family of four

[Elaine]

We have family visiting and they wanted a Christmas photo. I struggled a bit with WB/skin tones. What do you think?

http://e-heasley.smugmug.com/photos/417288166_4QgGJ-XL.jpg

[roentarre]

Excellent lighting and colour. Good expression as well. :clap

[jeffreaux2]

It looks good to me Elaine. What were the lighting conditions?

[Shima]

I like the colors and the slight tint of darkness in the corners brings attention back to the center. Looks good to me.

[Elaine]

Thank you!

Here's some info:
85mm
f/3.5
ISO 1000
1/80
all natural light at 4:45 pm
WB cloudy

This was taken at 4:45, quite a ways beyond the prime time of about 4pm. The light dies quickly this time of year, and I was having a minor panic attack about the darkness, shutter speed and ISO I was having to use. 1/80 with wiggly kids is not usually a good idea. And I was using an 85mm and shooting at 1/80, on a non-IS lens, which is barely a good idea. I was happy to have 4 natural expressions, all eyes forward and open, and it was sharp! Yippee!

I shot on cloudy and processed it the first time without changing that. It came out a bit cool and the skin tones looked a bit magenta. This was confirmed by the values when the magenta was always higher than the yellow on their faces. I tried it again and got this result. I like it a bit warmer, but now I have a hard time not seeing too much green. The yellow is usually equal to, barely higher than or barely lower than the magenta now.

Another issue...my sis-in-law loves the pic and she was watching me do some processing, which I thought was fine because I think it's good for folks to have some idea what goes into developing an image. I asked her which she liked better (cooler or warmer). She liked the warmer because it didn't "look as washed out" as the cooler. Hmmm...I explained to her that a back-lit LCD screen may look a bit brighter, but I showed her with the dropper that they were not "washed out/blown out" and told her that the prints always come out a bit darker than how they appear on the back-lit LCD. I remember when I was first learning about processing that I often thought some shots looked a bit "washed out." But then I realized/learned that the faces generally need to be pushing that edge of brightness in order to print properly. I'm wondering if this is a style preference or a right/wrong thing or an educated/uneducated (about proper photo processing) thing? Am I missing something or doing something wrong?

[DavidS]

I love it Elaine! I love the expressions. The kids are adorable.

I can't offer intelligent comments on white balance. I struggle with that myself. I personally prefer a warm photo and I think my clients do as well. I have a hard time judging what is right. Some photos can not be warmed up much. I have found that I can brighten the photos more, when adding warmth. Whether that is right or not, I do not know.

Do you have a profile from your lab and softproof in in Photoshop? I was having trouble with my prints until I started doing that. The photos I print go through a different process, than the ones I post online.

[jeffreaux2]

Just a matter of taste, but my initial thoughts were that it could stand even more warmth. I often warm images MUCH more than what the eyedropper tool says is right. Another way to add a hint of warmth without adding green is to simply use the photoshop warming filters. As with anything else a little goes a long way. I rarely use those at values over ten percent.

It is a very good portrait, will look great printed large, and the composition gives you limitless crop ratio possibilities. Smart shooting Elaine!

[Matt336]

Definitely add more warmth to it.:thumb Great shot!

[zoomer]

Nice picture, they should be happy with it.
If it were mine I would darken it a bit a couple points of contrast darken the background further and give it a bit of clockwise rotation as it look a bit crooked.

Looks warm enough to me.

[angevin1]

Thank you!

Here's some info:
85mm
f/3.5
ISO 1000
1/80
all natural light at 4:45 pm
WB cloudy

This was taken at 4:45, quite a ways beyond the prime time of about 4pm. The light dies quickly this time of year, and I was having a minor panic attack about the darkness, shutter speed and ISO I was having to use. 1/80 with wiggly kids is not usually a good idea. And I was using an 85mm and shooting at 1/80, on a non-IS lens, which is barely a good idea. I was happy to have 4 natural expressions, all eyes forward and open, and it was sharp! Yippee!

I shot on cloudy and processed it the first time without changing that. It came out a bit cool and the skin tones looked a bit magenta. This was confirmed by the values when the magenta was always higher than the yellow on their faces. I tried it again and got this result. I like it a bit warmer, but now I have a hard time not seeing too much green. The yellow is usually equal to, barely higher than or barely lower than the magenta now.

Another issue...my sis-in-law loves the pic and she was watching me do some processing, which I thought was fine because I think it's good for folks to have some idea what goes into developing an image. I asked her which she liked better (cooler or warmer). She liked the warmer because it didn't "look as washed out" as the cooler. Hmmm...I explained to her that a back-lit LCD screen may look a bit brighter, but I showed her with the dropper that they were not "washed out/blown out" and told her that the prints always come out a bit darker than how they appear on the back-lit LCD. I remember when I was first learning about processing that I often thought some shots looked a bit "washed out." But then I realized/learned that the faces generally need to be pushing that edge of brightness in order to print properly. I'm wondering if this is a style preference or a right/wrong thing or an educated/uneducated (about proper photo processing) thing? Am I missing something or doing something wrong?

Great photo! And how great is it or her to actually see you process it and add her two cents..I think thats mahvelous!

I too have the same thoughts on the print/screen/light/dark front. And after calibrating until...well..just until...I do several things to check. I use EZ Prints ICC profile to look at the photo in my PS of choice and I use a hard copy of former prints up against the screen and look discerningly at the difference, if any of my monitor and my photo; in hand. I do envy the folks that can afford high$ monitors for processing their photos.

I think it most def is a style/choice thing on the light...potato/potahto kinda thing~

Cheers, tom

[Scott_Quier]

Elaine - I like the pose but can't offer any suggestions/comments on the WB as I'm on a monitor at work that is not calibrated.

IIRC, you've had questions about WB before. If so, have you read Pathfinder's thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=90438) on WB tools?

If you have a WB tool, the next step (the one I have the most trouble with:D) is you have to actually use it.

Failing that, dad's white t-shirt would make a very good first approximation for the correct WB.