one 2 a.m. too many

Again, just lovely. Isn't that delta 3200 a joy?

Very appropriate and visually effective match of image tonal range to subject matter.

Nice capture. The expression in his eyes says it all.

One question: Is that rated at EI 1600? Thanks!

Great framing, good tones, superb isolation of the subject. I'm also curious as if you were using it at 1600.

Nice shot. a lot of character comes through. compositionally, the head is placed well, but the bottle is periously close to the edge. I think the void behind his head could have been swung out of view in favor of some air around the bottle. The bright spot above his left hand is one of those nuisance highlights that is too big to eliminate with spotone, and too small to burn out with printing. The other highlight in the top left corner is not a problem because it adds depth and suggests a source for the very gentle yet revealing illumination on his face, which may actually be printed just a little too deep for some viewers. His elbow is chopped off, but that again is not a big, big problem. If conditions and equipment were favorable, I would have tried a longer lens from further back to try to include the rest of his arm while still holding on to the isolating power of the limited depth of field. Obviously, in this location that would have been an improbable opportunity.

 

As human interest, this photo has a lot going for it. This man, his long hair, his beer and cigarette, his somewhat vacant gaze, represents a segment of the population unique unto itself. This man is not a yuppie, nor is he a corporate businessman. I wouldn't say he's a member of the upper class, but niether would I classify him as member of the lower classes. He looks like a hard working guy who would rather be somewhere else, perhaps back in those days where his long hair was more youthful.

 

Just speculation.

Congratulation

I'm not sure about that white spot in the background. But who cares, very interesting image.

A 8 /O 8

A very good image imo, where the only minor nit I see for now would be that the camera could have been a tad more to the left, maybe - depending on what was there of course...

The white spot ? I'd keep it, but I'd burn it in slightly.

Do we or don't we want the elbow in the frame is another minor issue, but I'm not sure what's the answer. It's fine as it is anyway...

Another POW in Mike Dixon's portfolio could have been the very original portrait here:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=488301

For info, I saw this other image in January for the first time, and since then I remembered the shot, but not photographer's name... From now on, I will...:-)

all I can say is excellent!

A portrait full of character, light seems to be "bathing" him.

Good to see that through this POW, a photographer and not only one of his works was selected.

PS: I wonder what "a world of increasingly alienating art" means in the terms of the elves... Just curious.

I have been a big fan of Mike Dixon's work for the last many years and this picture is no exception. If you are interested check out Lynn Farmer's (http://www.lynnfarmerphoto.net/35MMBoard) photo forum for seeing more of his fantastic work. He is a winner of Photo of the Week there too (I'm jealous !).

One of many excellent photos in the portfoliio, my only gripe is that it is too dark (IMO). Even for a "dark" motif.

For the purposes of discussion, the Burgess/Adobe Hindsight camera has been panned slightly to the left, obviously not a realistic possibility today since the full negative has been printed, as evidenced by the black edging and the sprocket holes on the bottom edge. The bright spot upper left has been subdued, a tricky but very possible darkroom procedure, and the highlights on his face and left hand have been dodged to match the highlight on the bottle.

Once again, digital afterthought screws up a beautiful image, instead of letting it be where it is...set hard in the real world. That the inverse square law has relevance only to photographers is disproven by Doug's manipulation. In the "improved" version, the brightened face now looks phony and "lit" instead of as you might see it if you were sitting with this guy in a real bar, with real lights in the background and real fall off of ambiant light from behind a real bar (not a soft box with grid on the "model" and a scrim on the bottle with a fill card and the lable toward the camera).

The nice thing about Mike's personal photography is that he gives us a glimpse into the real world as he sees/experiences it. Not second guessed by an "artist", but presented through the remarkably acute conduit of Mike Dixon. Can we enjoy that unique quality and experience and marvel at the incredible shit that really exists in the world, without tweaking it, just because we can? Next thing you know, some P-shop jockey will give this guy a face lift... t (I'm in old codger mode. Sorry Doug)

Congratulations on a fine POW, Mike. This shows several things. First, nothing- no super duper all automatic joy toy or PS- substitutes for a good eye. Second, if you get the exposure right there is no need for PS tricks to get it looking like you wished it would have looked if you had done the job right in the first place. Third, it is good to see there is a place for photography connecting us to the real world. While often undeniably creative and pretty, much of what goes by here every day is simply not memorable, while the image of this man will resonate for many viewers for a long time. Recognizing that yes, you could have moved the vantage point over a little so as not to crowd the frame, or burned out the light, you made the smart choice and left it alone. The little "imperfections" make it real, make it a wonderful photo.

