Make sure you click on the image to see it full size.
Gareth said: In that particular shot, as in a couple of others, I suddenly said "Hey Imelda!" and took the shot as she turned around. Brian, Once again you have demonstrated your superb control over skin texture! I do have a query about the expression though. I may well be barking up the wrong tree here, so please do not be offended. It struck me that there was something a tiny bit strained about Imelda's expression, as if she had been putting on a smile to please you rather than because she felt genuine mirth. I think this is because the eyes and the mouth do not quite match : the mouth is smiling more than the eyes. I know there is great variation between people in the eye/ mouth correspondence. I once took a photo of a little girl who really hated to be photographed. She almost would not pose for me, and kept hiding behind her father. Then suddenly she put on a very big smile, but kept her eyes ferociously serious. Her parents were thrilled with the photo (the only one I had been able to take - apparently one more than several other photographers had achieved !). I pointed out that the expression denoted fury and resentment, rather than the cheekiness which they had said they wanted, but they insisted the expression was characteristic, and so we went with it. Anyway I tried to vary the eyes in your picture in an attempt to work out whether this mismatch (as it seemd to me) really was an important factor. I am sure you could make a much better job of this manipulation. I only did it roughly just to give the general effect. Anyway, here are the three versions (the first being a copy of the photo you posted). You probably need to click on the image to get all three to show up. Which smile looks the most natural? [/quote] Hi Gareth, thanks for the compliment regarding skin texture and also for your observant comments regarding Imelda's facial expression. First off, I prefer the middle image of the 3 you posted. As far as the original image goes - I think the eyes not matching the mouth expression is the result of one of 2 things. I noticed in the posed shots that Imelda opens her eyes a little too wide, trying to make her eyes look larger (I would guess). I have photographed several friends who do this in all of their photographs, regardless of who is taking the shot. Even though it was a 'grab shot' in this instance after calling her name, Imelda most likely knew what I was doing and so still did the eye thing. Alternatively, she was a little nervous (I do not know Imelda at all, she is a friend of a friend) and this showed a little in other shots too. She arrived late to pick up my friend and go to the party and beeped her horn to say "come on, let's go". My friend dragged her inside and asked her to have some shots taken quickly. The original plan had been for them to have a few shots taken before going to the party. The whole thing was quite a rush. It is always great to read your comments, Gareth, you generally look a little deeper into things than most. I guess this is a result of being an artist and a great one at that. Best regards,Brian.
In that particular shot, as in a couple of others, I suddenly said "Hey Imelda!" and took the shot as she turned around.
Brian,
Once again you have demonstrated your superb control over skin texture!
I do have a query about the expression though. I may well be barking up the wrong tree here, so please do not be offended.
It struck me that there was something a tiny bit strained about Imelda's expression, as if she had been putting on a smile to please you rather than because she felt genuine mirth. I think this is because the eyes and the mouth do not quite match : the mouth is smiling more than the eyes.
I know there is great variation between people in the eye/ mouth correspondence. I once took a photo of a little girl who really hated to be photographed. She almost would not pose for me, and kept hiding behind her father. Then suddenly she put on a very big smile, but kept her eyes ferociously serious. Her parents were thrilled with the photo (the only one I had been able to take - apparently one more than several other photographers had achieved !). I pointed out that the expression denoted fury and resentment, rather than the cheekiness which they had said they wanted, but they insisted the expression was characteristic, and so we went with it.
Anyway I tried to vary the eyes in your picture in an attempt to work out whether this mismatch (as it seemd to me) really was an important factor. I am sure you could make a much better job of this manipulation. I only did it roughly just to give the general effect.
Anyway, here are the three versions (the first being a copy of the photo you posted). You probably need to click on the image to get all three to show up. Which smile looks the most natural?
Hi Gareth,
thanks for the compliment regarding skin texture and also for your observant comments regarding Imelda's facial expression. First off, I prefer the middle image of the 3 you posted. As far as the original image goes - I think the eyes not matching the mouth expression is the result of one of 2 things. I noticed in the posed shots that Imelda opens her eyes a little too wide, trying to make her eyes look larger (I would guess). I have photographed several friends who do this in all of their photographs, regardless of who is taking the shot. Even though it was a 'grab shot' in this instance after calling her name, Imelda most likely knew what I was doing and so still did the eye thing. Alternatively, she was a little nervous (I do not know Imelda at all, she is a friend of a friend) and this showed a little in other shots too. She arrived late to pick up my friend and go to the party and beeped her horn to say "come on, let's go". My friend dragged her inside and asked her to have some shots taken quickly. The original plan had been for them to have a few shots taken before going to the party. The whole thing was quite a rush.
It is always great to read your comments, Gareth, you generally look a little deeper into things than most. I guess this is a result of being an artist and a great one at that.
Best regards,Brian.
Brian said: Brian,
I've been playing around uisnd a combination od Paintshop Pro and Photo-PAINT X5 and now can't live without both. Now that i have a granddaughter and get phone images and all others having both works well. Th hue map is great in PSP but i stil need PP.
