Attached Link: Gallery Image - "Tash"

I was rather bemused when one of my recent submissions attracted the comment:
"it is getting harder and harder to see the difference between photo and Poser"
as I knew the postwork on that image was decidedly minimal - saturation, curves and crop.

So I thought I'd knock up a quick comparison post. The attachment shows the image as it would've been from the camera if I'd shot it in JPEG - RAW processed in Canon Digital Photo Professional using the Standard Profile, everything left on the defaults.

The image I submitted to the gallery was processed in Lightroom, and can be seen below:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2123606

The rest of the workflow was the same for both images - Resize using Bicubic Sharper and add the borders, plus a simple Sharpen filter.

I guess the lesson here is just a reminder that 99% of the image is what was there when you shot it.

• Chris

Very difficult to choose between the 2.

I like both versions.

Um....there was no attachment when you posted, so you were choosing between two identical images ;o)

Well the one that you uploaded here in the form where you posted looks fantastic. I like the capture a lot.Outstanding post work.

Now I'm terribly confused, maybe you posted just after I added the attachment. The postworked version is mostly sepia. The original is full colour.

Anyhow, I can take a compliment, and so I shall ;o) Thanks mate.

Pleasure.I like the colored versiuon as well as the sepie.Postwork is outstanding in both.

I see no hint of poseresk rendering here...it is poser that must try very, very hard to be photorealistic.  Very nice photo.

I like this one very nice facial tones and the light plays off her hair and cheek very nicely. The post work on the one in the gallery makes her look a little washed out with loss of detail, IMHO.

the comment is just symptomatic of people who dont actually pay much attention to where they are (gallery-wise) or indeed the photo, but just fancy posting something for the sake of it...

Lightroom is a powerful tool - as is Photoshop.  Together they can do fantastic things :)

they should have gone to specsavers.....

Funnily enough, this photo was taken about 30 metres from a SpecSavers....

As to the blown highlights...well, yes, they're blown, quite intentionally, but I was aiming for "radiant glow" rather than "radioactive mutant". Perhaps I overshot a touch!

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my comment, that wasn't my intention. I just was saying which one I liked best, not that one was bad, just which one I preferred. So if I've said anything offensive I am sorry.

.

No, no, not offended at all, just airing my thought processes - tone is always hard to read in a forum, so it's my turn to apologise for worrying you ;o)

(That said, I'm amused no end by the "I like the postwork on both" style comments, since the whole point is that the colour image has no "creative" postwork at all, just a crop, resize, border and sharpen. The rest was just incredibly nice light)

What caught my attention was the lighting besides the fact it's a really nice shot.  Thank You for clearing that up for me.

I prefer the colour version. The sepia highlights her blown out face and lack of detail. I don't see anything 'poser' about either.

Interesting - I chose to do it that way intentionally, but it seems I'm the only one who liked the 30's film-star style I was aiming for. Incidentally, a better raw conversion reveals loads of highlight detail, I only posted that one to show how it would've looked straight from the camera. I do think you're right, though - she's asked for some prints to gift to her boyfriend and geographically remote family members, and those will be in colour.

the seeker 

the color is better than the other one. as all the experts have suggested that it highlights the details.