The "Eyes" Have It
I wasn't quite shure where to place this upload but opted for the Critique forum as besides demonstrating a technique with modifying eyes, it will also provide and opportunity to say which shoot is preferred (the Before or the After).
My great-niece had taken a self-portrait which is shown below:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/8359753@N07/561142897/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1326/561142897_9c24bb5293.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Ember_fence" /></a>
I tried to remove the streak of light coming from between the fence boards and also adjust the position of the pupils using Photoshop to minimize the amout of "white" of her eyes that showed in the first shot. That example is provided below:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/8359753@N07/561142909/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1031/561142909_568be3d890.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Ember_fence_eyes copy_lids" /></a>
I also lowered the eye lids a bit. Comments/questions/discussion on the process? Which eye position do you prefer?
I like the first one, barring the discontinous line of light on the face. It's very nice.
The PSed photo shows a hint of squint, and I also prefer the "white" of the eyes in the first photo.
I have to agree here. I like the eyes in the first pic better. I have never used PS or have done anything like cloning & that stuff, but I can imagine it's quite a task. The second picture doesn't do her lip or chin any justice. You can still see that something was there. Oh yea, the reason I like the eyes in the first pic, is because it looks as if she is spying through the fence & it kind of makes you wonder what exactly is she looking at.
Originally Posted by underexposed
Very nice work on the eyes in the second picture. The line of sight alignment is off a hair, but I am amazed that you were able to make an adjustment of that magnitude without messing up the picture. If you had not told me about the adjustment, I don't think I would have noticed.
Despite your good work, I still like the first picture the best. A little cloning work on the light streak and the first photo would be a real winner.
I think I like the original better. I'm amazed at how well you did with moving the eyes, but I prefer the original expression. The eyes look very natural to me.
I think you need a little more work at cloning out the light because it seems to be a bit of a problem on the "after" picture, something doesn't look right about the chin. So yeah, I'll chime in with the rest of the group saying I like the first one better :)
Taking a page out of your book of critique: Thanks for sharing your work with us, and I'm sure it will all get even better as you experiment further.
If you can get your great-niece to sit for you while you do one of these, your accuracy will be nearer perfect. Or refer to a similar photo. Reference material is paramount. I can appreciate what this took in time and patience. Black and white can be a pain.
Like the first one best, thanks for sharing with us.
Very nice job on moving the eyes and getting most of that white line off. However, as the others have said, in the top photo you can tell she's looking AT something and that adds interest. In the second photo, she's not looking at anything - the eyes are defocused staring into space. And that's not flattering to the subject. Maybe a middle ground of removing the white line but leaving the eyes alone?
I don't know if it is just me,
but it seems that even though these two pictures were originally the same, in the original, it appears that there is a trace of a smile on her face (which i quite like), but in the second image, with the eyes moved, this has gone and the face is blank.
Has anyone else noticed that her mouth appears to have moved into a smile just a tiny fraction in the fist one......or its it just me?
It's an illusion I guess.
Originally Posted by stevesutt89