egos and fear of taking people shots of people i know!

[michaelwarren]

<p>Well, regardless of some of the nitty details, Tom's correction is still far superior to the original. If you are doing portraiture, you need to remember why you are doing it. Sometimes we take a photo that we love for one reason or another, but ultimately you are creating a product for someone else. its your responsibility to either give them a product they are satisfied with, or recommend them to someone who can. If you don't think you can, just be honest and say so. <br>

If you are going to take a photo, don't forget its not all about numbers. In fact, its not even all about the camera. A portrait is <em>always</em> either a make or break situation, based entirely upon your subject. (to include the background) If you are new or struggling, I recommend that you study paintings. The same thing that made Leonardo great with a brush, will make you great with a camera. <br>

Also, remember that a great number of people are uncomfortable in front of a lens. Cameras are alien to them. Most people look at a photo with just as much fear as needles. Take several photos. Like dozens of them. If you have a tripod, set up your shot, but stand up when you take the photo, so that they can see your face. Talk with them, joke with them. Get your subject to relax. Sometimes the issue has nothing to do with your settings, equipment, or post production. <br>

but if you want to talk settings, do what Marc said when this forum just started, and remember that warm, soft light is generally flattering</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, remember that a great number of people are uncomfortable in front of a lens. Cameras are alien to them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this era of camera phones and Facebook, I don't see this at all. </p>

[kevin_omura]

<p>That's interesting, I'm looking at the pix on my Mac at work and on a factory calibrated iMac which we will use for testing web production.</p>

<p>So on <em>my</em> calibrated monitor/system I might have done something like this.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.kevinomura.com/cameras/1minteenh.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>On my press calibrated Lacie your version is still looking blown out and this monitor is calibrated to newsprint and our Roland Mann printing plant so that is very unusual since it's biased to be a half stop on the dark side so that we are fooled into making things a bit brighter and more contrasty since we are reproducing on something just a bit better than toilet paper. I use Monaco Optix XR Pro calibration to our presses but calibration and what you are calibrated to can be contentious at best. I have a feeling this Colormunki device is the consumer version of our X-Rite based hardware so I can't say I've ever used it.</p>

<p>On the out of the box, Apple iMac 27" that is going up to the art department it still looks blown out as does one of our stock iPads..... I like to look at important pix on several screens both glossy and matte because there can be quite a perceived difference though in this case things look consistent.</p>

<p>Never heard of a hard drive causing that type of problem and I'm going to skip across some of your comments that I don't think are relative though you realize that this subject has probably got a fair bit of sun tan so if you are using some sort of numerical evaluation then it's going to be inaccurate. I also notice the teeth lack any highlight detail.</p>

<p>In any event as you said you went to far brightening and I highly agree, I think somewhere in between would have been a lot more pleasing. If you look at the total loss of shadow detail in the fabric to the top left area behind her head as well as the beginning of the loss of detail left side of her shirt and hand I'd say yes you did go too far.</p>

<p>Now I'm used to fixing pix so that they can be printed on newsprint so I'm a LOT more criticial when it comes to loosing shadow and highlight detail since it is greatly magnified once on press vs say magazine.... but even still just on the screen I find things too hot and too cyan.</p>

<p>In terms of the cyan cast I mention, I see it in the her shirt, since in the original she appears to have a white shirt with blue, green and red trim. At work we talk in terms of cmyk which is why I mentioned cyan and am puzzled as to your comment. Granted I was also trying to put this into layman's terms since I didn't think everyone on here has detailed press experience so did not want to get them so confused.</p>

<p>Your eyes are your best measuring tools btw I found that over years of working in the darkroom vs using the colour analyzers.</p>

<p>Now what is really interesing is the change between what I'm seeing in Photoshop vs the same file once it's been uploaded to the server and loaded onto this page about a 1/4 stop difference in brightness. To demonstrate what I'm seeing the pic at the top right is my version in Photoshop and the pic underneath is what I saw when I uploaded that exact photo and refreshed this page I'm writing... interesting....</p>

<p><img src="http://www.kevinomura.com/cameras/picture7.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>1) <em>"... this monitor is calibrated to newsprint and our Roland Mann printing plant so that is very unusual since it's biased to be a half stop on the dark side so that we are fooled into making things a bit brighter and more contrasty since we are reproducing on something just a bit better than toilet paper...."</em></p>

