To Auto Enhance in iPhoto or not to?????

Hi, Will,

Of the two I like the one with Auto Enhance better. The model doesn't look much different, but the background, floor, etc. seem much more appropriate in level and chromaticity (read "natural").

Way cute model in any case.

Pose is nice. You know I would have liked a smile.

Best regards.

Doug

I wouldn't "auto" any post processing adjustment. The engineer who wrote the code for auto enhancement never saw your photo, nor did he understand your tastes and preferences.

Will,

First you seem to attract good looking models so you must be dong something right! I'm against global adjustments as a matter of principal. The editing is to improve the ranking of the various features in such a way as to succeed in conveying what your mind imagines or what the client wants.

In this case, the picture out of the camera works fine for me as it is. Auto adjustment has brought back detail in her clothes, (and beneath them, to some extent), that you might want to adjust with layers to your needs.

TTBOMR, I have never found the iPhoto enhancement to do anything for me. It's so easy to edit in Photoshop and use a mask for localizing the effect. I work so fast and it's done effectively and I don't have to accept changes that have nothing to do with my whims and fancy!

Still, one can now use various 3rd party filters, I believe Nik works for this, so there's no need for global "black box" enhancements.

However, if this happens to work for you, it has to be a time saver! At the very least, there should be sliders to control the degree of the effects. That's sorely missing here!

Asher

Hi, Will,

I wrote:

Doug Kerr said:

Of the two I like the one with Auto Enhance better. The model doesn't look much different, but the background, floor, etc. seem much more appropriate in level and chromaticity (read "natural").

Click to expand...

I realize know that I had the two examples confused. it is the one without Auto Enhance that I preferred.

I think my confusion stemmed in part from the fact that the pix were so large on the screen and from my overly quick look at your phrase "With Out" (not an excuse - just an explanation.)

My apologies for the error.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

I realize know that I had the two examples confused. it is the one without Auto Adjust that I preferred.

I think my confusion stemmed in part from the fact that the pix were so large on the screen and from my overly quick look at your phrase "With Out" (not an excuse - just an explanation.)

Click to expand...

That's interesting as an observation, Doug.

It brings up several important points. First to evaluate a picture on its own, one really needs to be able to see it in one glance so "get" the shapes, gestures and overall composition. Sometimes, our dear friend Charlotte has pictures that need to be scrolled to be seen completely. So the solution, as a start is a small enough version.

Next, to compare things, side by side viewing is necessary so the eyes can switch instantly and sense what feels different and then discover why. Looking at Will's pictures here, I was stunned right now to realize that the untreated first image was so much better. Just look at her face. She's bright, vibrant and alive. The auto-improved iPhoto picture that follows appears, by comparison, dull.

So the necessary setup is to have, (detail of interest), in the pictures side be side. In photoshop, we do it by layers. I constantly switch of the layer to see the original and then back again to my new version. We can't do that here, so side by side cutouts are needed to really appreciate even important difference such as in these pictures of a pretty girl.

It might be that the auto enhance is confused by anything other than pink caucasian skin!

Still, I would not trust my work to it!

Asher

Yes, I think I could have better dealt with the matter with a presentation like this:


Best regards,

Doug