I like this image very much, but much as I enjoy the lighting on the subject's face, it is silly to ignore the white spot and to define it as anything but a distraction. It is not an element that helps to define the background, but a distant out of focus spot of light. Your eye goes right to it. Are we saying that because the proposed modification was done digitally that it somehow comtaminates the image, but if it had been done in the darkroom, that we would readily accept it? That's a purist's view that focuses on what we do to our images, but has nothing to do with how the viewer perceives the truth or falsehood of the subject of the photograph. I have no doubt that at the time the photograph was taken, the light spot was not seen as a desirable element that was intentionally placed just so.

 

You do have a point about the lighting on the face if you feel that the viewer's understanding of the intensity and distance from the subject(s) is important. Maybe the light comes from the bar, but maybe it comes from the headlights of a truck, in which case it would look like the dodged version. Does it matter? Photographer's choice.

 

Providing a facelift - or replacing the bud with a can of coke - is an entirely different ballgame, and for anyone to equate the two misses a distinction that so many of us on this site are trying to make.

 

First of all, OUCH, That smarts!

 

Secondly, the image is already out of the "real" world. If I were sitting next to this guy and I turned to look at him, and saw that he and his environment were only black and white and every shade of gray in between, then I can confidently assure all of you that I would never touch another drop, at least for the rest of that night.

 

I thought my first post indicated that the points I addressed in my illustrations were minor and don't bother me to any great extent. My alternative version was posted for the sake of disccusion so we could talk about the image rather than just lobbing accolades in Mike's direction.

 

From my point of view, the fact that Mike used b&w film is already a departure from the real world. The tonal suggestions: the brighter face and hand, the darkened bright spot, are the way I would have printed this negative, if I had it. I'm not trying to claim photoshop as a way to "save" this negative because it doesn't need saving. I'm using it as a tool for discussion. Howver, if Mike would be happy to send me the negative via Federal Express I'll be glad to print it up, scan it, and post it so we can discuss the differences. (email me Mike, and I'll send you my address) After that, with Mike's permisison, we can ship the negative to several other members, they can print it, and we can continue to discuss the differences. (What's the Photo.net Fed Ex account number, please)

 

Photoshop was just used to illustrate the ideas I put forth in the first post and I sincerely hope this does not become another "evils of Photoshop" exchange.

 

Finally, as for digital software used to illustrate a preferred, or alternate, camera position, again, I'm not trying to save the image, but to point out differences in composition and perspective for the sake of discussion.

 

Hey, if we had hired this guy to sit in the bar and hold that pose while each of us brough our gear in and sat next to him for as long as Mike was there, would we come back with identical photos?

Besides, if you look at the bright spot closely on my alternative you can see it is still there, just subdued. Burning in a highlight like that all the way down to D-max black would have been harder, and not completely necessary. I left it because I wasn't trying to eliminate it for the purposes of saving the picture, instead leaving it for the sake of realism, choosing to use photoshop to replicate a printing procedure which makes it less distracting. If Mike comes in and says he placed it there willfull, intentionally and happily, I will concede the error of my ways.

 

 

i think it is wrong to rate this photo according to originality, because obviously it not very original, but the execution if flawless. Great mood, focus and emotion is conveyed.

Doug.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestions you've "depicted." In fact, you've actually brought the picture to standard I would hold for PoW.

In just a few hours, I see that even this image has led us to the usual Photoshop debate... I'm impressed, really, to see how fast any image leads to a discussion about PS...:-)

Let's give Doug the credit, please, since he really isn't a mad photoshopper, that all he did was to present in a convenient way what he thought would be an improvement on Mike's image.

I like the 4 posts I just read: Doug's, Tom Meyer's, Carl Root's, a Kochanovski...

"In the "improved" version, the brightened face now looks phony and "lit" instead of as you might see it if you were sitting with this guy in a real bar, with real lights in the background and real fall off of ambiant light from behind a real bar (not a soft box with grid on the "model" and a scrim on the bottle with a fill card and the lable toward the camera)." - Tom Meyer.

I honestly feel Tom is quite right here: the fall off of the light, the weakness of the light, are realistic, AND MOODY. This is indeed NOT a studio shot, and shouldn't look like one.

I read many comments on Photo.net about this and that little imperfections in a photograph that shows daily life: we have to keep the importance of these minimal "flaws" (in general) in proportion. It is magical enough, imo, to capture such images, and this magic, indeed, might sometimes come with little imperfections which are not real problems, as long as they do not interfer with the viewing pleasure. These little imperfections are just part of life.

I like Doug's latest post for the humor of it. I think it is good to have people like him here, who still print in a wet darkroom, and who can also understand that Photoshop can be used, if not for anything more, at least for the simple sake of comparing versions of an image.