<p>Saying that the monitor is calibrated to your output device is certainly an unusual way of describing, or worse, actually performing color management. As I hope you know, the industry standard process is that each monitor is profiled totally independently of input and output devices so that it best displays the data contained in image files, no matter where they originated, and no matter where they are going to be sent. Then, once the image is tweaked to look good on the monitor, the tweaked data is then sent through a printer profile (ie, a look-up table or algorithm) to make the adjustments necessary to make the printer output approximate what you see on screen. The danger of taking your description literally is that your tweaked files will only look good on your own monitor and printer, but are not guaranteed to look good on any other device. Hopefully, you didn't really mean what you said, and were just being terse in your description.<br>

------------</p>

<p>2) <em>"...I have a feeling this Colormunki device is the consumer version of our X-Rite based hardware so I can't say I've ever used it..." </em>-<br>

You should have looked it up. Your Monaco Optix XR Pro was released in late October 2003 with a list price of $299 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6395-6475). The ColorMunki was released 5 years later in April 2008 (http://printing.it-enquirer.com/2008/04/20/colormunki-design-system/), is still being sold at B&H for ~$450. I've bought mine about 6 months after it was introduced. I also still have a $200 Spider sitting unused in the drawer because I was never all that impressed with the results from it.</p>

<p>In case you are interested, a description of the ColorMunki can be seen here:<br>

http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1115<br>

http://www.colormunki.com/product/show?is_designer_type=true<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550833-REG/X_Rite_CMUNPH_ColorMunki_Photo_Color_Management.html</p>

<p>Since you brought up the topic of pro vs consumer, let me summarize, my system is newer and more expensive than yours. Obviously, both have to be used correctly to derive any benefit from them.<br>

------------</p>

<p><em>3) "...Never heard of a hard drive causing that type of problem..." - </em></p>

<p>Please read carefully and slowly. I didn't say that a hard drive replacement caused any problem. I recalibrated at the time I was doing other maintenance to the system, simply because it was a convenient time to do so -- I wasn't in the middle of any big projects.<br>

-----------------</p>

<p>4) <em>"...In terms of the cyan cast I mention, I see it in the her shirt,..."</em> -</p>

<p>You are correct, her shirt did go cyan on me. The reason is that I didn't mask it off from the changes I applied to her face to minimize the ruddy / blotchy complexion in the OP's version. Since, IMHO, the big problem was the OP's portrayal of the woman's face, and changes in that was what I wanted to demonstrate in my 60 second tweak, I didn't give a hoot what happened to the background. Another factor is that this is obviously a candid taken in a location with uncontrolled / mixed lighting. Unless one is being paid to correct such a background and/or unless it really is annoying, I usually don't attempt to do much to correct such backgrounds.<br>

-----------</p>

<p>4) <em>"...If you look at the total loss of shadow detail in the fabric to the top left area behind her head as well as the beginning of the loss of detail left side of her shirt..."</em> -</p>

<p>Good eye. Towards the very end of my 60 second tweak, quirks in the background brought out by fixing her face were starting to annoy me, so I quickly ran the blur tool around those areas to try to make them a bit less obnoxious and keep the viewer's attention focused on her face, but without spending a lot of time separately tweaking those areas. The loss of detail in those areas has essentially nothing to do with any tone and color adjustments as you implied, just a the result of quick pass or two with the good old blur brush .<br>

-------------</p>

<p>5) <em>"...Now what is really interesing (sic) is the change between what I'm seeing in Photoshop vs the same file once it's been uploaded to the server and loaded onto this page about a 1/4 stop difference in brightness..."</em> -</p>

<p>It is interesting, and I don't know what is going on with that. I don't see any such effect on my system. Maybe it has something to do with embedded profiles or something similar. On the computer I'm writing this from, all I can determine is that all of the versions posted thusfar fortunately are in sRGB.<br>

--------------</p>

<p>6)<em> </em> "...So on <em>my</em> calibrated monitor/system I might have done something like this...." -<br>

