Thanks, James. A bit of mixed light, but still a usable image I think. I agree, the X10's capabilities for me are really starting to show. Now if the OVF was a bit more "information rich" I'd be an even happier user.
. . . David
David, on my computer your first version looks much better..he just looks like a handsome outdoorsy guy with darker skin tones...whereas in this second version it looks as though he has an allergy around the highlights of his face..they're very pinkish/magenta looking to me. I'm on my MacBook Pro. I vote 100% for the first one and think it's a wonderfully happy natural portrait and a keeper.
My husband has an extremely ruddy complexion and sometimes I do desaturate or cut back on the vibrancy...but many times my color portraits of my husband are accurate but people who don't know him can't believe it.
has been desaturated and I've cut down on the vibrancy...where as in this one
I chose a much more extreme method...which I haven't decided upon yet... Just wanted to show these as an example of what I mean.
I think your first version looks great, David - he's very good looking, as well.
Thanks for all the input, folks. Greatly appreciated! Even suggestions for improvement on this forum come out well unlike other places found on da' internet. ;-)
BB - thanks for including the photos of your husband. They were very helpful. My older son has very dark skin. Sometimes it is a bit ruddy too. He is partially of Italian decent. Add that to the mixed incandescent light source and three large windows and it's tough one to get right.
I saw the reddish problem on the camera LCD right after I took the picture and remember thinking, oh, oh.
Thanks again to all.
. . . David