From a bad photo to a decent one!

[mitawa]

This is my first post in this section. Did some 'Photoshop'ing.
Here was the original photo -


And this is the final one-


What I did in photoshop was - (To be frank, don't remember exact chronology).

Cropped the image; used the combination of healing, spot healing & clone brush to remove many of the spots & marks. Used the adjustment layers in form of curves, color correction, saturation. Applied the median filter (about 25% opacity) to make skin look smooth (I prefer median over Gaussian). I had masked the eyes & eyebrows to save them from effect of this filter. Used the lighting effect to further highlight/create shadows. Used lighting effect separately on background to give effect of light coming from right and added a bit of motion blur to the background. Then used the dodge & burn tools especially on the nose & eyes. Dodged the highlights (white section) of the eyes. Burned (with only 5-6% exposure) a bit on skin of nose to correct excessive light on the nose. Used separate curve adjustments on T-shirt as it was looking too bright with no details. And this was the result.

Your comments would be welcome. Any suggestions? Any things I have overlooked? Overdone?

[tangerine]

To be honest, I really like the first one

[Photologyst]

Hi Mitawa:

The original photo is preferable to me as well. I like dramatic portraits. I blurred the background and the shirt. Cleaned up errant pixels, especially around eyes. Smoothed face just a bit. Sharpened eyes. Adjusted lighting, vibrance, saturation, cropped.

[mitawa]

Wow, and I thought the first one was bad one!
Thanks photologyst for giving a different perspective. I guess I need to develop my own perspective of looking at portraits. And that's where this forum will help me.
(But cannot help but admit that it's hard for me to dislike my own creation).

[Photologyst]

Originally Posted by mitawa

Wow, and I thought the first one was bad one!
Thanks photologyst for giving a different perspective. I guess I need to develop my own perspective of looking at portraits. And that's where this forum will help me.
(But cannot help but admit that it's hard for me to dislike my own creation).

OK, so analyze what you like about your creation and why.

Here is my reasoning for the version that I produced:

I decided to not airbrush the skin too much, because it would look to phony like those perfect movie star photos. This guy looked a bit rough around the edges to me, from a physical standpoint, e.g. pock marks, scraggly beard; I wanted to keep that quality. Even though his eyes are shadowed, I felt that those were the focal point and thus, emphasized them without any airbrushing to speak of; “mirrors of the soul” and all that. The shirt was a distraction because of the reflected light and the odd patterning at the collar. So, I blurred it.

[mitawa]

Thanks Photologyst for your analysis.
I guess I was going for that 'perfect movie star' look (and from that perspective my 'over-airbrushed' imaged had looked appealing to me). , which I now realize takes away the 'natural rough' look of the original portrait.
So preserving the original 'character' of the portrait should be my priority, right? Ok, I just learned an important lesson.
But sill few queries, answers of which would help me fine tune my approach-
1) Does my final creation look phony/unnatural to a person who has neither seen the original portrait nor the person in the portrait?
2) Similarly what would be reaction of a person who has not seen the original portrait; but has seen the person in portrait?
Thanks for prompt reply Photologyst.

[zona5101]

ain't nothing wrong with your second one. I like it a bit better, i like that it is slightly soft, i like the crop and offset positioning. What's important is which one YOU like!

[BigFuzzy]

Originally Posted by Photologyst

Hi Mitawa:

The original photo is preferable to me as well. I like dramatic portraits. I blurred the background and the shirt. Cleaned up errant pixels, especially around eyes. Smoothed face just a bit. Sharpened eyes. Adjusted lighting, vibrance, saturation, cropped.

Heya Photologyst.. should you have this image in your flickr account as if YOU took it? Did you get Mitawa's permission to add the photo to your stream?

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by BigFuzzy

Heya Photologyst.. should you have this image in your flickr account as if YOU took it? Did you get Mitawa's permission to add the photo to your stream?

Ah, I was just coming in to ask the same thing.

[Photologyst]

Originally Posted by mitawa

Thanks Photologyst for your analysis.
I guess I was going for that 'perfect movie star' look (and from that perspective my 'over-airbrushed' imaged had looked appealing to me). , which I now realize takes away the 'natural rough' look of the original portrait.
So preserving the original 'character' of the portrait should be my priority, right? Ok, I just learned an important lesson.

Not really, Mitawa. It’s all a matter of taste and artistic license.

Art is very subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. I am a painter and like the chiaroscuro (light and dark) technique. I think it adds drama and focus. It all depends on the artist’s intention as to what s/he wants to convey. That said, I am not fond of the overly airbrushed, plastic look of today’s photos, because no real human being looks like that. They take away individual character in my opinion. One can enhance, without making people look like plastic dolls. One of the problems with photos vs. paintings is that the latter often do not convey the soul or character of the subject. Of course, skilled photographers do that exactly. Have you looked at some of the work of famous portraitists like Annie Leibowitz? Annie Leibovitz - Photo Gallery | American Masters

Google her name to see more. She’s very versatile.

Originally Posted by mitawa

But sill few queries, answers of which would help me fine tune my approach-
1) Does my final creation look phony/unnatural to a person who has neither seen the original portrait nor the person in the portrait?
2) Similarly what would be reaction of a person who has not seen the original portrait; but has seen the person in portrait?
Thanks for prompt reply Photologyst.

IMHO it looks like a snap and not a portrait.

It depends, Mitawa. Some people prefer the super-airbrushed look, others don’t like it. Why not show your photo to the subject and see what he has to say? Show him several versions so that he can choose and you can consider why.

Good luck!