wee ones Out the Window

A tighter crop would reduce the black behind her and with just enough on the left to balance. The important aspect is her and her reflection and if it is titled 'out the window' we don't need more than just the window edges. As It is it took me awhile to appreciate the reflection when first looking at it for all the black. With less black I am not so concerned about the lack of detail in the black, though some detail in the hair and hand would improve it slightly, but not needed elsewhere. It is the difference between what we are taught and what is needed.

Thanks for all your comments. I'll play around with it a bit with your ideas in mind.
Regards,
Oliver

A very traditional portrait that does hold a viewer's attention. One wonder what the little girl is fantasizing about, or possibly thinking. It's nicely done. I also like the heavy use of black in the image. Obviously purposely done so we need not fool with highlight/shadow in PS. This is the effect the maker wanted. I was actually quite surprised the first 3 commenters started off negatively. I swear, the perfect image will not make some happy. Someone said it doesn't hold his attention for more than 2 minutes. How long do you wish to gaze at it? Congrats on POW

I have nothing to add except: "Wow, WOW!"

I would agree that this has a very traditional sensibility to it. I think it is the type of image that many parents would enjoy and treasure.

But I do think that it is fair to discuss the handling of the tones here--as well as the black framing. Intentional or not, one has to determine did the processing work or didn't it to support the feel of the image.

I think if we compare this image just to the next one in Oliver's stream--click the right arrow here--we can see a major difference in two very similar shots. The tones on the little boy are much more delicately handled than what we have here. The question is whether there is a reason this one has been treated more harshly. My own sense is that there isn't any indication that the mood or intent of the image is any different (the color split on the other is irrelevant to the issue IMO).

While I probably would handle the dark transitions a bit differently myself, I might be ok with these after fixing what I see as more of an issue. It is really the blown out highlights in various areas that create an issue for me. For instance, the boy's cheeks are about 17pts per channel darker than the girls and seem on the cusp of being too bright. The little girl's cheeks, being pure white in places, just create visual holes--there are also a few other areas that are blown out with the same effect. How any tone reads has a lot to do with the overall luminance of the image as well as adjacent areas. Even in high key images, blown out highlights can adversely affect the reading of the image. In a low key image highlights that would almost seem depressed in a normally lit image can appear bright.


Overall, the shot is nice but I do think the same mood can be kept with a bit more finesse in the processing.

Long among my "Favorite Images" folder, I think the choice of this image for POW is an astute, though not particularly controversial one. The main reason I liked the picture was because it has that elusive element, SOUL. Everything else, in my opinion, are details. While we quibble over these details ad nauseum at this site, it still remains to be said that there is nothing that could be done to "improve" this image as is, even if these things could give it a more literal reading--like flipping it horizontally, for instance, or creating more shadow detail. These are merely window dressings that neither add nor detract from the core elements and essence of this superb image. A picture like this is a work of art, and really, should be left as it is, for it is my experience at this site that we often pursue technical perfection over that indefinable element that separates a Da Vinci from an Uccello.

This is a photo. It is one that seems to rely on a fairly classical approach. It is not particularly new age or experimental, and it is not grunge. It's a close-up portrait, traditional in nature, feels personal and suggests a level of intimacy which people respond to well. The lighting is lovely and there's a richness to much of the tonality.

This is a photography web site. Details matter. Technicalities matter. It's not that details are more important than soul or the other way around, it is that the soul of a photo, particular a photo like this, is intimately related to the look of the photo. If highlights are blown on the face, of course that matters to how the photo is going to make me feel. It very much matters if one were to determine that the blackness of the "frame" of the window and its thickness cause a visual and emotional heaviness that takes away from the overall mood and feel of the child.

I am looking at a PHOTO of the child, not at the child. There was obviously a lot of care taken in the lighting and processing of this photo. That in itself tells me the look of the photo very much mattered to the photographer. So, if there are ways that look can be improved, of course it is vitally important. SOUL can be as much present in craft as it is in content, at least for me. I probably won't look at craft the same way when it comes to in-the-moment journalistic photos of war, but certainly in a portrait like this craft is very important to me and judging by the care that went into this I would think the photographer would want various opinions on some of the visual matters. Technique is what we use to express soul in a photo. If I just want soul, I will spend time with the children themselves. If I want photographic soul, I will get it via photographic qualities, elements, technique, style, content, and form.

I find it a lovely photo, which could certainly be improved. It's peaceful, not challenging, harmonious and not tension-producing.

