Image manipulation - critique?

[groundloop]

I've been playing around with learning GIMP, and the other day took this photo:



[IMG][/IMG]




And turned it into this:



[IMG][/IMG]



Critique?

[NYC_SKP]

1. Better. More like a traditional film camera, more like the human eye.

The second show suggests a more shallow depth of field, which is how we see things.

I like the effect, it puts the emphasis on the subject.

[alfredo]

2. The kid is reacting to a ball coming in high.

[ljm2002]

3. Yes, your changes are good...

...it keeps the focus on the action. Two thumbs up here!

[FreeState]

4. Good job

I noticed you removed the object in the bottom right as well. Good call.

My only suggestions would be to not apply the blur right up to the subject. If you leave a few pixels clear (only a few or it will look like a halo if you leave too many between the blur and the subject) it will look cleaner and make the object pop a little more.

I'm not sure how the software works but if there is a way the shadows on his face are a
Little dark and I'd try and see if I could wt a little more detail in your whites (on his pants). It's easy to do with a raw file but I've never used that software (I use Aperature and Photoshop).

Great job!

[groundloop]

7. thanks for the suggestions.

My only suggestions would be to not apply the blur right up to the subject. If you leave a few pixels clear (only a few or it will look like a halo if you leave too many between the blur and the subject) it will look cleaner and make the object pop a little more.

The batter was on a layer all by himself, blur was applied to the layer behind the batter (and I had to clone out the edge of the batter on that layer so that his 'blur' wasn't visible). Are you saying on the layer that has the batter in it to adjust the layer mask so it goes a couple of pixels beyond the batter instead of ending right at the edge of his image?

I'm not sure how the software works but if there is a way the shadows on his face are a
Little dark and I'd try and see if I could wt a little more detail in your whites (on his pants). It's easy to do with a raw file but I've never used that software (I use Aperature and Photoshop).

I shoot raw and convert it using Canon's software (Digital Photo Pro), it does a very good job. I didn't really think about the shadows on his face, the light was very harsh with the sun's position. I suppose if I had thought about it ahead of time I could have 'developed' multiple images from the raw file and combined them to get a better exposure for both the face and pants.

i would have left the ball in the same place.

I was just playing around. That's my soon-to-be grandson (try and figure that out) and he got a good laugh out of the edited photo.

[FreeState]

9. Heres a better explanation:)

The batter was on a layer all by himself, blur was applied to the layer behind the batter (and I had to clone out the edge of the batter on that layer so that his 'blur' wasn't visible). Are you saying on the layer that has the batter in it to adjust the layer mask so it goes a couple of pixels beyond the batter instead of ending right at the edge of his image?

Kind of - now that I know how you were doing the blur I can explain a little better. The method you used (layer with the batter on top) works well - however when blurring the bottom layer your getting overflow in areas. Its more obvious when you zoom in.



Your blur is your image close up after the manipulation. You can see the red from the shirt overflowing from the blur. The middle is the original non edited image. The third one was done by leaving the original image on one layer and selecting 1px off the nature edge of the red and blurring the background in that selection. That way there is no red smudge.

Hopefully that helps with what I was trying to say

(I also like the ball moved and didn't notice until you said something)

[JohnnyRingo]

5. I say anything goes if it improves the image.

In this case you did a great job of minimizing background clutter that distracted from the subject. I like it a lot.

[rdking647]

6. my only suggestion

i would have left the ball in the same place. other than that the editing is great

[sir pball]

8. I like it overall, but it needs

A LOT more feathering on the depth-of-field simulation. It's extremely jarring and blatantly artificial to my eye the way it goes from sharp to full-soft in such a narrow band. If it were me, I'd start it around the level of his right knee with a smooth transition to 100% where you have it now.

Other than that, great job and keep it up!

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

10. I like the background faded

but moving the ball changes the picture. His reaction doesn't seem right. In the top photo the ball is near his head, his face reflects that. IN the bottom photo, the reaction seems out of place. I think it's a great picture either way, what with the frozen ball and I love baseball!