Pre and Post Processing: Which Do You Prefer?

[soupman]

Here is a photo of my most willing model...my lovely wife.

I used a large softbox behind a foldable white screen for the background. I did some post processing on her portrait. Which do you prefer and why? (The photos downloaded poorly but did so equally.)

Before PS...




After PS...

[Jim Peters]

Face/Complection Is Softer looking On Two.I Would Soften The Lines At The Eyes More On The Right.I'd take Out Those Two Horrizontal lines To The Upper Right Of Her Head.
Very Pretty,Very Elegant Looking Lady

[Stecyk]

Originally Posted by soupman

Which do you prefer and why? (The photos downloaded poorly but did so equally.)

I much prefer the first image. In the second image, your beautiful wife looks artificial. Look at the specular highlights on her lips, indicative of a light source. Yet, look at her skin. In the first photograph, I can see where the oils in her skin--cheek, eye socket, and forehead--reflect back some of the light and it looks natural. In photo 2, I don't see that at all (or at least to the same and proper degree). The lighting on lips doesn't match the lighting on her face.

In my opinion, your wife has remarkable skin, skin that should be celebrated.

In short, photo one shows a beautiful woman who is no longer twenty but still is very young and attractive. Your wife in the second photograph looks artificial.

[Arbib]

I also prefer the 1st image..the face is a bit more open on the fill side. What was called "oil on the face" in a previous post, I think is make-up. Typically that reddish makeup shows up as "Rosy Cheeks". A Transparent neutral blush would work better.

You controled the backlight very well on the hair, and kept the highlights toned down on her blouse... The Softened skin on the 2nd one is too strong.. (I typicly take the original to 150% or so for my preview (The Dialog preview is so small in area). I make sure I can still see the pores of the skin after a softskin effect is applyed...If I loss them, the skin will look smooth and fake.

Lucky you, your wife will pose for you...

[Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Arbib

What was called "oil on the face" in a previous post, I think is make-up.

""oil on the face"??? If that is a quote, at least make it accurate.

And no, I was deliberate in my comments. We all have skin oils and that is typically what leads to specular highlights in the skin. Yes, you can use a heavy matte make-up to damp it down. But naturally, oils lead to some reflectivity.

Her face looks unnatural in photo number 2.

[Arbib]

Originally Posted by Stecyk

""oil on the face"??? If that is a quote, at least make it accurate.

And no, I was deliberate in my comments. We all have skin oils and that is typically what leads to specular highlights in the skin. Yes, you can use a heavy matte make-up to damp it down. But naturally, oils lead to some reflectivity.

Her face looks unnatural in photo number 2.

Sorry about not getting the quote correct. I guess I paraphrased the sum of your statement.

Yeah, Number 2 shows more skin reflectiveness. But I am wandering if something in Post, caused this. The rosy cheeks are redder too.

All in all. A good shot. A bit of post can correct the rosy cheeks, and oily skin reflections.

[Jim Peters]

Soo Which One Does SHE Like??
JP

[Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Arbib

Sorry about not getting the quote correct. I guess I paraphrased the sum of your statement.

Yeah, Number 2 shows more skin reflectiveness. But I am wandering if something in Post, caused this. The rosy cheeks are redder too.

All in all. A good shot. A bit of post can correct the rosy cheeks, and oily skin reflections.

No problem, I thought perhaps your misquote was a bit of a shot. If not, then no harm done.

I think we're still talking past one another, though. In my view, photo one has the slight specular highlights because of natural oils in the skin, which are proper and should be present. I am not suggesting that her skin is oily. Rather, I am suggesting that her skin is natural--a good thing.

In photo two where Photoshop has been applied, the slight specular highlights have vanished.

In Photo One, look at the the light reflects off the moisture on her lip and how the light reflects off her cheek and eye socket areas. The cuffs match the collar.

In Photo Two, look at the lip again, and now look at the cheek and eye socket. It almost appears as the lips were lit with one light source and the cheek and eye socket were lit with another. The cheek and eye socket look flat. The slight sparkle in her skin has been smoothed out to create a homogeneous skin tone.

Anyway, as Jim Peters asks, which version does she prefer?

[soupman]

She prefers the 1st one. Good points by all. I do feel like the PP was over the top. The point about seeing the pores afterwards is a good gage for determining when to stop. But...some others have looked at the 2nd one and liked the difference.

Thanks for the perspectives...they give me some things to consider.

[Jim Peters]

Who Did The PP?
JP