It is rare that a photo can't be improved. I have just started printing some of my work at a large size and am finding all kinds of improvements (many of them very subtle details) that I can make, some of which have been pointed out by photographer friends of mine who care enough to bother. Nuancing these details makes all the difference in the world to the expression and soul of the photos. I don't think my photographer friends and mentors are quibbling about mere window dressing. I think they are looking and talking like photographers and artists look and talk.

Well said, Fred.

Tom M

Well, Fred, allow me to retort:

"This is a photography web site. Details matter. Technicalities matter. It's not that details are more important than soul or the other way around, it is that the soul of a photo, particular a photo like this, is intimately related to the look of the photo. If highlights are blown on the face, of course that matters to how the photo is going to make me feel."
Obviously, details matter. I never suggested otherwise. What I stated was that obsession over details, detracts from the soul of the image. To try to construe this rather plain statement into an endorsement of the view that I prefer blown highlights is rather insulting. In my other life, I sometimes moonlight as a painter. Once I did a painting of my mother that took me all of a few hours. Not totally satisfied, I kept layering it with oil that it became a rather grotesque caricature.
My point is not that a picture cannot be improved by the adjustment of a few details, but that this particular picture, IMO, cannot be improved on by any adjustments that is made to it. This is because, ahem, the very SOUL of this image cannot be separated from its subject matter, and this particular subject matter, IMO, does not lend itself to a heavy touch. Had this been an image of an osprey grabbing a fish from a well stocked tank while 1,000 photographers fired off their Nikon D3s, then positioning, angle of the shot, even the shades of the bird's down are all the difference. But, this particular picture, which I think is more like a quick sketch than a sfumato painting, I think the artist got right at first blush. For that reason, I persist in my earlier comments.

I agree with Alberta, the first moment impression of mine while entering the image was the black side which is a big part of the back and looks flat. Only than my eye moved to the lighted and reflected part which are nice and classical. As the format is a square I'm sure( even I did not try Alberta....)that the photographer can still work on the original to bringe out some more details .That said, it is a serene child portrait. What I like is the format of the square within the square of composition.

Perhaps you're all right, and there can/could be any number of "corrections" made to "improve" this photo, but IMO it's not your or my opinion of what's "right" that's important here. Mr. Weber obviously believed the image met his standards very well; he was pleased and satisfied with the result, or he wouldn't have submitted it. Do we know for a fact that post work was done on it (and how much or how little), or was it submitted "as taken?"

I find the picture intriguing. Far from distracting the eye, the darkness funnels your attention directly to the girl's face. Her expression, unreadable behind her hand, might be almost anything, but her posture and demeanor leads to the supposition that it's one of pleasant contemplation. Her reflected image seems to confirm this impression.

Many of Rembrandt's works greatly resemble the photo at hand -- not to compare Mr. Weber with Rembrandt! -- but in terms of lighting the subject. "Portrait of the Old Man in Red," "A Man in Armor" and "The Incredulity of St. Thomas," to name but a very few, utilize the same kind of focused lighting. It's a very effective technique.

Difference of opinion makes it all the more interesting.

I don't know that anyone here is suggesting that anything has to be done or that the person, in this case Oliver, who posts an image doesn't have final say. But this is a learning site and this is a thread meant to discuss images. We choose what to discuss, at least I know I do, based on where there seems to be something to discuss.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that this image needs any radical change and in photography, heavy handed is often the result of not doing anything to an image as much as working it too hard. It is how the image ends up looking--cameras do not see as we do.

When I brought up the issue of pure whites creating a visual hole, I wasn't being subjective about this. It is one of the worst things we can do to an image from a technical and visual standpoint. That isn't to say that a pure white is going to be bad in every case, but when it is in a larger or important area, it can cause a visual hole that is not attractive visually and which will not print--photographically or offset--with much success. Here is an example of what I mean, the only PURE WHITE is the center "hole" of this image (the one that looks not pure white) even though the edges seem brighter. I saw this effect in the cheeks and on the sleeves, thus my comment. If that is desirable, then so be it. But with over 30 years of looking and printing images, I see things many don't--failure is a great teacher!

"IMO it's not your or my opinion of what's 'right' that's important here. Mr. Weber obviously believed the image met his standards very well; he was pleased and satisfied with the result, or he wouldn't have submitted it." --Dave

Ahh, but this is where we differ. Because this photo was chosen as Photo of the Week, whose stated purpose by administration is for us to express our opinions. I don't believe anyone has told Oliver what's right. But constructive suggestions toward improvement are what the Photo of the Week discussion is all about. Oliver is free to listen, accept, reject, think about, consider or all or none of the above. But it is precisely all of our opinions that matter here. Presumably most photos shown meet, at least to some extent, the standards of the photographer. Yet most photographers like to improve and evolve. Comments, critiques, and opinions from others can be very helpful for those that are open and also confident enough to have a feeling for what sounds good to them and what doesn't. As a matter of fact, you might notice that Oliver put this photo up for critique when he submitted it, so there may well have been uncertainties he had or, if not, he at least made clear by his act of asking for critiques that he wanted . . . well . . . critiques!

