white on white

Hey Doug, that "Isidro neg/pos technique" works pretty good doesn?t it? Forgive me but I must have not been paying attention when the lesson was given, now how did I do that again?!?

I think technical details are talking themselves. First - digital camera and than

admitted PS7 post process. My question will be up to what grade you digitally

"made" this shot. What we are talking here about : "the eyes not being equally

bright, or the bit of lose fabric on the left" - what that mean? If it is all done in

PC why that much rush and Ooohs and wows - what you lost already any

criteria what photography mean? I don't like it, it should be on some digital

forum somewhere, not here.

Congratulations Fili. I find it a successful image. I like the pose, light and crop. To answer the Elves question i did some clicking on my own and arrived with a version very similar to Doug's. Here it is for comparison. Regards,

> I don't like it, it should be on some digital forum somewhere, not here.

 

There's nothing that prevents this from being done in the darkroom.

 

Beautiful and tasteful image.

Congratulations! This is a very nice photo. Great idea. It delivers a clear sense of the ethereal and angelic and femine.

 

However, I am slightly puzzled by the choice of tonal difference between the left and right sides of the background. What effect was meant to be achieved?

 

I want to qualify before I say it that the following reflects only my own personal sensibility. I believe that having the right side of the background be darker takes away from the strength of the image. It think it would stronger and clearer if the two sides of the background didn't have this split of tonal difference. Additionally, I personally would prefer a more realist effect because it's "meatier", to use a very American expression, and delivers a denser emotional impact. But each person has her or his own individual preferences.

 

Congratulations on your fine photographs.

I believe this picture is really a great opportunity for an excellent discussion, although I do not believe the picture to be excellent.

 

I like portraits and I like high-key images, but this one fails in my opinion due to lighting inconsistencies as well as imperfect Photoshop work. I have tried to illustrate in Photoshop, not the work I would suggest the photographer to do now, but an image of the result I would have in mind if I would be asked to shoot this same picture.

 

The Inconsistencies that bother me are:

 

1) Model's right eye (at left) is very dark and seems inconsistent with the overall light and bright feel of the image.

 

2) Both eyes are too dark given the very bright overall feel. Meaning that PS has been used here in a way or another to have the eyes "jump out" of the face more than lighing alone would have permitted: in a studio, i.e. with REAL light, before you get such a bright skin, you'll have the eyes turning a bit more "transparent", getting basically brighter. This POW feels very artificial on the eyes, and I don't like that.

 

3) Catch lights, lighting direction and pose: if you look in her eyes, you'll find 2 catch lights in each, but the brightest of the 2 is AT THE BOTTOM... This is completely inconsistent with the pose. If a model is looking far up, the light should be higher than her. Why ? Is this yet another silly book-rule...? Not really: this etheral look up hits the archetype of the "light from above", some sort of divine enlightment or such.

 

4) Besides that, these bright catch lights at the bottom would normally (in a studio, with REAL light) mean that the bottom of her face would be brighter than the top, which is not the case here. Top of the hat very bright seem to mean high up backlighting or lighting from top. Bright right side seem to mean that light comes from the right or top right. Catch lights indicate lighting from bottom. Now how many suns do we have on this planet...? :-)

 

All these inconsistencies may seem very technical and unimportant, but the real world under the sun has a very consistent light to give things what we may call "a realistic daily life feel", which is sadly missing here. I am by no means saying that lighting should always be used to give a natural daylight feel to all pictures - Hell, no ! -, but I am saying, that even surrealistic images or high or very low key images should somehow obey to the natural rules of physical lighting. All else annoys the eye, because we do not grow up in a world lit by 2D-Photoshop-generated-lighting.

 

I'm attaching here ("after") what I would call a more consistent, more realistic version of this POW. If I had to produce myself this revised version, I would try to get as close as possible to the end result in the studio, and Photoshop would not be used to *make* the light, but rather to fine-tune the existing light.

 

What I did here was:

 

1) Brighten up the darkest eye.

2) Adjust the contrast in each eye so that both eyes have roughly the same contrast.

3) Brighten up both eyes.

4) Clone off the strong catch light at the bottom.

5) Add (quickly but poorly executed) highlights at the top of her eyes, to show how, in terms of lighting, I believe the original picture should have been light in the first place.

6) Darken a bit the lower part of the face.

7) Lighten the clothes on the shoulders a little.

 

Disclaimer: This PS work is done purely for explanation purpose, and by no means do I want to suggest that this is the way a good picture should be produced.

