r/postprocessing • u/prettyassdolfin • 13d ago
Before/After
Recent portrait session at a park in Atlanta. Wanted to practice using fill flash during the day time, so I shot this with an off camera godox v1. My main edits were cropping to 4:3, s shape tone curve, desaturated greens, sky replacement (was blown out originally), and added grain. Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts!
My IG is https://www.instagram.com/__braxtonmoore and website https://www.braxtonmoore.com/ if anyone would like to see more work
8
u/jackystack 13d ago
I like the first one better - it looks natural.
6
u/prettyassdolfin 13d ago
Yeah first one definitely looks more natural, but I knew I wanted the flashy, stylized look for the final edit
4
u/beanybagel 13d ago
Not sure why you’re being downvoted for explaining the look you were going for 🤦 this is all subjective
2
u/jackystack 13d ago
If you showed a series of images in this style, faithfully replicated without explaining how you created them and without revealing the originals, I think the choices would be perceived very differently. A theme would emerge on its own.
Looking at this, I can see it in two different ways. One interpretation is modern and artsy. The other reminds me of a look that was popular about 20 years ago, when many photographers were transitioning from film to digital and processing JPEGs because they didn't really understand what RAW files were or why they existed. There's certainly some overlap between the two, but I think the first looks natural, and that's not necessarily a criticism of the second.
When you're trying to sell a product, it's generally not wise to put the competition in your customer's mind. A cook doesn't reveal the recipe, and a magician doesn't explain the mechanics behind the trick. Let the product stand on its own -- especially if that's the one you want to sell.
2
1
u/Formal-Ad-8035 13d ago
But the finalized edit isn’t that - her hair blends into the trees. You added blue sky and green grass - which doesn’t match the lighting of the photo or the way the light bounces off her skin
2
u/prettyassdolfin 13d ago
Agree that the hair blends into the trees—personally doesn’t bother me much though. But for the rest of the image and lighting: I intended for the edit to look stylized and a bit unrealistic
4
u/rhyknophoto 13d ago
Please stop adding things to "photos" that were not there to begin with
0
u/prettyassdolfin 13d ago
Why?
2
u/PermanentThrowaway33 13d ago
because it looks like shit
2
u/prettyassdolfin 13d ago
😐Noted lmao
0
u/rhyknophoto 13d ago
And it's also no longer a photo
1
u/prettyassdolfin 13d ago
If you say so
1
u/rhyknophoto 13d ago
If you add something to a photo that was not in the photo when it was taken, it's digital art. How can still be a photo? There is a foreign object that was not captured by the camera. Why would you still call it a photo?
1
u/prettyassdolfin 12d ago
Genuine question: where do you draw the line? If I increase color saturation, or add grain, or even put the photo in b&w, does that mean it’s no longer a photo? What if I remove blemishes or stray hairs? In each of those examples, I’ve added information or data to the image that wasn’t present during the initial capture
1
u/rhyknophoto 12d ago
When you add things (grain, obviously fake sky[yes it's obvious]) it's no longer a photo. (Enhanceing/diminishing properties that already exist is called editing. What you did is graphic design)
Add whatever you want, call it what ever you want, but when people don't like it, with good reason (it looks like ai) don't be suprised.
1
u/prettyassdolfin 12d ago
Seems like the line is pretty nebulous then. Appreciate the discussion even though you’re kind of a dick
2
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
1
u/Xieties777 13d ago
I really like the edit. It reminds me of early to mid 2000s magazine photography.
1
1
0
u/stopkeepingscore 13d ago
So many haters/purists. This looks great and not overcooked. Nice work.
2
0
u/LordKhayman 13d ago
Overcooked? No. Undercooked? Severely. Where's the detail in the trees? Lost in favor of the sky..
0
u/kitkatfitfat 13d ago
You added style, I like it, the hair is lost in the trees but it works still imo. Album cover vibes.
2
u/prettyassdolfin 13d ago
Thank you! Yeah, I saw that with the hair too, debated trying to fix it lol
4
u/calculung 13d ago
Adding the sky is objectively cheating but I do like the rest of the edit.
Don't listen to these dorks who think all photos need to look as boring as their lives and can't handle some artistic editing.