Do I think Doug "improved" Mike's image: yes, but only in one way - the framing. Like Tom, I do not think that the brighter face was any better than the face was originally. But Doug, I think, has shown (using PS as a quick communication tool, and nothing else), that the camera a bit more to the left made some sense.

The little bright spot ? I think you burned it in slightly too much, Doug... It can be there. It is still there but maybe burned in a bit more than necessary. Small matter anyway imo. Carl Root said "Your eye goes right to it", which is quite true, but if you just darken it slightly, no longer so.

Now, the light in Doug's version, and Carl Root's deliciously humorous comment about it...: " Maybe the light comes from the bar, but maybe it comes from the headlights of a truck..."

Fun, but not realistic, sorry...:-) The truck's headlights would have overexposed the bottle way before the face would get that bright...

Besides this fun reply, all I meant to say here is that the face could MAYBE afford to go a tad brighter indeed, but if so, then really just a bit - and the bottle would then have to follow.

To me, the light is fine as it is, and the picture might benefit from slightly brighter mid-tones and highlights, but too much, and it will really resemble, indeed, a studio shot. The right dosage, here, will be a lot closer to Mike's scan than to Doug's version, but a tad brighter than Mike's version, yes, may be a minor improvement...

Finally, if we are talking about tones and composition, excuse me, but I'm at loss to find any reason to talk about PS at all. This can all be done on camera or in the lab.

Let me make myself a bit clearer. I like Carl Root's understanding, or shall I say "moderate" position about PS in all the forum threads I've seen. PS is a great tool, so is atomic energy. If Man created an atom bomb with atomic energy, that most certainly wasn't the best usage he could make of it. The same goes for PS. Photoshop can be used to produce tasteful AND ugly images that could not be achieved with a camera. PS can be used to IMPROVE an image as much as it can be used to make an image WORSE. All this doesn't mean that PS is good or that PS is bad. It all depends what one does with it, and manicheism is out of place here imho.

All Doug did was to propose another way to print this image in the wet lab, and another way to frame the shot with a camera. Good or bad, it's Doug speaking, and not Photoshop. Cheers.

Marc, the potential for miscommunication and misunderstanding can be considerable . :-) . . . .

 

My 'truck' reference was not a joke. If a truck in the parking light shines his light through a window in the bar and illuminates the bottle and the face, they will be almost the same because the inverse square rule difference is now minimized . . . take it from a budding light painter. In any case, if we're trying to increase the light on his face, we can all agree that if we're trying to look realistic, we dare not make the face brighter than the bottle!! At the same time we want to make sure that the bottle doesn't get more attention than intended by being noticably brighter.

 

Boy, I wish all the photos on photo.net had lighting that was this good and this interesting and was recognized in the comments and ratings . . . . sigh . . . . .

 

That the bottle does not touch the edge of the frame makes is fine with me. That you captured this moment with a camera that has no cavity in which a battery goes, I have an M3, is most gratifing . I awarded the effort with a 9/9 rating, That is nice film, especially in a M-Leica. Nice work!

 

ps: the digital enhancement spoils the mood and makes the image appear unrealistic, to my eyes.

The subject always amuses me when it comes up. And just like any other technological advancement, its almost always the traditionalists who argue the loudest. I find the whole argument absolutely ridiculous. "It's okay to shoot black and white film in a color world..it's not okay to shoot color and desaturate in PS." "It's okay to alter tonal range by using various grades of printing paper...it's not okay to use PS levels adjustment." "It's okay to wiggle a piece of cardboard with a hole in it to burn in highlights during during the enlargement process...it's not okay to use Photoshop's "burn and dodge" tools." "It's okay to use special chemicals for selenium or sepia toning of a print...it's not okay to use photoshops color adjustment tools." "It's okay to spot with a spotting brush and "special" spotting ink...it's not okay to spot digitally using Photoshops clone tool." "It's okay to hand color a black and white image...but not in photoshop." I could go on. Ridiculous isn't it? Especially considering that so many of these effects can be achieved faster, easier and "better" than tradional methods. The "easier" part is what scares most traditionalists. Many of these traditional effects that used to take time, skill and mastery, are now as simple as a mouse click in photoshop. I agree that it is unsettling to see some of the poor examples of photoshop image alteration that are out there. These are the images that make digital photo alteration look bad. Then again, I have seen more than my share of bad spotting, awful hand coloring and poorly traditonal-printed images.

 

I started in a darkroom and moved to digital. I still have a great appreciation for both methods and the skilled masters who best represent these methods in their work. The arguing and belittling of one method over the other is a ridiculous waste of time. Whether you are a traditionalist or a photoshopper, I say "Get over it! Get your eyeball back behind your camera and do what you do best."