Damien Symonds

Alternately, a Hue/Saturation layer at 0/+40/-20, set to Multiply mode.

To that end, I'm thinking maybe a Hue/Saturation layer, set to 0/+75/-50, and masked on where desired.

So now it has to be all about the darkening. Adding shadows to her where shadows should exist.

Told ya I think if you can just manufacture a few more blades of grass encroaching onto his shin, that'll be good enough.

Now add a Photo Filter layer (one of the warming filters) and clip it to her. She needs a bit more warmth.

Not at all. Exactly the right direction. Can't you see that the image you want to put her into has a lot of distinction to all the edges? That's the "cartoon" look you were talking about. Yes, changed the colours. But that's not necessary with yours, is it? Your subject already has the warm tones you'd expect when being lit by that lamp.

I urge you to take it down aggressively first, eg -20, then very slowly bring it back up, and stop where you think it looks most plausible. I think you'll stop lower than -6, to be honest.

There are a few different styles there. The piper one definitely is cartoon, but I'm not sure if that's what you actually want? Generally this is done with high pass filters. How is this?

Gosh, nice work. Looking at it again though, I think you need to go a little lower still with the Lightness slider on that Hue/Sat layer you made.

First, try these.

Yes, this, I think.

Yes, and this is very tricky.

By jove, I think we're close. Just burn a bit more shadow around him.

Excellent. Now add a Hue/Saturation layer above the boy layer, and clip it to the boy layer (Cmd Opt G). Then lower the Lightness slider just a little - I feel he's a tiny bit too bright for the photo just now.

Good, but darken in front of him a bit too. Again, look at the shadows around the others.

Right.

No, this is not a two-step process. Just mask the new background straight over the father.

No, those shadows are too distinct. Look at how big and soft the shadow are around the nearby feet.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's 0.32 megapixels. Less than half of a megapixel.

Any lab at all. Even a cheap suburban kiosk should print this ok. I'm flabbergasted that Bay messed this up.

Your file is excellent. Absolutely perfect. This is a lab problem, not yours. There is no reason on earth why this should have printed badly.

Did you read this one?

I'm so sorry for your loss. No it can't, sorry. It's WAY too small.

Not really, no, sorry. You'll be able to get away with it if you use a really light sky.

Can you please send me the exact jpeg file you sent to the lab for printing? https://www.hightail.com/u/BellePhotography Can you elaborate on this? You must NEVER sharpen during editing. Sharpening must only happen on the output file, after flattening and cropping/resizing.