DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

This is clearly you trolling Joeri, in response to my mentioning how little processing I *did do. I suspect it's because you're unable to create portraits in actual low-light conditions, so you presume I must be heavy-handed on processing said images??? I'll go grab the converted non-retouched version of this photo, soon as I can find it, just to show you and the other posters the fact that you're either a blind photographer, you're aggressively critiquing to troll, or you need to have your monitor calibrated/replaced. Or some other scenario I'm unsure of. In any event, please don't troll me in the fora. This is a place for civil exchanges of opinions, not lashing-out against others because you can't figure out how they do what they do with ease. Thank you.

I do not have the RAW datafile for that image; a virus ovwer the winter wiped most of my 2010-2012 images. However, I'll post a few samples below, converted just for you Joe, for the sake of clarifying my point. And here's a *huge tip: after years of working towards being able to create portraits in actual low light, I learnt that the less retouching you can do the better. So, saying the image above was "heavily post-processed" is ridiculously false. And anyone who creates portraits in actual low-light knows this. Anyhoo...

I started to attempt lowlight portraits on 2011, with my D90. Good solid cametra, but *not for that purpose as you can clearly see!!  (NOT RAW DATA)

   

In 2012, the year I created the lingerie-photo above which is in my 11x14, I fared a bit better   (Camera RAW Converts)

   

By 2013, I had things pretty well ironed-out and knew my limitations, so nowadays I very selectively create portraits at even the *worst of conditions if I absolutely need to. I aimed to see how dark was "too dark", and wasn't getting the shadow-detail I wanted (ISO 6400, 1/2-second exposure, D3):



Then, I threw fears of ISO speed in the garbage and tried an approach of High ISO and fast s/s followed by heavy-handed PP, and confirmed that PP+lowlight Portraits=Blech   (ISO 51,200, 1/160th, D4)



I settled on somewhere between the two. The image below is a RAW-convert.....



....from the session that created this image in my current portfolio. The settings may be viewed on the image on my site, by hovering your mouse over the "i" in the top-right corner of the image. I retouch far cleaner now, appx 14+ months later



I'm not a "Photoshop Photographer", Joe. In fact, I barely use PS at all! I use a different program to retouch, then use Photoshop for exactly 1-3 specific Photoshop-only tools/functions. Low-light portraits is about getting it as close as possible in-camera, and having a workflow appropriate for the lowlight vs brightly-lit images. Have a nice day.

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
BBM# 24C79149
DBImagery Toronto (Website)
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
   
“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

Oh crap, I suddenly remember again why I usually avoid these forums. A little short tempered eh?
Anyway, trying to be as polite as possible, there are overly harsh transitions between shadow and highlight, there is a lack of texture on her skin, her fingers are almost blended in with her leg, etc...
If you're happy with that and don't see anything wrong, good for you Dan (y), personal satisfaction with your own work is still one of the most important things. But to me, that specific low-light portrait seems nothing more than bumping the ISO in combination with an overly aggressive noise-remover (whether it be in PP or in-camera) that gives this typical look. A bunch of the pictures you posted in this post are way better on that aspect btw.
I'm not starting a discussion about any other aspects in this image, I'm not claiming I would do better in the same situation (I have no interest in shooting low-light anyway), I'm just expressing my opinion that there is something wrong with the processing on this one and was more than happy to elaborate what exactly in this post.
Your quote about barely doing any PP on it (bolded in your quoted post) conflicts with this one btw (6hours!?):

(High ISO so it could be done fast with a fairl quick s/s, if you wondered. ISO 8000, 6 Hours retouching, in my 11x14)

And this is all said in (imo) a very objective and mature manner, without throwing dirt, calling you possibly blind or clueless, or wanting to start a fight.
But since this is going way off-topic and I have no interest in having discussions like this in a public forum, feel free to PM me to talk further about this like adults.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
Yes, we've gone far beyond topic. You critiqued a 2 year old image I made 2 years after I began shooting. If you looked at the EXIF data for that image on by site, you'd find I did more than simply “bump ISO”. Raising ISO is only effective when used properly. There's no need for further discussion; you critiqued an image I made when I was still relatively new, in a forum-thread where I did not request it.

1.  You bristle way too easily.

2.  Photographs don’t come with a list of excuses.  Or at least, they ought not to.  If you looked at my port and saw my portrait of Boy George and said “Richard Avedon’s was much better” I would never in a thousand years respond with “yes but I’d only been shooting for two years” (which happens to be true).  All the evidence anyone EVER needs is right there in the image itself, everything else should be irrelevant.