From the explanation of the Photo of the Week forum:

Comments should be constructive, suggesting improvements or pointing to exactly what makes the image work or not work for you.

___________________________

Opinions, taste, suggestions, talk of details (and I'm not aware of anyone obsessing over anything here) do not detract from the soul of a photo. They are, in fact, the soul of critique and sharing among photographers and artists. I tend to respond very differently when I am in a museum or gallery vs. when I am in a critique forum or art class. And I am able to be soulful and appreciate the sole involved in all those situations.

LOL. While I do like a little filet almondine every now and then, let me retype that last "sole" as "soul." :-)

Thanks for all your comments! I find them all valuable. I post pictures for critique here because I want to know what you think - both good and bad. Sometime I post an image that I like and I'm curious to know if others find it appealing also.
I just had another look at the file. This is my daughter, by the way. I took this several years ago. She was dreamily looking out the window. She grew up with a camera pointed at her, so she didn't take much notice of me. I was interested in that dreamy, childish state she was in.
I remember opening the file in PS and yanking the middle of the curves slider down dramatically. Pulling down the mid-tones increased the contrast significantly. It made the picture much more interesting and to the point. The pattern on her shirt becomes less distracting, and the focus of the image is inward to emphasize the feeling of the image - the dreamy state of a child. The detail in the shadows soon disappears giving the black border. Converting to B&W was obvious - again to remove distractions and focus inward, which was the point I was trying to make. I cropped it square and gave it another black border to emphasize the inward feel of the image even more, and to give the window a black border above and below. Most of the post-processing time was spent cleaning up the window. There were distracting spots on the window that I removed.That's all I did with regards to post-processing.
John is correct that the highlight on her cheek is blown out on the jpg. I opened the file in Lightroom 4 and could recover all the highlights. The file prints well either way.
As for bringing out the detail, I'm not sure I want to. I think this is what Dave was getting at. I often look at an image as a photographer and get distracted by a technicality, or something that I would do different. It makes me overlook what the photographer was trying to communicate. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear how you would do it differently though. I'll always consider it. If it detracts from my idea of the image, even if it's 'better', I'll reject it. That's what's great about feedback - it can easily be ignored. I think the point about keeping the details hidden is important though. Here's what Joe McNally says...

"Shadows and dark areas lend drama and excitement to a scene, and retain a sense of mystery in your subject matter. One of the most important lessons ever taught to me by the picture editor of LIFE magazine was, “If you want something to look interesting, don’t light all of it.” Very true." Here's the link where I found it.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment!
Sincerely,
Oliver

It's a very nice shot -- tranquil, contemplative, kid pondering what the future will bring, etc. If this had been my shot, I would have been quite pleased, my wife and family would have liked it, etc..

The problem is that over the years, I've seen a huge number of very similar shots. For example, I can distinctly remember a very similar "kid sitting by a window" shot in one of the first photography books I ever owned, a late 1950's Kodak publication. To me, this general look has become virtually a stereotype. Unfortunately, IMHO, this then sets the technical bar higher for anyone attempting a similar shot at an advanced level.

So, if we are trying to truly optimize the technical aspects, the first thing that I notice (like some of the earlier posters) are the small areas of burned-out highlights the general harshness of the lighting, the grittiness of the reflections in the window, etc.. IMHO, these just doesn't go with the softness one expects in photos illuminated by oft-cited "soft window light", particularly when a small child is the subject.

In theory, the best approach would have been to modify the light, but often this just can't happen when it's an semi-impromptu shot. So, if the OP likes the idea of softening up the image and doesn't want to reshoot it, the only option may be to try to soften it in software. Below is one quick attempt at this. This approach definitely "schmaltz-ified" the image, made it much more conventional and changed the tonalities of some important areas in the image. Obviously there are many other ways to deal with blown highlights ranging from "stealing good skin" from elsewhere in the image, to making a photo-painting out of it. Only the OP knows whether or not any of these approaches are consistent with his (photographic) goals for this image.

Cheers,

Tom M

PS - Obviously, it's almost trivial to blend various amounts of the highly diffused version with the original, change the brightness of the reflections, etc. So one can go continuously from one extreme to the other.

Arghh - I was writing at exactly the same time as Oliver. At least one of my goals (cleaning up the window) seems to have been consistent with his.

