On Feb 25, 2010, at 7:58 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: "P. J. Alling" >> On 2/25/2010 1:16 PM, John Sessoms wrote: >>>> From: Steven Desjardins >>>>>> I'm submitting a picture for an SPCA charity event, i.e., if someone >>>>>> buys it the SPCA keeps the money. This will be a print. I'd like to >>>>>> hear some of your expert suggestions. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://chemistry.wlu.edu/~desjardins/ >>>> >>>> I would photoshop out the left-most catch-light, so that there is only > a >>>> single light in each eye. The double catch-light in the other eye is > >>>> joined together, so it appears as one light. >>>> >> Heck, it's a cat, they;re all a bit strange so it fits... > > Doesn't really matter what it's a photo of. > > It's just one of those things you do for a good print. Single catch-light in > each eye. If the double catch-light in the other eye had been separated just > a tiny bit more, the second light would have to go from that eye as well.
Nothing HAS to go. I've been seeing a lot of double catchlights in high end fashion photography lately. Thumb through an issue of Vogue. The photographer chooses the look. We're free to like it or dislike it, but there's no one right way. Paul > > Portraiture print competition rules for PPONC. > > The final exam for my retouching class was removing reflections from glasses > on an 8x10 glossy print; head shot. Had to be undetectable when viewed at > arms length. > > It's a lot easier to do in photoshop than it was having to do it on actual > prints. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
