Damien Symonds

Print size is completely irrelevant. All that's relevant is what you see on screen. And when pixels are so incredibly tiny that you can't even see them, it makes it darned hard to manipulate them.

This is so true. It's so nice to see somebody else saying it. Did you send Imagenomic the same two screenshots you've posted here?

Oh, this is really really really really really bad. Your image has your monitor's profile. Oh, phew, I see you've fixed it.

Yes ... somewhat ...

I really don't think you have anything to worry about. Your focus fell on the glitter beautifully, so when you sharpen for output (print or web) the glitter will jump out fantastically. Remember, never sharpen during editing. Only for output. May I have some links to other glitter photos you admire?

Please forgive my late reply. I took a rare day off to go to a concert yesterday.

Oh gee, you've got a much bigger problem than stretch marks. Please follow this link to fix it.

To address this question, can you go ahead and do your raw processing first, then post the photo again? By the way, sorry it's taken me so long to reply. Lara and I went to a concert yesterday.

Yes, the awful painstaking editing would drive you crazy.

You have to copy each layer I did.

The lady's face is clipped (blown out) like crazy. You'll need to open your raw file and start again. This will print badly. Please, I beg you: http://www.damiensymonds.net/bridge-30-day-challenge

Download the PSD

Ok, how would this be?

Gee, there are a few things weird about this. May I see the SOOR?

First, a Hue/Saturation layer and drag the Saturation slider all the way to the left. Then a Levels layer: 35/0.65/200

Like this?

Or this one http://www.damiensymonds.net/art_tsfb000.html

That's very common, and probably means it's correct. But until you get those prints from your pro lab, you can't know.

May I see a 100% crop of her face?

I fear our only chance at this will be to slightly blur the veil so its texture isn't visible. Could you live with that?

Oh gee, you must NEVER use that function!!!!! It's terribly flaky. Only use File>Scripts>Image Processor.

I guess I don't need to tell you this is a disaster. How many photos like this do you have to edit?

I hope so too. She seems a bit unreasonable to me. I still don't understand where you were seeing that option?

Please post the actual photo, not a screenshot. (Screenshots aren't colour-managed, you see.)

Download the PSD The first layer is self-explanatory - it's the one I used to clone and heal out the line down the left side. Even though this layer is first in the stack, it's actually the last thing I did. The second and third layers are this method. The fourth and fifth layers were to mimic the baseboard from the other side. The sixth layer is the all-important noise layer which must be used when adding gradients. The seventh layer is a chunk of carpet from the other photo you gave me, and the eighth layer was to darken that carpet a bit.