Fashion Show: Processed to Pop or Fizzle?!

[SandeeWig]

I have about 175-200 (but who's counting?!) photos that are decent from a fashion show fundraiser I photographed this past weekend. Originals are pretty underexposed, but surprisingly, DPP curves brightened them up nicely...or so I thought before I played with one in photoshop.

So, I'm bringing this example to you, along with my dilemma, for your expert opinions and advice. First, the processed comparables (please ignore motion blur in hand):

Exif: Canon XSi, 0.01 sec (1/100), f/2.8, 50 mm, 400 ISO, No flash
Spotlight on subject, with some overhead ceiling lights on behind me in back of gym.

Digital Photo Professional - RGB curves assist, increased brightness


Photoshop Version - Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Shadow/Highlight, Lab Levels, Sharpen/Dodge/Burn eyes & lips:


My questions:
Which do you like best? Why?
Does the PS one pop like a fashion show photo should? ...Come close?...or Haha, yea right!?
Does one seem to have more depth / is less "flat" looking?
What would you do differently in either of these programs to improve the results?
Suggestions on how I could process the batch faster than individually in photoshop?!

Okay, so now my dilemma: A friend of mine asked me to take the photos, and asked what I would charge for the 2-hr event; being an amateur and all, I suggested $25/hr + $25 for a CD of images, so $75; she came back w/ "the budget only allows for $50". So...okay, it's for a church fundraiser, whatever, I'm down.

I was thrilled, at first, when I got home and found DPP to process these babies (again, 200 +/-) with a click of a button or two. But, the more I stare at them, the flatter they look.

So, should I (would you?!) spend a week processing all these pics in photoshop to give her the absolutely best looking images I can, or should I just give her what's done and be done w/ it?

PS: Based on the ones she's seen (many of them on flickr here), she's quite happy with them. I just know they could be better.

Thanks for any and all input. Please critique away!

[wulf]

The first one has richer contrast (which is good); the second one probably has more natural skin tones (although that's a hard call without knowing the person in question).

I think the overall image would benefit from being sharper, having a narrower depth of field and also exploiting different angles to hide mundane aspects of the background. Using flash (or having the models in a brighter spotlight) would probably help with all that for future.

Some of that could be pulled back with post processing but it depends how much you're working for the money and how much for love / fun. Glancing at the other pictures, a lot of the other ones seem to have richer tones and thus give you a headstart but you still have hours of work ahead to thoroughly process them all.

I would suggest picking one or two of the best shots and giving them a nudge even further forward. Your friend is already happy with what she has seen; this will illustrate what could be achieved given a suitable budget which would allow for more post-processing time.

Wulf

[SandeeWig]

Thank you, Wulf. Your critique at least gave me a sense of "it wouldn't be horrible to give her these", and helped me see some positive in the first one. I agree, her skin tone looks a wee bit orange, which I can pull back in DPP. I don't, however, seem to get the best results sharpening images in that program, though. Maybe I need to play a little more with that.

Perhaps I'll spend some time tonight tweaking those I think need it most. Of course, I want to give her good results, but she's chomping at the bit, so to speak, for the images (as are the models). I've posted many of them on flickr, which should appease them until I can get the disk ready.

Am also thinking I need to sign/watermark these in some way, which will also require photoshop. Do you think that's a good idea?

[oldwolf]

The white balance looks off in both of the pictures. Both seem a bit on the yellow side? You can save "recipes" in DPP and have it applied to all of your pictures at once to change the white balance on all of them.

[SandeeWig]

Originally Posted by oldwolf

The white balance looks off in both of the pictures. Both seem a bit on the yellow side? You can save "recipes" in DPP and have it applied to all of your pictures at once to change the white balance on all of them.

Wow, now that you mention it, I see that as well. Good eye! Hadn't really played w/ the white balance too much; other presets made the images too blue, so I left it alone. I'll check that tonight and adjust it manually. Thanks so much!

[oldwolf]

No worries.

Did you try the tungsten white balance preset?

[SandeeWig]

Originally Posted by oldwolf

No worries.

Did you try the tungsten white balance preset?

I'm thinking yes (was a couple days ago now), I usually flip thru all the presets just to double check if I like any others better.

I do come off AWB from time to time, but inside is iffy. Though I shoot in RAW I could be a little more adventurous, but I tend to freak if they look wonky on my lcd!

[oldwolf]

lol

i never take mine off AWB and just worry about it later.

[wulf]

The challenge was probably that you had different lights with different "temperatures". There is a spotlight, what looks like a projected backdrop (another light source) and I am guessing some house lights, too. The result is like trying to take a picture with a balance of natural light and and incandescent bulb - what is lit by one will look wrong when you set the balance for the other.

If you are shooting in RAW, though, it shouldn't be so much of a problem as the camera should just be capturing the image from the sensor and not applying any processing, like white balancing.

Wulf

[SandeeWig]

Originally Posted by wulf

If you are shooting in RAW, though, it shouldn't be so much of a problem as the camera should just be capturing the image from the sensor and not applying any processing, like white balancing.

Wulf

Sorry to sound daft, but when you say, "it shouldn't be so much of a problem..." do you mean, to fix? or... what the camera captures is accurate regardless of the multiple light sources...or...

And you're right w/ the three different sources: spotlight, projector and two rows of house lights behind me (which they turned half of off halfway thru the show, which forced me to up the ISO to 800 )