between the images, I notice you have rotated it a bit. Not a problem, but I wonder why ?

[The amateur]

You were right to observe that I actually printed a small rotation in the framing, which I thought was more inviting and visually pleasing.
On the other hand, although David does not accept the retouching I did on the head, it allows for a more homogeneous shape that I find more captivating.

This may not correspond exactly to reality, but the person will never know, and it is not important insofar as it transmits a more pleasant image overall.
Yes, really, the issue of eye lighting is a minor detail and of no relevant importance.

David did not make any mention of the overall tone being lower, that is, the background being generally darker with the face standing out more in the set.

In any case, your job is an excellent job and I hope to see more of your good work !

Cheers !

[Chataignier]

I did notice the background being darker in your edit, but did not comment. You might be interested to see the shot ooc (see below), the background was darker, I had lightened it in my version.