DSLRUsers.com

I have since processed some wedding images from last Saturday, using a glamour action, and I would be interested in some opinions as to whether this image treatment works. Any comments appreciated, with thanks.

My niece and my grandson

Looks pretty good except for the first shot.
The kids arm has a really bad halo and there's something funky going on where their heads meet.

Wink wrote:Looks pretty good except for the first shot.
The kids arm has a really bad halo and there's something funky going on where their heads meet.

By George you're right! Funny thing is, those artifacts are not evident in the printed version that I had done this morning. Must be something to do with the internet compression etc.

Many thanks.

They look good..

The glamour action is nice but I have found that it softens the shot amost to the point that its not sharp anymore.. if you reduce the opacity of the action the apply a slight sharpen that should fix it..

Bindii wrote:They look good..

The glamour action is nice but I have found that it softens the shot amost to the point that its not sharp anymore.. if you reduce the opacity of the action the apply a slight sharpen that should fix it..

Thanks Bindii, I take your point. As to how much pop v sharpness is right, I'm not sure, it's all very subjective. These images are much sharper at print resolution; the file degrades substantially when optimizing for web viewing. As far as reducing the opacity, the action has about 40-50 steps to it; I don't know enough about PS to alter this particular action much.

Wink wrote: there's something funky going on where their heads meet.

I've found out what it is - a hairpiece/scrunchy/whatever that she was wearing.

Maybe this fixes it:

It fixes that particular problem but it doesn't improve the picture. Now there's rings of light from the sun everywhere. (Is there a name for those?)

Wink wrote:It fixes that particular problem but it doesn't improve the picture. Now there's rings of light from the sun everywhere. (Is there a name for those?)

Yep, it's a PS filter. To be honest, I'm not too worried about it. I will just go back to square one and clone out the offending article and start the action again.

I really like the last photo of the bride... captured the moment really well

Wink wrote:Now there's rings of light from the sun everywhere. (Is there a name for those?)

It depends on which magazine you send it into.. a photography one would tell you its lens flare.. but the physic in New Idea would call them fairy orbs and tell you how lucky you are to be surrounded by deceased ancestors..

And yes I agree.. and rereading my original post it does sound like I was inferring that these images are not sharp enough.. they are sharp enough of course.. what I should have said was that sometimes this filter can soften some images to their detriment..

Bindii wrote:And yes I agree.. and rereading my original post it does sound like I was inferring that these images are not sharp enough.. they are sharp enough of course.. what I should have said was that sometimes this filter can soften some images to their detriment..

No problems Bindii, I got the gist of your first comment. Sharpness is a very subjective thing. (For example, I'm not very sharp... ). Looking at the dreamy, soft projection of Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca, and who cares about sharpness? I had best stop waffling about old films and get back to work.