Emphasizing a subject

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by laurynbooth, Nov 12, 2020.

  1. It might have been helped by mist softening the background contrast.... but the slight halo around Ms Greco suggests otherwise.

    I suspect that a mask was made - possibly using high-contrast lith film - to burn in the figure/hold back the background. Or maybe the figure was carefully painted with a stronger developer. Who knows?

    Whatever, it's a masterpiece of printing.

    Easy as pie with PhotoShop, but a real challenge in 1947.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2020
  2. Except it doesn't in a literal translation.

    The root appears to be 'sesquipedal' - literally one-and-a-half footed. And presumably a feeble multi-lingual pun on liking 18 inch long words. Probably made up by some Victorian 'wit'.

    More like demi-wit.

    It loses a lot in the tedious and tortuous translation! It also kind of backfires on the sesquipedant that originated it.
     
  3. Tony Parsons

    Tony Parsons Norfolk and Good

    Aren't you being somewhat sesquipedantic ? (Emphasis on the 'quip') :);):D:D
     
  4. I could care beans about monocotyledons, but I'd rather hear from a student with questions in the classroom than one with all of the answers elsewhere.
     
    samstevens likes this.
  5. When working in color, there’s also using the color(s) of the subject and its relationship to other colors, tonalities, and degrees of vividness and mutedness effective means of emphasis.
     
  6. All the better to skirt Turnitin?
     
  7.  
  8. C0EAF1B4-4D30-4631-A7A4-5D9332399808.jpeg
     
    movingfinger likes this.
  9. Well one way is to think about what you want to emphasize, or where you would like the viewers eye to go. You can use dodging, burning, contrast etc. to do that. Digital or film, makes no difference. Digital programs have the same digital tools that use to get used in analogue photography, just a lot more of them. And that's just post processing. When taking a pic, you'd want to be aware of the lighting and what's in the frame etc. composing, all that. Its funny that you say its difficult to emphasize a subject in b/w. I don't think its more difficult, maybe even easier.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
    sjmurray likes this.
  10. thistles before after BW.jpg
    Neutral image of thistles as shot and with the subjects emphasized.
    Darkened, (Gaussian) blurred, and lowered contrast of background.
    Sharpened, lightened, and increased contrast of thistles.

    (P.S., a thistle is not a monocotyledon but a dicotyledon)
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
    rodeo_joe|1 likes this.
  11. Try doing that under the enlarger in a 20 second exposure and with a bit of card on a length of wire!

    Do four-leaf clovers start out as tetracotyledons?
    Tricotyledons?
     
  12. kendunton

    kendunton Edinburgh

    As usual, the last time the OP was seen was when they posted the question.
    Why do they bother asking if they are not going to join the discussion or look at the answers?

    But, it can be interesting to see the responses.
     
  13. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    That is incorrect on both accusations contained in the statement.

    Firstly it is not 'as usual' and secondly the OP 'was seen' on Wednesday, this week.

    Additionally, the OP responded to several posts up to and including Post #11.

    As one answer to your question as it was posed - erroneous accusations (see above) and terse comments, such as the one directly above, are likely not encouraging for a new member to 'join the discussion'.

    Moreover '[not] look[ing] at the answers' is yet another erroneous accusation - it is fact that the OP must have looked at answers up to and including Post #11, and speculation only that s/he has not read further.

    WW
     
  14. kendunton

    kendunton Edinburgh

    I stand chastised. I missed that in this particular case they posted a few likes.
    BTW, it is usual, no matter your rebutal.
    I stand by my statement that they don't normally join in the conversation and it hardly then matters if it is encouraging or not...
    Whatever.
    I see you selectively omitted my 'But, it can be interesting to see the responses'.
    Well played.
     
  15. I used to do a lot of black and white darkroom work back in my film era and can see wasting a lot of enlarging paper trying to do this. I think that ti would require a dodging tool with 5 separate black pieces that match each of the 5 thistle projections on the easel. If I tried to dodge one thistle at a time, the other thistles would end up being overexposed. Perhaps a glass plate with 5 blobs painted on? But then reflections from the glass might be a problem.

    From a Google search,

    "The three leaf clover (Trifolium repens) is a dicotyledonous plant.
    This applies to both the Three Leaf and "lucky" Four Leaf clover - which is a genetic mutation of the three leaf variety".
     
  16. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    It wasn't intended to be 'well played'.

    I agree that the responses are interesting.

    I assumed, considering that my replies were directed to specifically quoted, select individual statements, it was obvious I chose to not comment this particular statement.

    I further assumed, considering that I am/was at odds with all that I selected to comment upon, it was obvious that I was in concert with the responses being interesting.

    WW
     
  17. Tony Parsons

    Tony Parsons Norfolk and Good

    Recalling my own film processing and enlarging days, I seem to remember that printing dark, then selectively enhancing selected areas with very weak Farmer's Reducer could achieve this kind of result, with much trial and error.
     
    Glenn McCreery likes this.
  18. Cut your light intensity a stop and you have 40 seconds to move your dodging and/or burning tools. It just might take a couple of hours to figure out the moves to do it and a bunch of paper :).
     

Share This Page