David Milisock said: Brian,
Hi David,
what are the main features you like to use in PSP which you prefer over, or don't find in PP? I have looked at each trial version of PSP in the last 5 years or so and it always seems to be packed with new features. A lot more than PP, sadly. However, I always end up just sticking with PP as I much prefer the layout, the speed at which I can do things and the more logical placement of features. I didn't like the layer palette in PSP (3 separate componentsfor one layer is such a space-waster compared to a single layer in PP or PS which still shows a thumbnail, title and clip mask icon). I also found the menu items less intuitive:there are 3 menu items which are normally covered by only 2 in other programs. I also found the controls in dialog boxes to be fiddly and the dialog box previews to be small and hard to use. For example, from memory, if you want to use an eyedropper to take a reading in say the Levels diaog - you cannot click on the image on the page to do so! You have to click on the relatively small preview window image and this is unacceptable for me. I also found if you select 'preview on image' (instead of only getting a small preview in the before and after window) the program was relatively slow. Having said all that PSP did have some great features such as a proper full screen Mesh Warp, a really good noise removal tool, lens correction tools, a proper healing brush and several others.
I guess it will vary from one person to the next. For what I need to do - I correct colour/brightness/contrast, manipulate body shapes (digital weight loss or relocation), smooth skin, add special effects from time to time, separate a subject from its background to then change the background, etc. I find PP is very fast to get the job done. I have found nothing better than PP's Cutout Lab for separating a subject from its bacground. PS's new masking tools are good, but not as good in most cases (even though they are very fast to use at times) and PSP's similar tool was not as accurate or featured when I tested it on the latest trial of the program. The tool that removes unwanted elements from an image was nowhere near as accurate as Alien Skin's Image Doctor plugin or PS's Content Aware Fill. Also, I find PP's tone curve tool to be fantastic and better than the competition.
What is the Hue Map feature you mentioned? I don't remember seeing that one.
Brian said:what are the main features you like to use in PSP
You may have guessed this but as you know color is something that I'm doodling with so the features I'm looking at first have to do with color. BTW color management in PSP X3 is application based because it's geared toward home users but you easily get IDENTICAL DISPLAY in Photo-PAINT X5 or older, PhotoShop 7 or later and PSP X3.
I don't want to bull$hit you PSP X3 is a $100 tool and as that a damn fine one but guys like you and me will need both PSP X3 and PP X5 and since one of my Christmas presents to the family is scanning some old family photos and framing a few but providing print sheets of many others having the TWO TOOLS has improved my satisfaction wit the end results. Some of the tools in PSP X3 are not real sophisticated in their appearance but they are geared toward simplistic use, but a user with a calibrated display can get some fine results, some not obtainable without PSP X3, some not obtainable without PP X5 and some not obtainable without having both.
Under the adjust menu
Color / channel mixer - fade correction (is real nice for old pics) and then red green blue
brightness contrast has many available sub menus the curves are not as sophisticated as PP.
Hue and saturation has colorize (?) hue saturation and lightness is nice, v ibrancy is a bit lacking as I believe you shouldhave that and saturation in the same dialog and the hue map is weird to ge tused to but with some exploration it becomes a quick fix for BAD SNAP SHOTS.
There are a tone of features and I mean a ton such as smooth skin, red eye removal (which I think works better than PP) digital noise removal. IMO for $100 it's a no brainer just get it.
maybe I need to revisit PSP again? It is a tough one for me in that I don't find anything lacking in PP for the things I do with images. On rare occasion I use PS for the Healing Brush and then immediately return to PP to keep working. If only they added a proper Healing Brush to PP (in addition to the current Retouch Tool which has other very useful purposes) then I work never need to leave PP. PS has some very sophisticated tools, but they are tools that I personally rarely ever use. Another good useful tool it does have is Auto Align Layers. That would also be a nice touch for PP.
Brian said:It is a tough one for me in that I don't find anything lacking in PP for the things I do with images
A good photographer wouldn't. PSP X3 has some nice features for BAD scans and bad photos I'll post some rough work.
Brian said:maybe I need to revisit PSP again?
http://www.graphictechnology.com/wedtest.pdf
This is a link to a PDF that contains two sets of captures compiled in CD all as sRGB.
Top row is PSD bottom row is PP, left to right is PP auto adjust, center original scan and right is PSD using under the adjust menu color/fade correction, which is far more flexible then PP's auto correct, a great tool. This was a quick 10 second correction test.
Please not that the texture in the PP display verses the PSP display. Some would argue that this is incorrect, I would state for a fact that the texture is there and is a serious issue that WOULD CAUSE A MORIE when printed. PP allows you to see this easily and correct it, between PP, PS and PSP the sharpness of display is best from PP then PS then PSP. Thi smakes press work in PSP X3 and issue since we are seeing texture issue show up a good deal of PS work today.
This is one of my arguments to point out that having both applications has great value.
David Milisock said:Top row is PSD
Sorry top row is PSP X3
I am a little confused with what is what. The top row is PSP and the bottom PP. The top left image is PSP's Fade Correction, the bottom left is PP's Auto Adjust. The centre images are the original scan, but what are the right hand side images?
Looking at the left hand side images - PSP's fade correction is clearly better than the Auto Adjust feature in PP. I must admit that I rarely ever use Auto Adjust in PP. I sometimes try it quickly, but most of the time end up hitting Ctrl+Z and manually adjusting things. By the way, the groom in that photo looks very familiar.
Left is PS right is PP. Top row is creen capture of PSP display and bottom row is screen capture of PP display