Just a little note... The above may give to some the impression I truly dislike this POW. No, I don't. I think it's not bad, and pretty creative, and rated it a 5/5. Here is another portrait by Fili that I liked a lot - eventhough it feels a bit too dark on my monitor:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2134867

..when photoshop fails you may try maya...www.alias.com

greets

 

what you search for then is called "life"

 

 

btw...great picture..i really like it..and i dont care about lights and their ...em...if they are right..not here..thought this guy above might be right when saying the eyes are to dark compared to the rest..

 

keep it up

regards

1) My apologies to the photographer for posting an amended version of her work. I hadn't seen yet, that you objected to such revision works. I feel it's easier this way, to show what one means, rather than words only, and most photographers on PN allow or accept such revised versions. Sorry for assuming you would be ok with such posts. No objection on my part (of course) if you wish photo.net to remove attachments.

 

2) Isidro... You make a lot of good points - especially the lack of fine-tuning AND... the make-up issue... Indeed, I feel the make-up is too strong and too dark, which is not consistent with the rest of the image.

 

3) Phil Morris... I think you said in few words what I found disturbing in this image: and made me wish (once again), I could express myself as well as you do...:-)

 

5) Doug... as you can see now, you went darker in your attempt, whereas I went brighter in mine... Same story as last week, as somebody noticed... I think it is very important, when reworking an image, to understand the photographer's creative goal. Fili wanted a high-key image, just like last week's POW was aiming imo at a "floating" feel for these cinamon sticks... I agree with Sam M-M and others here, to say that the photographer's goal was probably to get some sort of "angelic" feel, the mood was "pure", "cold", "etheral". Sometimes, a client in commercial photography will want an image like that. Your version, as Stefan Engstrom puts it so well, uses a "different set of visual ideas" and heads in a different direction all together. I am more concerned in a critique by trying to express how to make an image consistent with its own original creative choices.

 

Finally... I wish to add, that digitally "made" high key or low key images SEEM EASY to produce - from about any standard exposure. But great finesse is required for the resulting image to be consistent. I have learned with many similar "failures", that it is in fact very difficult to keep a natural feeling in photos reworked much brighter or much darker a posteriori. It easily looks overdone and artificial. That is why the lighting of the original photo matters a great deal to set things straight before even opening PS.

 

I too would be very interested to see the original photo, in color & BW, before any manipulation. I suspect we would then see a "normal" exposure, and not a high key. I suspect the eyes would then fit naturally where they belong in a face, etc.

 

Conclusion: A traditional exposure can not so easily be turned (digitally) in a great high key photo.

Wow, actually can you tell me the name of model? :-) This is an optimal human being prezentation. ;-)

Indeed, Marc, you and Sammm are right. I arrogantly tend to want to doug everything down to how I would have done it, rather than seeing the artists' original goals. This is a twisted sort of jealousy that denies the creative expresion of another artist, and lusts for the authorship to be mine. In many respects, it is the among the highest forms of compliment I can make.

 

Still, through studio finesse and camera work, and PS repairs where needed, I beleive that Aleksandra's goals could be accomplished with my sense of tonalities intact, and I believe the result would be awe-inspiring.

Isidro, you mentioned about inverting the positive image into a negative, and then working with that to make the white cloth into black cloth. I'm not sure what I did, but I started out that way to get to my second revision.

"Tonal completeness is a choice not an imperative"--Peter A.

 

Very well stated, and worth remembering. What is wrong with me?

 

The muddiness we see in my revisions is probably due to the fact that they were produced from a jpg of the original, and that some areas were so featureless there was no texture to work with. Working from an optimal scan may produce a better version. Also, bear in mind what Marc has just written, that converting a normal range image is not the best way to go about making high key images. You end up with high-contrast conversions, in my opinion, and not true high key photos. This one, being nearly all white to begin with, falls more towards what I think of as high key imagery.

 

For comparison, at the beginning of this discussion is a reference to some of this type of work, which to me is misnamed as high-key. Not to say it is bad, but to say that I hold a difference between the term "high key" and an intentional erasure of the middle tones, which creates high contrast. For marketing reasons, and to create an idea of the visual impact of an image, the term "high key" is applied.

 Although not technically best done, for the idea of high-key portrait picture it deserves to be the POW. My ratings 7 for originality, 6 for aestethics and 5 is the technical rating.

BTW: I like the Marc G's version. There's still something to learn.