<em>"...In any event as you said you went to far brightening and I highly agree, I think somewhere in between would have been a lot more pleasing..."</em> -</p>

<p>We can certainly agree on that, and that's why I said so right in my 1st post in this thread. ;-). The average tonality of your tweak is something we can both agree on, but you didn't do anything to minimize the lobster and leather look, the blemishes or wrinkles -- you just made them brighter. Helping the poor gal out with these aspects of the OP's image was the main thing I wanted to point out, because any woman I know would object to the emphasis on them in the OP's version. If she was the subject of a documentary newspaper article, maybe they could stay, but if I was photographing her as a friend, I wouldn't let her see the OP's version. In fact, I wouldn't let her see mine, either ;-). There are lots of other problems with mine that we haven't even discussed, and that's why I usually spend more than 60 seconds on serious retouching work.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

[kevin_omura]

<p>"Saying that the monitor is calibrated to your output device is certainly an unusual way of describing, or worse, actually performing color management. As I hope you know, the industry standard process is that each monitor is profiled totally independently of input and output devices so that it best displays the data contained in image files, no matter where they originated, and no matter where they are going to be sent. Then, once the image is tweaked to look good on the monitor, the tweaked data is then sent through a printer profile (ie, a look-up table or algorithm) to make the adjustments necessary to make the printer output approximate what you see on screen. The danger of taking your description literally is that your tweaked files will only look good on your own monitor and printer, but are not guaranteed to look good on any other device. Hopefully, you didn't really mean what you said, and were just being terse in your description."</p>

<p>I made mention of this mainly because I know that this monitor is set up to be biased on the dark side so that our artists and photographers work will produce better results on our presses. And that was because even on a monitor that we have purposely calibrated to the dark side your version of the photo is still looking blown away.</p>

<p>Sorry I'm in a hurry today, have a lot of meetings and we are doing a move of my department so I'm swamped. But will address your comment about skin tone. One of the things with having to retouch other photographers work and not having any guidelines since our photojournalists don't give us such things as colour charts mean we have to evaluate by eye what is going in the photo. </p>

<p>I'm sorry for tearing into your enhancement even though you prefaced it by saying it was too bright but also that it was from a 'calibrated' monitor and hence my question since I wouldn't have thought that you would make such a blown away enhancement from a monitor that should have been showing your a very accurate account of what it was you were looking at. And that to me is misleading other viewers into thinking that your version is a much better version which in my opinion is not. </p>

<p>Anyhow to skip really fast to the skin tones, as I mentioned if you looked closely you would realize that she most likely has fairly dark skin tones and looks to have the makings of a sun burn on her chest therefore making her bleached white isn't really a very accurate portrayal of her skin tone is it? </p>

<p>Seems to me that we are both starting to arrive at the same point in terms of the discussion of your enhancement. I'm going for accuracy so that is why I would make her look the way I did. You were trying to help her out, I think..... though that wasn't the initial impression I had and why I was having a lot of trouble figuring out why you thought your version was better than the original which was mainly too dark. At work when we are stumped with something and our photographers had a habit of really pushing this to the extreme we always got a second or third pair of eyeballs on our enhancements to see if we were going the right way. I showed your pic to 2 other electronic imaging technicians (aka photoshop monkeys) and both took one look and said too cyan and too blown away.</p>

<p>Yeah I realize you said you only took a minute to do your version. I took about 2 which was basically to grab the highlights, feather, inverse and run a curve. Do a fast slight burn on the hand and that was it. IMHO photo enhancement is a fine art, just as working in the darkroom was. I try hard not to make the final results look like they have been messed with and perhaps that is why I red flagged what you said initially.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Kevin, you did a very nice job on this. You've nicely preserved the "reality" and naturalness of her skin depth and texture while adding the necessary life that a good exposure would have accomplished to begin with. You've handled the strong highlight on her forehead well. You haven't scrubbed away the density and depth of her skin texture. Well done.</p>

<p>The photographer himself was pleased with the shot which likely means that his subject was pleased as well. My guess is she is happy with the way her face actually looks in real life and is not pretending to be a fashion model. Making the assumption that a ruddy, imperfect complexion is something that needs fixing in a casual picture like this is a mistake, IMO. There is much more room for latitude here than there is in a fashion magazine and no necessity to airbrush everyone to an almost faceless train wreck. I've done enough portraits to know that some people's skin is leathery, some a little bumpy, some ruddy, some quite pale, etc. There's something to be worked with in all those kinds of surfaces and a genuine person to portray behind the surface as well.</p>

