Ever have the urge to raise the dead?

[DanielHice]

Well maybe not quite what you thought. I decided to dive into my archives from back when I was still trying to learn what I was doing and see if I could bring some dead images back to life or not. Anything I post in this thread was taken 8-15 months ago and I promise you that the original is nothing like what you see. I was still using my old Briteks, had no clue about lighting ratios, full histogram exposure, etc. Here are a couple I just edited based on my new knowledge of things, let me know what you think.

#1

[DanielHice]

#2

[DanielHice]

I found two images of a scrap shoot I did with my sister. I didn't get one single good image from the whole shoot. Either of these usable now that I can edit at least?

#3

[DanielHice]

#4

[Alter_ego]

Well I for one am not going to criticise your early efforts Daniel. I am just starting out on this portrait shooting lark and am finding it a bit of a challenge.
As for the pics, I think you have overdone the eyes and teeth. Mind you, I am looking at them on my laptop, which doesn't give the same rendition of an image as my callibrated CRT screen.

[DanielHice]

Thanks man.

I assume based on only one response that maybe I should have left these images in their grave?

As for the eyes and teeth, they have not been modified in anyway, that's another one of those items that I normally refuse to do. If your eyes look like your on crack and you have brown teeth...don't be a model, lol. The first image is driving me nuts, I posted it twice and each time it looks WAY to freaking over sharpened once posted. I even re-edited it and posted a new version and its still over sharpened once it gets posted.

[Jon]

Of all of them, I like number 4 the best, 3 and 4 being the better two IMO. Her teeth are rather white to me, that stood out to me especially in 4. Just as an aside - a cute girl with freckles totally owns me, so I do freely admit to being a bit distracted on those two.

I'd leave 1 and 2 in the heap if it were me, here's the main reason why (to me): I can see what you were going for, and so the light is at the same time too far to the side, and yet not far enough to the side. For GP I would have also removed the blemishes and blended under the eyes on those two.

And to answer your thread title question, yes, I do attempt to resurrect an image or two from time to time, but soon realize that if it starts as a turd, it's just going to be a more highly processed turn by the time I'm done with it. I try to stick to my rule of thumb of "if I have to spend more than six minutes (1/10th of an hour) correcting/retouching an image, I didn't shoot it right to begin with and it gets trashed."

[Alter_ego]

Originally Posted by Jon

* "if I have to spend more than six minutes (1/10th of an hour) correcting/retouching an image, I didn't shoot it right to begin with and it gets trashed."

Six minutes!! thats harsh. I wouldn't have any images left to play with. LOL

Actually Daniel, now that I'm on the CRT, they don't look so bad. In fact I'd say you had a very attractive sister with a great smile. You should shoot her again.
I'm in agreement with Jon, I think the Sister pics are the better ones. I had a little tweak on one of them. Just a slight skin softening.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by allcart

Six minutes!! thats harsh.

I invoice on a six-minute minimum, so it makes sense in more ways than one.

[DanielHice]

#1 has been canned, 2, 3 and 4 still have life to me though. I actually follow the same rule as Jon said just one minute shorter. If it takes me more than 5 minutes to edit an image I pass right on by it. None of the images above have more than 5 minutes work done to them, my problem was that when I shot them close to a year ago I didn't have the same level of knowledge I do now so I didn't know what to do with them. Now days I wouldn't have to do anything other than a quick sharpening to the same images to get them ready to print but these I had to edit the hell out of to get them looking the way they do. I fully subscribe to the rule of shoot it right the first time!

Jon, if you're talking about the two marks under B's right eye that is a personal thing with me. Scares I actually edit, don't ask me why, but I have a rule that if it is a perm part of your body...and now that I think about it moles are about the only thing I won't get rid of...hmmm never mind I guess I won't get rid of moles for some stupid reason. I edit scares, acne, stretch marks, piercings, tatoos...who knows man.

[Blinky]

I'm for #4... the rest of'em are alright but not real attention getters. Come on Daniel... more baby oil and water!

It's funny about the 5/6 minute rule. With product stills I invoice on 30 minutes of post per shot (except composites). Put that product on a model and I don't want to spend more than 10 minutes... more like 5, per shot. The model takes away that critical eye that spots every tiny little imperfection in a product only still. Plus, the product has more of a lifestyle context.

I've tried to persuade my clients to use models more often but so far, only rarely do they do it.

Chip

[Padre]

Wow I love number 4. Killer image...b

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Daniel Hice

Jon, if you're talking about the two marks under B's right eye that is a personal thing with me. Scares I actually edit, don't ask me why, but I have a rule that if it is a perm part of your body...and now that I think about it moles are about the only thing I won't get rid of...hmmm never mind I guess I won't get rid of moles for some stupid reason. I edit scares, acne, stretch marks, piercings, tatoos...who knows man.

I hear ya man...I'm the same way...Sometimes haha. I never get rid of ink or piercings though (unless it's an empty hole). I solve the so-called "ink problem" by being choosy when working with inked models - if the tattoos are meaningful and/or accent the body lines rather than simply being a drawing stuck on, I work it into the setup. If it's not, then it gets covered with makeup or garments. I'm not good enough in PS to take out a large tat.

[softfocus]

I agree tha the eyes appear to be over-dodged in the first 2 shots. I know you didn't retouch them, but it still looks that way to me. I don't really see oversharpening though.

#4 is my favorite.

[DanielHice]

Thanks y'all, #4 has been added to my port, the rest canned