NON Square Cropped Portraits - (nSCP's) - Archive

Now it is better than before. You haven't seen it I know.:)
This is good but not very good.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5047/...cf0be6a5_z.jpg

This one is far better.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...98b7c91b_z.jpg

And also I think that, what spoiled the militar shot, was the background.
I was not careful enough when I was doing the capture in part due to the circumstances.
However, I was also unable to save the shot in the computer. :mad:

I did take a liberty or two, but just wondered if you didn't need a slightly darker image...so I added a layer adjustment level where I used a levles screen mode at 60%, then did a small bit of curve adjustment to give a little more depth to him.

http://i53.tinypic.com/sfi0bk.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisC

I did take a liberty or two, but just wondered if you didn't need a slightly darker image...so I added a layer adjustment level where I used a levles screen mode at 60%, then did a small bit of curve adjustment to give a little more depth to him.

http://i53.tinypic.com/sfi0bk.jpg

---

Why you require SCREEN MODE...?

http://i806.photobucket.com/albums/y...hoto/0ak07.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovean

My friends been asking me to Christmas photos for them and here's one of the many i took ^_^.

---

http://i806.photobucket.com/albums/y...9b7f5159-1.jpg

Little help if you like...

@ Ashwin
Have a look at these links when you have the time to

- Blending modes in Photoshop - Video blending modes on Photoshop - Blending modes reference -

All this is rather boring to read and a little time consuming I know.
That is why I just go through the various Blending Modes and try and try over and over.

But this here is pretty easy to understand and very useful.

@ Chris
Thank you so much Chris for the trouble of doing some work on my photo and for commenting :)
I am sorry Chris but I don't like your correction. :o And why don't I ?
Because I would like some similarity in visual terms between the two portraits and you made it the other way. I think the power of the second image comes a lot from it's contrast between dark areas and white ones with some mid tones.
Well, it is the way I see it of course. Perhaps it's just my monotor and you are absolutely right.

I went back to the file and worked a bit more on it.
And what have I done ? I simply (??) duplicated the layer twice with both on Multiply adjusting the opacity to 23%. Why 23 and not 24 or 25 ?
Just through visual effect nothing else.
Here it is again corrected the way I just described.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5083/...831f0634_z.jpg

I am not concerned if the image has or has not detail in certain areas. I am really concerned about the feelings and emotions the image transmits. The power of the image, what is behind it.
He is a proud man of India, a proud militar. I remember him standing very upright, vertical with his air of austerity and order which I think I got in the image.
However what I don't like in that it's white areas of his eyes have a problem and are not homogeneous. There is something wrong there. But who is going to notice it ? :)

And something else that I am noticing now as I review over and over the post:
I would have liked a better similarity in terms of scale but the symbol of the militar doesn't allow me to make a tighter crop as it is an important element for the understanding for the person and context he is in.

@ Ashwin again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ashwin

http://i806.photobucket.com/albums/y...hoto/0ak07.jpg

---

Thank you Ashwin for showing us the winners :):)

[QUOTE=Antonio Correia;76557@ Ashwin again

Thank you Ashwin for showing us the winners :):)[/QUOTE]

This Photograph is special for me, because my Grand Daughter is among the winners...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio Correia

I went back to the file and worked a bit more on it.
And what have I done ? I simply (??) duplicated the layer twice with both on Multiply adjusting the opacity to 23%. Why 23 and not 24 or 25 ?
Just through visual effect nothing else.
Here it is again corrected the way I just described.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5083/...831f0634_z.jpg

---

Hi Antonio,

Could you please explain

" I simply (??) duplicated the layer twice with both on Multiply adjusting the opacity to 23%. Why 23 and not 24 or 25 ?
"

Why you duplicated layer twice both Multiply adjusting the opacity to 23 %

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ashwin

Hi Antonio, Could you please explain "I simply (??) duplicated the layer twice with both on Multiply adjusting the opacity to 23%. Why 23 and not 24 or 25 ? " Why you duplicated layer twice both Multiply adjusting the opacity to 23 %

---

I duplicated the layer to play around. :) Just try it yourself and you will see.
In the video I sent before he was doing this kind of mixture.
Do it it with any photo. Duplicate layer, choose different blending modes, vary opacity at will in any or both and see what you get.
Try it. See what happens. Don't care about what and how you do: care only with the final result.
Look at these just to give you a glimpse of what this kind of thing works.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/...c69d54d2fb.jpg . http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5009/...faab6a229d.jpg . http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/...d816ea821b.jpg

If such a process worked so badly in a photo like this, does it mean it works the same way with other photos ?
Surely not. Let's work :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ashwin

Why you require SCREEN MODE...?

---

I don't know. I seem to get better results when using screen over soft, especially with B&W. I did both and stayed with the screen for this post. Next week, when my new computer is ready, I'll be using Silver Efex Pro and most likely won't need this option anymore...but I also works quite nicely in color..try it sometime. (I went through every single option in PS, just to see what each would do.)