<p>While I may try to flatter certain of my subjects (more often it's more a matter of avoiding being unflattering) with the kind of lighting I use and the distance from which I shoot, I never try to wash away what's there unless I'm going for a particular kind of stylization, which the photographer here was obviously not doing. The best thing I can do if someone's skin seems "problematic" either to them or to me is to control my lighting or to step back and do a flattering environmental portrait.</p>

<p>In the current case, I think there's a big difference between "correcting" the photograph and "correcting" the skin. The former seems much more a given than the latter and much more doable. Take out some yellow and adjust the levels without making the highlight on her forehead scream or her teeth be unnaturally white. I think Kevin accomplished this successfully. My guess is that this looks quite nicely like the person herself. It also shows off her smile and ease.</p>

[mark_poseley]

<p>Fred G nailed it.</p>

<p>I had a discussion with her about the perceived imperfections noted by some folks up-thread, and she soundly dismissed them. ;) She is comfortable with herself and is a charming and engaging person! I think this quality shows quite well in the photo as it is.</p>

<p>While I appreciate all the help and I think Kevin did a fine job with his edits she looks exactly like the original shot, and she was very pleased with the photo.</p>

<p>And I do run a calibrated system just so's ya know... ;-)</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Good comments, Kevin and Fred. Thank you.</p>

<p>I especially appreciated Fred's distinction between "correcting the photo" and "correcting the skin". </p>

<p>It turns out that we have a good family friend who could almost be a twin sister of the woman in the OP's photo in terms of age, facial features, body shape and complexion. Our friend even wears white embroidered tops like "interesting woman". Our friend has loved the sun all of her life, always vacationed in the warmest, sunniest locations (the nearer the equator the better), and unfortunately, now has a very serious skin problem. I have taken quite a few photos of her, and she always asks me, <em>"don't forget to do whatever you do to make my skin look better"</em>. </p>

<p>This was what was going through my mind when I made my impassioned initial comments about not offending "interesting woman". Our friend is not at all comfortable with what the sun has done to her, and I know that she would be devastated if I ever let out an image of her without PP work on her skin. I obviously don't know "interesting woman's" level of comfort with her complexion, but I was very concerned that she would react the way I know our friend would and be upset. That's the reason for my strong comments and my initial tweak which was meant to show what could be done to reduce the mottled appearance. I didn't give a hoot about what happened to the background, the general brightness level or anything else, only her skin. Obviously, that demo didn't come across the way I intended.</p>

<p>So, in spite of not wanting to spend much time on this photo, I decided to work on it to remove some of the other factors which were confusing the point I was trying to get across in my 1st tweaked version. This latest tweak took me about 15 minutes (instead of 1 minute) and is very close to what I usually do for my friend. Obviously, this is not a documentary, tell-it-like-it-is photo, but a fairly heavily manipulated snapshot. It would be utterly trivial for me to have done more, but I try to retain some level of realism. I know that even this level of manipulation may be too much for some people and some uses, but I can tell you that our friend (and women that I photograph professionally for my employer for their glossy high quality brochures) love this level of treatment and regularly request even more. </p>

<p>So, attached immediately below is my 2nd Tweak of this photo.</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>And, for immediate comparison, here's Kevin's tweak to which got a similar level of brightness and color, but without "skin correction".</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>PS - Mark, I would be very, very interested to hear what your friend says if you show her my latest tweak and Kevin's -- not in the abstract, but the actual images, on a decent monitor.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>And, to keep everything in one place in the thread for easy comparison, here's the original version posted by Mark P...</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>While some subjects might find Tom's work-up flattering, others will naturally be mortified by it. If anyone did that much work on my face (and, believe me, many fashion stylists might demand it!) I would assume they found the real me unattractive or unsightly or at least not fitting their matrix for good marketing. It would bother me considerably that they thought they needed to change my appearance to such an extent in order to make the photo work or somehow to please me or other viewers. Such a projection on the part of a non-commercial photographer, especially a friend, would not please me in the least -- it would make me very self-conscious -- nor would I think it a good portrait because it wouldn't capture what I look like.</p>