The technical discussions are way over my head on this one, but I do like it. I could live with a very slight bit more contrast, I suppose, but it is still beautiful as it is. The composition is exquisite.

I have been following filis work from quite awhile, so I know what shes capable of, but this particular shot, doesnt do anything for me, other than showing post-processing skills.

 

Emotionally I find this portrait [its not really a portrait though] very sterile [or digital], it doesnt connect with the viewer [is it because subject is not looking directly into the camera] or is it because of lack of expressions or is it because of overdone post-processing. I know this is a high-key portrait, but I still expect to have certain degree of realism to it. I feel if the high-key effect was achieved through the camera [instead of PS], it would have look more convincing [in-terms of lighting] and Marc caught very interesting detail of catch-light.

 

I very recently came across work of a new photographer Cig Harvey [http://www.cigharvey.com/] and he has some very interesting high-key images.

Coming in late, there isn't much to say really. A very good portrait, fili. The amount of jet-black in the frame is too much, IMHO. While there is an initial impact, it wears off quickly, much like a catchy song. Marc -- wonderful dissection -- I really like your modifications that address the importance of real(istic) lighting in portraiture; it retains the feel of the original submission, while enhancing it quite a bit. Thanks.

Yeah Dhiren. Cig Harvey's only the second photog I know of who turned the top of a radiator into fine art. Whichs makes her the first female I know of to have done this.

Marc: I agree with what you have said the most.

Dhiren: Any image can evoke emotion - to at least some degree - large or small, effectively or ineffectively. This image, though her eyes are directed away from camera, does arouse some emotion - though it may not be directed towards the viewer. To me it evokes feelings of contemplation, reflection, beauty, and all the while utter sadness.

If the model was looking at the camera, its hard to say whether these emotions would be enhanced or impaired. It is possible that these "contemplative/comprehensive" emotions would quickly turn to interpretations of sensuality, self-confidence and personal-infatuation. There are lots of shots out there with beautiful models staring into the camera, with their mouth half-open and eyes half-shut - and I find it refreshing to see images like this - with the model looking away from the camera, seemingly unaware of its presence. The effect created is derived from the apparent lack of connection, which, in turn, leads to the feelings/emotions listed above.

"I know this is a high-key portrait, but I still expect to have certain degree of realism to it." -- Dhiren.

After consulting the literary definition for "realism", the representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form, I would have to agree that this image is lacking some realistic virtues - perhaps a result from the digital work. But I can't find flaw in the inherent fact that the image is without, to some degree, realism. The lack of true realism (if I understand the meaning of the term correctly) is what makes this image unique, innovative, controversial, and thus, an interesting image and POW selection.

Digital post-processing and lack of expression and eye contact, imo, have little influence on the emotional aptness of the image. Also, in this day in age, PS work (digital manipulation of any kind for that matter) should not be frowned upon - in fact, I feel we should congratulate those who are excelling in the digital field - those like fili.

Just my $0.02.

Regards,

After looking at all the retouches of this photo I would have to say the original is still the best. On all the darker photos the expression seems to change. The original has a look of patient longing in it, an angel wanting to return. The contrast in the eyes bring a worldliness to the whole image and helps to add emotion. The darker images bring attention to the mouth and give it more of a frown, making it look like she is pouting, taking away from the inner beauty.

The lighter image brings some interesting thoughts and emotion to the image but changes how I feel.

I am new to photography and maybe I have it all wrong but I was able to connect to the original image emotionally more then the others.

Don

First of all well done Aleksandra on this POW. Now concerning to this photograph, beside all that has been mentioned above there is of the things that disturb me. Eyebrows. Somehow (IMO) they have no relation with the ethereal quality mentioned above. I believe that this picture captures our attention because the model looks antiseptic and pure (almost sterile) except eyebrows are there to remind us she is one of us.

 

I have poorly (I'm no ps friend) erase eyebrow from Mark G version in order to illustrate my point.

This is a great idea...are there more to this series?

Cig Harvey's high key images are what I would call true high key, being carefully crafted, and having a preponderance of lighter tones.

 

Benjamin, I found some wonderful out takes on Fili's web site. There's a link to them on her home page.

SCReen prINTING. Like preparing a print in the darkroom, but for a computer screen using digital image software, like photoshop.

I think the original blows away any of the modified versions that have been proposed. The brightened eyes, the top catch light, the missing eyebrows, the normal highlights, none of these versions work for me. And that last version is just scary.