>>3183951>>3184103>Your edit is embarrassing and you're a self-absorbed prick btfo>your edit looks terrible - desaturated and faded is one thing but sickly purple grey skin is disgustingKek. Look at them side by side, put aside your prejudice and butthurt, and honestly say which one has the most natural look and tonality. Top row has pics 2, 4 and 6 normalized for levels for easier comparison, but keep in mind that bottom row is what they were satisfied with before submitting.
It's a damn miracle how good 1 looks, considering the source is a portrait of a person in a pretty deep shade against a sunny background that OP decided to expose for the sunny sky (and even then managed to underexpose it). Number 6 top (aka
>>3183944) maybe has some potential too if you fixed contrast and pulled down the red, but still in the original submission (which was the "best he could do") he somehow managed to wash out the sky while keeping the subject an underexposed mess.