<p>Now, clearly, opinions on such work and reactions to it will vary. So it's still worth looking at the work itself. It's as if the face in Tom's version now has a matte texture while the rest of the photo is glossy. Note the way the skin on her hand looks, particularly the depth, glow, and radiance with which the highlights are reflected compared to the way her face is now flat and without the same kind of luster. (Actually, the original, because it's a bit underexposed, is a bit off as well with regard to reflective light. Kevin's rework restores a more harmonious reflective life to the face.) Even the background has that smooth, glossy-finished feel to it, the table, the bottle, etc. So her face, in Tom's version, really stands out as having a completely different kind of life than everything else in the photo and it just screams "worked on" to me. That simply doesn't wind up being flattering and just feels inorganic. (Of course, some of the difference is that the face is in focus and everything else is not, but if you look at Kevin's version, despite the difference in focus, there is an organic quality to the texture of the surfaces of everything including her facial skin which has been lost, IMO, in Tom's reworking.)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>BTW, I'd still take a little more yellow out of Kevin's version. And if one wanted to "correct" the skin some, especially if requested by the woman involved, I think a much more nuanced touch (which might mean quite a bit more time spent doing it) could present a more "commercially-appealing" or even idealized rendition without losing a sense of this woman's actual face.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>As usual, Fred, good comments, especially about the possibility that a non-professional model would perceive any significant retouching as pointing out their "flaws". I can certainly see this happening with some individuals, but, I must say that in the many photos that I have retouched in this (or similar) ways, I have never once gotten this reaction. Rather, the reaction is usually along the lines of, "Wow ... you made me look so nice!". Most non-photographer subjects think it has something to do with the camera or the lighting, are happy, and simply don't think about it any more deeply. When I am shooting for the glossy brochures put out by my employer, they love that their employees and customers are all bright and chirpy and seemingly have few flaws. One can argue the appropriateness of this POV, but they pay the bills. Currently, I have about 100 images in print in various of their brochures, each with a run of around 5000 - 10000 copies.</p>

<p>Fred, I particularly liked your comments on matte vs reflective texture. I will keep that in mind in the future. </p>

<p>FWIW, one option is always to blend back in some of the original. I didn't do any of this, but doing so might provide a nice compromise.</p>

<p>Gotta run.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Tom, I'm not surprised to hear of the reactions you get. Someone saying that you made them look nice is different, however, from the way they eventually come to think and feel about themselves, which may be a much more insidious problem. We are given all kinds of bad messages by advertisers, Hollywood, fashion designers, etc. Women have unrealistic expectations of their body types and faces because they are constantly confronted with magazine ads and movie portrayals of thinness and airbrushed unreality. Sure, they may like it when it's done to them. But what about the bigger picture and the long run. The women that are pleased by a photographer's slight of hand eventually look in the mirror and, on a deeper level, slowly become disappointed with what they see relative to what they've been shown in the photograph. This is consistent with plastic surgeons doing such a booming business and with anorexia and bulimia being such problems. I think it's very debatable whether the "you made me look good" reaction (which may be very honest at the time) actually translates into people ultimately feeling better or worse about themselves. On some level, they know it's NOT what they look like and I imagine in the long run that has a negative effect on how they and society as a whole really see and view themselves and others.</p>

<p>Getting back to the OP, as a people photographer myself, I feel a responsibility to lead as much as to follow. I am trying (though not in a commercial venue, so it's entirely different from someone who is trying to make a living and someone trying to please either an editor or a client) to make visible the very real individuals I come into contact with and find the "beauty," character, and interest that's there rather than manufacture it. That's not to say I don't do some heavy manufacturing in my photos, which is often my own creative statement. But I have rarely found myself trying to "prettify" anyone. Instead, I appreciate individuality and supposed flaws for their character, expression, and uniqueness. Many of my photos are made with a desire to lead both my subjects and viewers to looking in that way, rather than looking for what Hollywood or Madison Avenue has told them is to be expected or desired.</p>