Thank you so much Chris for the trouble of doing some work on my photo and for commenting
QUOTE[I am sorry Chris but I don't like your correction. And why don't I ?
Because I would like some similarity in visual terms between the two portraits and you made it the other way. I think the power of the second image comes a lot from it's contrast between dark areas and white ones with some mid tones.
Well, it is the way I see it of course. Perhaps it's just my monotor and you are absolutely right.]QUOTE

I didn't realize you were trying to match the tone of the second chap...in which case, I would have readjusted the tone level. I tried the multiply at 23% on an image I am working on and it seems to have some good merit as well. When I did my tests, I did all of them at 50% since doing each in 1% increments would have taken weeks...maybe years to do. That is what is so good about this forum, the learning curve is often already been relaized by someone else willing to share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio Correia

Now it is better than before. You haven't seen it I know.:)
This is good but not very good.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5047/...cf0be6a5_z.jpg

This one is far better.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...98b7c91b_z.jpg

And also I think that, what spoiled the militar shot, was the background.
I was not careful enough when I was doing the capture in part due to the circumstances.
However, I was also unable to save the shot in the computer. :mad:

---

Antonio,

These are very nice pictures and conversions as always. However, the first one does not have a nice background and that makes it just an ordinary sort of passport picture. However, in the second one, even that minimal background pattern gives it a different feeling and makes it connect a lot more.

I think you mentioned these yourself, just wanted to confirm :)

Just a quick one from this morning :)

Merry Christmas!

http://i52.tinypic.com/2zqspyh.jpg

@ Chris
:)
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alis

Antonio, These are very nice pictures and conversions as always. However, the first one does not have a nice background and that makes it just an ordinary sort of passport picture. However, in the second one, even that minimal background pattern gives it a different feeling and makes it connect a lot more. I think you mentioned these yourself, just wanted to confirm :)

---

So my picture is like an "ordinary sort of passport" one ? :mad:
Indeed it doesn't have the qualities of the second one but it is not that bad.
And remember: Do as I say, not as I do ;)

The quick one from this morning with Merry Christmas is as usual: a very good picture. :)
Was the picture done with the 85mm f/1.2 ?
Fantastic DOF !!!... and bokeh !!!...
And... TFPH Ali :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio Correia

@ Chris
:)
-


So my picture is like an "ordinary sort of passport" one ? :mad:

---

No I meant compared to the other one! We hold you to a much higher standard, Antonio! :)

Quote:

---

The quick one from this morning with Merry Christmas is as usual: a very good picture. :)
Was the picture done with the 85mm f/1.2 ?

---

Thanks! I did not like the skin tone, couldn't quickly fix it. His skin looks like clay, it is a mix of morning winter sunlight and flash, using the Pocket Wizard.

Also, not sure how it came out like this, this is not cropped and almost the way it came out of camera, but the distortion is weird. The lines in the picture does not make any sense to me.

And this is taken with the usual Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio Correia

I duplicated the layer to play around. :) Just try it yourself and you will see.
In the video I sent before he was doing this kind of mixture.
Do it it with any photo. Duplicate layer, choose different blending modes, vary opacity at will in any or both and see what you get.
Try it. See what happens. Don't care about what and how you do: care only with the final result.
Look at these just to give you a glimpse of what this kind of thing works.

If such a process worked so badly in a photo like this, does it mean it works the same way with other photos ?
Surely not. Let's work :)

---

I am not critising or questioning you about why you adopted this method I am simply questioning you about why you require two time duplicating the layer change mode to Multiply and change opacity
when you can achieve the same result with duplicating layer once change mode to Multiply, change opacity to 39 % and you will get the same result which you achieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisC

I don't know. I seem to get better results when using screen over soft, especially with B&W. I did both and stayed with the screen for this post. Next week, when my new computer is ready, I'll be using Silver Efex Pro and most likely won't need this option anymore...but I also works quite nicely in color..try it sometime. (I went through every single option in PS, just to see what each would do.)

---

My point is, by changing the mode of the layer to SCREEN effectively you are increasing the exposure value by +2, then you are playing with level/curves......

Simply you could have achieved the result by playing with curves/levels for that particular photographs which was otherwise properly exposed.. Anyhow many thing depends on ones test, and choice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alis

No I meant compared to the other one! We hold you to a much higher standard, Antonio! :) ...

---

I was just pulling your leg :D:D

How is this for telling a story/transferring feelings?

It was taken with available light and at high ISO. I think the 5D MKII does a very good job at that:

http://i51.tinypic.com/pbqr7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alis

How is this for telling a story/transferring feelings ? It was taken with available light and at high ISO. I think the 5D MKII does a very good job at that

http://i51.tinypic.com/pbqr7.jpg

---

Excellent, excellent Ali. Great image. Not only it is sharp, focused etc. but it really tells a story.:)
He is very interested about what the lady says not being at all impressed by the snake itself which seems to be alive.
Very good work.
I want more :D:D
...
I would only - only - clone the cell phone.
Excellent indeed...