Four Queens

As part of my ongoing project of adding keywords I come across stuff either hasn't been edited and I think should be edited, or has been edited and I think should be reedited (starting from the original scan). This one falls into that latter group.

 

First image is the original scan (I know it's old but so am I so it's ok) from the neg. Full version is 1602 x 658 pixels and measures 1.335" x 0.548" @ 1200PPI. I've resized to 100PPI and 800 pixels on the long side for posting.

 

 

 

 

This (in process version) exists as a layered psd measuring 1572 x 656 pixels @ 158PPI (edited to print at 9.949" x 4.152").

The layers stack from top to bottom is bushes and tree in the background, lionesses and grass in the foreground, and what is basically a partially edited copy of the original, two copies of the original, the original. (Yes, I know. It's a lot of layers. Shrug!)

Here of course it's been flattened and resized (like the other one) for posting. The only editing that's been done on it (other than resizing) has been done on the partially edited layer and consists of the basic brightness and contrast. No correction for noise, no sharpening, no fine tuning of any kind, etc. What I'm looking for are suggestions, comments, critiques, etc. regarding where do I go from here.

 

Ok. Right up front (looking at both together after posting)), it looks like cutting back on the saturation a little wouldn't hurt. Anything else?

That’s a cool photo—makes me glad I’m not a wildebeest.

I’ve also been wrestling with editing scans of old photos, and here are a few of the things I start with, usually in this order:

1. In Lightroom, I establish the full range of tones using the Whites and Blacks sliders, and then I use the Highlights and Shadows sliders to modify the contrast. I tend not to use the contrast slider if I can avoid it, and then only as a last step.
   
2. Then I work on color—this is the most difficult part. Old color negatives and transparencies have often drifted toward the blues, and I think that’s true of this image. I would try using the Temperature and Tint sliders to increase the yellows and play with the magentas--maybe more, maybe less. Since the color shift in old film isn’t necessarily uniform across values, you may need to go to the tone curves to fine-tune the results. It’s hard to match colors to a memory, particularly when the photo has by now become the memory. It’s often useful to pull up others’ images of similar subjects to get an idea of what the original colors are likely to have been.
   
3. I then work with the clarity, texture, and vibrance sliders for fine-tuning.
   
4. At this point I can start the more ordinary photo-editing work in LR or PS.
   

That’s a cool photo—makes me glad I’m not a wildebeest.

I’ve also been wrestling with editing scans of old photos, and here are a few of the things I start with, usually in this order:

1. In Lightroom, I establish the full range of tones using the Whites and Blacks sliders, and then I use the Highlights and Shadows sliders to modify the contrast. I tend not to use the contrast slider if I can avoid it, and then only as a last step.
   
2. Then I work on color—this is the most difficult part. Old color negatives and transparencies have often drifted toward the blues, and I think that’s true of this image. I would try using the Temperature and Tint sliders to increase the yellows and play with the magentas--maybe more, maybe less. Since the color shift in old film isn’t necessarily uniform across values, you may need to go to the tone curves to fine-tune the results. It’s hard to match colors to a memory, particularly when the photo has by now become the memory. It’s often useful to pull up others’ images of similar subjects to get an idea of what the original colors are likely to have been.
   
3. I then work with the clarity, texture, and vibrance sliders for fine-tuning.
   
4. At this point I can start the more ordinary photo-editing work in LR or PS.
   

LIGHTROOM!!!!!!! That's right. Didn't think of that. Recently started using it (that's why I'm adding keywords). Put the psd on hold for the time being, go back to the original in lightroom, start there and see what happens. Thank you!!!!.

LIGHTROOM!!!!!!!

...Is always my starting place. I can't add anything better than what Leslie has suggested.

Adjusting Levels is a good start, I also adj. color, contrast and slight sharpening. I use Photoshop.

That's a critique?

The OP's last sentence..."What I'm looking for are suggestions, comments, critiques, etc. regarding where do I go from here."

It’s one thing to ask for suggestions. Another to have the work done for you.

No one is going to do the work

Ray House did the work.

 

When I was clueless, I had folks guiding me who, thankfully, wouldn’t have considered doing the post processing for me. They were savvy enough to want to see where I took things and not to show me how they would do it. Leslie’s is a great example of that kind of wise critique, that explains tools available without trying to impose a vision on the particular use of those tools. This photo could be processed in an infinite amount of ways, from documentary to fantasy. I think it’s great to help Izzy learn to use the tools at his disposal and learn to hone an individual and personal vision. That comes not by showing him a finished product but stepping back and encouraging him to find the aesthetic approach that works for him.

 

Izzy’s first few photos, especially the ones taken through screens, show a marked personal point of view. He’s onto something that would only seem “clueless” to someone lacking just that kind of individual, creative, and different point of view.

Anyway, some things I notice about the photo are:

1. There's a nice shadowed area running horizontally that divides the photo into foreground and background, almost setting up the animals as if they were on a stage.
   
2. The tree trunk is a strong element, the only other "object" besides the animals, so there are lots of ways to work with that, some of which will call attention to it as an element, some of which won't.
   
3. There's an almost camouflage effect happening due to your perspective, the distance, and the textures and colors surrounding them. Again, that could be pronounced and lessened, depending on where you want to go.
   
4. Their stillness and pose is somewhat statuesque, something to keep in mind as you go forward.
   

Izzy. Your past submissions have had a consistently... that could suggest/support a vision. There has been an ethereal look & feel. Nice, different. I realize that it may be intent or due to technical factors.... age of negatives, processing factors etc. But to my eye it can work for you if that is what you chose to project. Instead of trying to sanitize the photo I would consider working with what many might consider technical limitations, shortcomings. And with that in mind maybe look back at your other photos and consider how this one could be pp to compliment those.

Because we’ve both been there, are capable of empathy and encouragement at the same time, and have experienced for ourselves the importance of not photographing to someone else’s type but instead developing a personal vision that, especially at first, might invite name-calling of cluelessness because it’s not yet refined and doesn’t suit the very average mentality that’s often expressed by some here.

Where’s ‘there’ Sam?

A beginner.

Look at Izzy’s opening post. It’s not about vision, it’s all about PP. He, or she, needs to understand it’s a crap wildlife photo and no amount of PP will save it.

In your hands, that’s likely true. This comment shows your own shortcomings, not Izzy’s.

Right. I don’t measure my progress or creativity by the location of exhibitions I have nor am I in the habit of backing up my critiques by recalling my resume. I simply let my words and photos speak for themselves.

 

Even your misinterpretations are very telling of your perspective and values.

What’s likely true?

That no amount of the type of PP work you’re limited to and you typically apply would work for this photo. A broader vision would be necessary. If you look at the photos inoneeye pointed to and you can’t envision this photo done in that mode, then your vision needs expanding.

Well! I certainly didn't expect so many replies, many of which where quite helpful (Leslie, Dave, Ray, Sam, Inoneeye) to name a few.

I found the negative (knew I had it someplace just didn't know where someplace was) and have decided to rescan it and see what happens.....Izzy

The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.

—Mark Twain

He was a pretty smart guy.