<p>I'm not saying anyone else should work this way. I'm just offering this as one man's answer to the OP's dilemma. Can you lead subjects and viewers, photographically, to an appreciative vision of themselves as they are rather than giving into their or someone else's demand that you make them something they're not? To me, that's a challenge well worth thinking about. Don't make it their responsibility to see themselves realistically. Make it your own responsibility to show them something genuine and perhaps even new which they can appreciate.</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>Fred G:<br>

"If anyone did that much work on my face (and, believe me, many fashion stylists might demand it!) I would assume they found the real me unattractive or unsightly or at least not fitting their matrix for good marketing."<br>

Eminently good point! However, some folks simply cannot accept their looks...<br>

as for:<br>

"...without making the highlight on her forehead scream or her teeth be unnaturally white."<br>

most media personalities/tv anchors are beyond air-brushed...check out the cnn guy farid zakaria's teeth!</p>

[kevin_omura]

<p>Interesting, I'm not going to read any comments because I don't want them to colour my inital thoughts on Tom's new enhancement.</p>

<p>I would say cold and flat in terms of lacking contrast in the face. Sort of what I might expect from too much pancake on a film set. Exposure is good but it's just lacking something. I think she is a hint on the cyan/blue side. But something's off, maybe it's the sharpening too? I do notice that in my version could have used a touch when I look at your version.</p>

<p>The more I look the more I feel you seem to want to wander towards to cold side in terms of your photos could it be the way your monitor is calibrated? Sorry couldn't resist....</p>

<p>Ok I'm now going to read the comments...</p>

<p>Tom, and this is interesting as it swings back to the OP and their 'fear' of taking shots of people they know. In your case you are imposing your experience with your friend and that's fine but I guess my comment would be should you apply that model to this or all situations?</p>

<p>I might need to preface my experience a bit first in terms of working with people and with other photographers and their work because what you did is perfectly natural and something I've dealt with for the past 21 years at the newspaper I work at. Everyone has a style and likes and dislikes, thing is most are not the same so it's tough to apply one way or technique to everyone. For example back when we had a darkroom I would print certain photographers work a certain way because that was their style. When I photograph people I apply my own style to the work, in my case I have problems with over processing and that probably goes back to my darkroom days when it was very important for me to make a perfect exposure so I would limit the amount of post processing work I would have to do in the darkroom. Hey wait a sec it might be laziness. No I think it's mainly that I'm not much for fiddling with photos. I think I'd have been happy shooting with a Banquet camera and contact printing the 7" x 17" negatives.</p>

<p>In your case if that is your style, then that's your style.</p>

<p>Skip to today where we can literally pull apart an image in Photoshop (sorry going off topic but I think it's an important point) and the intricate amount of post work you can do to a photo to the point it is unrecognizable from the original. I find that new photographers have a tendency to zero in the minute details and miss the big picture while old darkroom folks tend to go for the overview and then zero in. I think zeroing in on the minute and missing the big picture causes problems down the road since you really want to get the entire photo into the ballpark and then pick at it otherwise the photo takes on a look that screams photoshopped and perhaps that is the thing I can't quite put my finger on with your newest version. It is worlds better than the old but the skin tones are still not working for me.</p>

<p>In terms of my version, Fred you are right it's too yellow. It's a lot more obvious now compared to Tom's version but I think we still need to meet somewhere in the middle. </p>

<p>Mark, sorry we're dissecting your photo. The more I look at it the more I really like it as you have nicely captured her essence it's the eyes and smile and even the hand gesture and it works marvelously because I get a really good impression of how wonderful her personality is and that is and always has been the trick to photographing people!</p>

<p>Ok now the devilish side kicks in, my work appears in about a quarter million to over half a million copies of the paper every day. Just felt like adding that for some weird reason. 8^P</p>

<p>But the thing is I find I'm learning something new every day, especially these days with the electronics and vs the old school ways of doing things which is where I started it would take me half an hour to transmit a colour project over analog phone lines where as now I can upload a bigger file in a second or two. Being a street photographer I'm more inclined to try and keep things as 'real' or natural as I can though I can fully see why commercial photographers have to do what they do. Just a matter of what works for you I guess.</p>