T

I'd love to know if you think this is better. I've cleaned up the background and retained some shadow detail.

My first impression was "wow" because I like that dark contrasty envelop. After reading a good portion of the posters comments, I got the education I needed and I believe that education is the purpose of this forum discussion. Not just to "critique" Oliver on what he has so artfully put together but add to our collective thoughts of how others would approach the setup, the capture and post-processing. I can now imagine this photo using a baby, the toddler in this case, a young teenager in angst, a woman in love, a divorced person in pain, a caregiver, a widower and a great-grandmother with the wisdon of the years. In each case, I would be moving a few sliders back and forth to compliment my story. In this subject and story, I believe Olivers second effort in showing more detail in the hair, hands and clothing and moderating the lighter areas of the cheek is more in keeping with the tonal quality and range that I would expect to see in a toddler. Thanks all for comments and thank you Oliver for your efforts. Now I have to find those 40 year old B&W's that I have of my kids and bring them to the fore. Jed

Hi Oliver - I strongly prefer the treatment of highlights in your most recent version.

However, with respect to shadow detail, in your most recent version, I can now easily see the pattern on her PJs all the way down to the extreme lower RH corner of the frame. I disagree with some of the previous posters who wanted more shadow detail than your 1st version. If it were my image, I wouldn't want to do this. I would prefer a richer black in this area -- not just darker (like your 1st posted version), but also smoother, simpler, and more painterly and mysterious - almost slightly Orton-like. In fact this is exactly what I did in the tweaked version I posted.

Yes, some might consider my slightly Ortonized shadows to be a schlock, expected treatment for this type of image, but one could say exactly the same thing about a knee-jerk "need more details in the shadows" reaction.

In fact, I would say the same about the mid-tones: I would prefer a smoother, less detailed treatment for most of the mid-tones, as well. I would prefer to see only an absolutely minimal number of high sharpness/contrast areas/edges -- just enough to outline the essential elements in the image, no more. For example, in your last posted version, I can see so much detail in the reflection that it is almost clinically obvious that it is a reflection. I would prefer a bit more of a ghostly look to her reflection, almost causing the reader to subliminally wonder if it is really her reflection or an awake-dream she is experiencing.

Anyway, I am obviously projecting my own psychological and visual preferences on your image. Your preferences are guaranteed to be different. Fortunately or unfortunately, the changes we are talking about are relatively small and I would guess that most non-photographers would barely notice them, and only photographers with reasonably well calibrated monitors would be able to say with certainty whether the changes in the deep shadows and top highlights were intentional or just a product of (uncalibrated) monitor-to-monitor variation.

Just my $0.02,

Tom M

 

Beautiful light and a lovely pose. As a good shot should be - full of wonder. I just adore this.

It is absolutely beautiful portrait of your daughter. The right vantage point where the light draws her face, the locks, fingers and arm. Her eye is in a fine position and it makes a whole face so beautiful. It, sort of, pulls in my attention where my eyes wonder around. So, I think that the portrait has a visual depth due to rich tonalities and the fact that it's a close-up portrait. It's like, your look can be locked into the portrait. It is very clever way of making the portrait.
Kristina

Oliver, I think that your rewowk on your daughter is now well executed. The back of the photo has stopped being flat imo. it is still a classic photo that we see a lot, but it is your daughter and for her when she will grow up, it will be a nice moment to remember. In any event I think that you did a nice work on your second version. it is warmer and the added details are enhancing the composition.

Oliver, I think your reposted version is an improvement. Getting rid of the thick black border gives it more of an organic quality and lightens up the feeling of it. It's less graphic and has more texture. The breathing room makes it less pointed, less directed, able just to be what it is.

I think you did lose some of the glow of the original. Her pajama sleeve and her face overall feel better to me in the original. I think finessing some of the details will be tough in this photo because of the highlight issue and because of the smudgy window. I think getting that window to read in keeping with a sort of classic, almost Hollywood-like, reflection shot will be tough if not impossible.

For me, there's a very strong emotional contrast between the loveliness of your daughter bathed in the light she's in and the distorted feeling of the reflection, that contrast playing a role in both versions.

I tend to agree with Fred on the effect of the changes but don't think it would actually be very hard to bring back the original mood that is somewhat lost here. I did a quick curves adjustment--slightly up at about 10% from the pure white and then a modest dip below midpoint at about the middle of the curve. This puts things back to a very similar mood--one could go darker if desired without affecting the highlights with another point lower down the curve--to the original. The difficulty when dropping the darks further is to not "break" the softer vignette off the cheeks and yet drop down the darks. Of course, using masking techniques and transparencies could even refine this further and effect greater control.