What do you think about this photo?Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 242000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on October 17, 2013 (22:29) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Hello, I allowed myself to interpret the image using the parameters that I apply in LR4.
The picture is not all bad, but in my opinion, with some modifications justice to Jessica and location.
What do you say? let me know.
Ciao, mi sono permesso di interpretare io l'immagine usando i parametri che applico io in LR4.
L'immagine non è affatto male, ma secondo me, con qualche modifica rende giustizia a Jessica e alla location.
Che ne dici? fammi sapere.
|
| sent on October 17, 2013 (22:49) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
actually the whole picture looks more "readable" without the reflection of light, but I'm rather reluctant to retouch your photos, it is my "sets" of all time, but I notice that many use to make extensive use of pp effettivamente tutta la foto appare più "leggibile" senza i riflessi di luce, ma io sono piuttosto restio a ritoccare le foto, è una mia "fissa" di sempre, ma noto che molti usano fare largo uso di pp |
| sent on October 18, 2013 (8:47) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
The issue of post-production is discussed here in the forum with multiple statements, however respectable.
Personally, as I am not a magician of the PP, I rise only slightly.
If the pp mean like a distorting the original photo, you can also give a reason, but do not forget that even with the analog was the pp, indeed, was a necessary step.
On the picture that I put myself, I have:
- Removed the air under your feet (there was too much for the type of photo)
- Decreased distortion in the upper corners
- Decreased distortion acting on the central tilt
- Reduced noise
- Cleared and clean the skin (too much shade).
They can be invasive interventions, but alas necessary to correct the distorsion caused by the very short focal length used (4.3 mm equiv. to 24mm on FF) for a portrait.
What do you say? La questione relativa alla post produzione viene dibattuta qui in forum con molteplici affermazioni, peraltro rispettabilissime.
Personalmente, dato che non sono affatto un mago della pp, intervengo solo leggermente.
Se la pp la intendi come uno stravolgere la foto originale, ti posso anche dar ragione, ma non dimenticarti che anche con l'analogico si faceva la pp; anzi, era un passaggio obbligato.
Sulla foto che ho messo io, ho:
- eliminato dell'aria sotto i piedi (ce n'era troppa per il tipo di foto)
- diminuito la distorsione agli angoli superiori
- diminuito la distorsione centrale agendo sul tilt
- diminuito il rumore
- schiarito e pulito la pelle (troppo in ombra).
Possono essere degli interventi invasivi, ma ahimè necessari per correggere la distorsione causata dalla cortissima focale utilizzata (4,3mm, equiv. a 24mm su FF) per un ritratto.
Che ne dici? |
| sent on October 18, 2013 (12:30) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
I can only agree with you, in fact I had noticed that the picture has improved significantly. Non posso che essere d'accordo con te, infatti avevo notato che la foto è nettamente migliorata. |
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |
![[retina]](shared_files/layout/retina_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
15.9 MEGAPIXEL
Resize to fit window