<p>Btw going off topic even further, Kai W did an nteresting series of videos called the Cheap Camera Challenge with 5 pro HK photographers, isn't always about the gear. Here's the link,

</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>kevin, thanks for your detailed and enlightening input!</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>kevin, (serious digression alert!)....i went on your website. really interesting...would have stayed much longer had it not been for the user-unfriendly pitch black background with stark white letters...very hard and sometimes impossible to read!</p>

[kevin_omura]

<p>I know, I did that site back in the 90's and haven't touched it since then. I actually need to replace the antique server it's running on and redo the look. Back when I wrote the pages we were just getting high speed internet with many people on dialup so the microscopic photos. </p>

<p>Yes the white text on black is brutal to read! I think I went with the black background more for the pix. But the entire site broke a year or so ago when browsers stopped supporting the file format I was using. But yes needs to be totally overhauled and updated!</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Fred, Kevin - Sorry I couldn't get back to this discussion until now.</p>

<p>Fred, your last post was a profound and moving comment on retouching, self-perception, dealing with the realities of shooting for yourself vs producing images which meet the requirements set by your editor/organization. I'm very impressed with how much you covered in that one post.</p>

<p>I don't disagree with anything you said or the photographic goals you suggested , but I am torn between the instant approval a photographer often receives if you retouch your subjects, and the long term psychological problems doing might cause. When I shoot for my employer, I have very little say in the matter. If I submit images that don't have pimples removed, rosacea minimized, under-eye bags softened, etc. those images simply won't be accepted for our brochures and pamphlets. When I shoot for myself or friends, I try to walk a fine line, but always try to abide by the "do no harm" principle, and I try to strongly take into account any preferences my subject may have expressed about retouching. </p>

<p>In the case of "interesting face", as I said, I don't know the woman, and I certainly don't know what she would really like to see in a photo of herself, but I felt that the version first posted was just needlessly unflattering. When asked by her photographer friend, she might say that she's OK with it. That may be absolutely true, but what else can she say in such a situation and save face in front of her acquaintance? Unless the two of them are very close, I think it's unlikely she's going to say, "I hate the way I look, so please help", and certainly not do so in a way that could get re-broadcast to a public forum. I think a compromise between doing nothing except fixing the exposure and my Tweak #2 overkill is probably the best approach for a situation like this. </p>

<p>@Kevin -</p>

<p>Thank you also for your comments. Let me try to respond to a few of them. With respect to your comment, <em>"...you seem to want to wander towards to cold side..."</em>, you are absolutely right, and I am aware that I have had this tendency for most of my life. You might be amused if you knew that a couple of weeks ago, long before this thread, I gave serious thought to starting a thread with a title something like, "Am I the only guy who doesn't love the golden hour?" ;-) For whatever reasons, I do like cooler images.</p>

<p>re: <em>"... have a tendency to zero in the minute details and miss the big picture while old darkroom folks tend to go for the overview and then zero in..."</em> - I am also guilty as charged on this, and know it. What I find is that to avoid this, I need to run off a print instead of relying completely on my monitor to optimize an image. I hadn't done this before I posted either of my previous tweaks of this image, but once I printed the 2nd tweak, I can see that I inadvertently reduced large scale contrast (ie, shadow and light areas) in my attempt to minimize the weathered and sun burnt texture of her skin (ie, mid-scale local contrast) ... put differently, her face became flattened.</p>

<p>For the moment, let's put aside issues of whether it is desirable or not to reduce the weathered and sun-burnt look, and assume that we are operating under "orders" to do so. In response, I produced two more versions. The one attached to this post (aka, TJM Tweak #3) is simply re-blending in some of the original (albeit lightened a bit) with my "Tweak #2", while the version attached to the next post (aka, Tweak #4) was done by a completely different method. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on these.</p>

<p>Along the same lines, I would love to see how you, Kevin, would respond if you were given the above request to minimize the weathered and sun-burnt look, but didn't want to go overboard. Would you indeed say that the one tweak that you already posted is the most retouching you would do?</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>.</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Oh, BTW, FWIW, the re-blend version was not just using the "normal" blend mode. I separately adjusted the blends for the hue, saturation and luminosity, including some blend-if tweaks.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[kevin_omura]

