HeatherH

Better?

Feels like I'm missing something. Are my shadows off? Color temps?

Sorry about leaving this sit! I had gotten logged out, and didn't realize you had replied. I ended up "painting on some skin" for some of the odd lines reflecting on the glasses, and just did some basic levels work on his irises.

Well, I must've gone about resizing the right way, so that question is answered
Part two was what to do about the glare on the camera right lens?

Right. Sorry if that was unclear. I have them both as individual smart objects right now.
PS - I love that notifications pop up via my feed reader! I have FB closed (which I mention because of the old group), but email open, and got this right away

I'm thinking I'll copy each eye, make a smart object, and then resize/mask into place. But then what? Is it salvageable? TIA!

I know there's all kinds of clipping in this, but this edit is what my primary wedding photographer wants me to deliver. I've tried telling her that if I edit like that, it'll print bad. I don't print photos with this much clipping, so how bad are we talking here? When you view in PS and do the alt-click on the levels slider to assess clipping, is there a "safe" range? Like maybe it won't be terrible if the highlights are clipped to the extent they show red? Thanks for any clarification.

In the event that someone else asks:
I did the "auto"  photomerge selection, with blending off and "geometric distortion" correction on. That took care of most of it. Then I just played with the masks until things were lined up. I thought I was going to have to do some cloning, but I haven't at this point.

I do have that turned off
I should be clearer about the masks - you can still edit them, but PS has applied blending to the background images, so you can see evidence of stitching even if you play with the masks. It probably wouldn't be so obvious in a photo like this, but it stands out significantly in images with smooth gradients (sunsets over open water). I'll post once I finish the masking.

Sometimes I feel like I just need to ask here to get my brain to work :-/  I unchecked the "auto-blend" box, and checked the "correct geometric distortion" box. There are still some things I need to fix, but it's looking much better!

That's the same result I got. The foreground is good, but look at the alignment of the trees in the center. And PS applies some auto-blending (maybe I can turn that off??) so that I can't just play with the masks.

I'd love to stitch these into a pano, and I don't usually have too much trouble either getting PS to do it, or resorting to hand blending. But because I was standing on a bend in the path and shooting with a wide angle, there's quite a bit of distortion. PS does well with the foreground, but mangles the trees in the background. Any suggestions for where to start? I'm assuming I'll need to do some kind of transformation here, but I'm not sure where to drag the handles. TIA!

Obviously not the same photo, but the same dress   Thank you for the help!

Many thanks! I had tried to colorize with a hue/sat layer, but I thought this might be a job for the channel mixer. I'll post back when I've completed this. I was going to do the whole session if it wasn't too much masking, but I think I'll just do it for the ones I add to my portfolio.

That would be perfect I'm over here hoping it's not a lot of zoomed in masking

What's the best way to change the color of the dress to match his shirt better? I'm not particular about how it matches better, but this blue is not my fave :-/
I know there's clipping in her dress. It remains clipped, although only a little, even if I lower the blacks to 0 and increase the shadows to 100. TIA!

I'll leave the details out RE: raw processing, but it's at the limits (beyond on fill light) of your recommendations.

If this were your photo, would you process it separately for the sky, which is now very flat?

People tend to think of this place as a pocket of preserved time. The light behind me is an arc sodium yellow, and the one up ahead is a horribly green fluorescent. I am sure I am over-explaining - you know lights. The point is, you and I can see those lights for the colors they are, but tourists here see this place as a pristine wonder of history. It doesn't all have to go away, but I'd like to be able to tone down the green, and also not have the sky quite so radioactive blue The WB is at 2000k right now.

I have a client who has requested night images of this little fishing village, however the mixed lighting along this historic section is abysmal. Would you process a few different WB and mask those in, or try to do a universal WB and correct by other means? I could try to tone it down a bit and embrace a bit of the mixed light, but I don't want to leave it quite this garish

Okay, thanks!
*Goes off to sulk*

How about this part of the image?