<p><em>For the moment, let's put aside issues of whether it is desirable or not to reduce the weathered and sun-burnt look, and assume that we are operating under "orders" to do so. In response, I produced two more versions. The one attached to this post (aka, TJM Tweak #3) is simply re-blending in some of the original (albeit lightened a bit) with my "Tweak #2", while the version attached to the next post (aka, Tweak #4) was done by a completely different method. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on these.</em><br>

<em>Along the same lines, I would love to see how you, Kevin, would respond if you were given the above request to minimize the weathered and sun-burnt look, but didn't want to go overboard. Would you indeed say that the one tweak that you already posted is the most retouching you would do?</em></p>

<p>That's always a problem if you are working for someone else.... is the customer <em>always</em> right or sometimes faking it because they don't want to let on that they don't know? Just a funny feeling based on experience but the bottom line is I guess it depends on a lot of other factors. Am I specifically hired because of my expertise and therefore is my final call going to be the one that matters. Not sure if that made sense but I'm applying it to the situation at work in terms of the darkroom techs (job that no longer exists) or the electronic imaging techs (also a job that no longer exists after last year) who's mandate was to ensure colour quality and consistency throughout the newspaper so they made the final call.</p>

<p>In other words everyone relied on their ability to get it right and therefore they had the final call they also had monitors calibrated to be WYSIWYG so what showed on the screen was pretty darn close to how the final result was going to look in the paper. If the art department had a specific requirement then it was dealt with. But perhaps editorial is a bit different than commercial in that we had certain requirements/standards we had to meet such as not cloning out things in a photo. Granted we all know how well that is adhered to... but I think with most large newspapers there are standards in place in terms of what can and can't be done to a photo. Granted what the photographer did to that photo before we got it is another story for another time.</p>

<p>Let me back up for sec, if you are doing colour critical work wouldn't you want to be calibrated to your output and not just to some standard for your monitor? For example if you are doing work for a client on a flyer and show them the final product on your screen would you not want it to look as close to the final printed version as possible? Or are you using some sort of RIP SW that adjusts the input to match up the output? Hope that made some sense. Or do you just make a sample print and show them that? I guess my question is how accurate is what you see vs what you get? If not do you in your head make the corrections needed since the screen is not matching the output?</p>

<p>What would I have done if asked to tone it down? Good question, well I wouldn't have done a lot but that's my personal preference I might have toned it down to a degree but not to the point it was really obvious, pretty much where I was at. Again though I'd have to look at the photo in terms of it's context, in this case an environmental portrait so doing a photoshop job to make her look like a model is IMHO inappropriate. I see where you're going and that's a tough question when you are in a situation where you have to go against what you think is right and go with what the client wants.... but if that's the environment you have to work within then I guess that's the difference between paycheck and street.</p>

<p>Granted being experienced and knowing how to sweet talk a client and showing them differences etc would give me the wiggle room to probably show the client that perhaps there are other ways of going or just plain making them think that it was their idea in the first place (hmm guess the minor in psychology does help). In other words I'm the perceived expert and not just a photoshop monkey.</p>

<p>In terms of going cool, hey that's ok it's your <em>style </em>I might not agree (ya think) with it but if that's what it is then that's what it is. At work certain photographers preferred their photos to look certain ways, contrasty, hand of god burns around the edges, punchy colour and that was their style, I might not have agreed with this either but that was their style. </p>

<p>I'm the opposite, I like warm tones so my favorite times to shoot are early morning and late afternoon to evening. But a personal style is what makes your work stand out from the competition such as Jerry Uelsmann, Sebastiao Salgado, Ernst Haas or Jean Pierre Sudre.</p>

<p>Just as an aside, I was looking up Ernst's name to make sure I got the spelling correct and came across some of these quotes. Good read, I was lucky enough to catch up to him in Rockport Maine at the Congress of Photography a few months before he passed away. 8^(</p>

<p>http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=71&name=Haas,Ernst<br /></p>

[kevin_omura]

<p>It's one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it's another thing to make a portrait of who they are. - <a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=367&name=Caponigro,Paul">Paul Caponigro</a> -Jensen, Brooks. "Talk at the Wilson Center for the Arts, Sep 2007". LensWork Podcast LW0420.</p>