Alone

...

I do not understand how you can be the champion of highlight detail for weeks on end and not care a bit about the lack of shadow detail in the primary subject of this image. You seem to have lost your fire for tonality this week. Tony Dummett said it best when he stated that you should make your adjustments and then back off just a bit. In other words less is more (subtle).

 

In the tree example I think the effect has a lot to do with the focal length of the lens used which compresses the distance between the foreground and background. The example does not include any strong shadows (high sun) that are contained in the POW. I think you are comparing oranges to tangerines here. Close but not convincing. It does not look real enough to me and I am not fond of the presentation but that is just me clinging to my doomed notions.

levels adjustments of the raw capture:

 

60 - 2.00 - 100

 

You're welcome to try your own adjustments, but good luck holding back the middle group without selecting the subject in some way.

Perhaps this is off topic, and perhaps even trite. I very much like this picture, but given the situation in Southeast Asia, I find it difficult these days to look at images of people walking on a seaside beach.

To those who feel the discussion concerning the following are a waste of energy: (whether or not the girl in the foreground is "real," a digital manipulation, or something that could be achieved through traditional darkroom manipulation) you are missing a point. That point being that some of the audience feel the "strangeness" for lack of a better term distracts from the photography rather than adds to it. That's all. I speak simply for myself, but I have no bone to pick with altered photographs. They don't have to be true representations of what I see, and there is nothing inherently wrong with manipulation of artistic photographs. I respect your opinion if you believe the lighting looks realistic or if you think the marked contrast adds impact to the photograph - that it makes the photographer's point stronger, more direct, but in my opinion, it's distracting in a way possibly not intended by Miguel. But maybe it was intentional, which would be interesting to discuss. In any case, my two cents is that I don't care if it's real or not. I just wanted Miguel to know I didn't like the effect. p.s. I thought a lonely person would be the least noticeable figure in the photograph, not the most.

One thing I haven't seen pointed out yet is the fact that the girl is walking on a reflective surface (the sheen of water over the sand), and, as such, the (reflected) light coming from behind her and towards the lens is brighter than that coming off the dry sand on which the others are standing. I would not hesitate to think that anyone standing in that wet area in which the girl stands would be similarly silhouetted (say that fast 5 times!). Of course it's possible that Miguel enhanced this effect, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't.

 

Is this just a dumb theory? I'm a little stuffy-headed and jet-lagged at the moment.

"To those who feel the discussion concerning the following are a waste of energy: (whether or not the girl in the foreground is "real," a digital manipulation, or something that could be achieved through traditional darkroom manipulation) you are missing a point. That point being that some of the audience feel the "strangeness" for lack of a better term distracts from the photography rather than adds to it. That's all."

 

Well put, Andrew.

You wrote: "One thing I haven't seen pointed out yet is the fact that the girl is walking on a reflective surface (the sheen of water over the sand), and, as such, the (reflected) light coming from behind her and towards the lens is brighter than that coming off the dry sand on which the others are standing. I would not hesitate to think that anyone standing in that wet area in which the girl stands would be similarly silhouetted."

 

I'm trying to figure out exactly what your reasoning was, Jeremy.

 

If you are (as I understand it) implying, that a subject standing on a brighter surface will be more likely to be silhouetted, than other subjects standing on a darker surface in the same photo - do I get this straight? -, then you are mistaken. Meaning that a brighter background does not make any foreground any darker: only exposure does (and exposure has an overall effect on the picture).

Dennis, I "seem to have lost [my] fire for tonality this week" because I am burnt out. Still, you're right. It probably would be better if there were *some* detail in the figure, but the lack of it doesn't bother me so much, and I don't think the images as loaded is strange.

Yes, we have the right to discuss, of course. But, if the photographer reached what he envisioned, discussing is useless. I had a look at Miguel's portfolio before posting my comment, and I had the impression that he knows what he does.

 

Changing the artistic matter, means changing the artist's creativity, thoughts and so on. This will not happen because of a comment on photo.net, therefore it's useless.

 

Yes, you can talk about the photo you would have liked to see, but then you're talking about something of yours. I bet that if I take a shot, then send it to someone. This someone makes some modification and then sends it to someone else and so on... we would end up with something completely meaningless.

 

I see art as an individual expression, rather than an expression of the collectivity. This is very subjective, since some people think and practice in the opposite direction.

 

If - and read: if - any piece is just a creation of the artist, what I would find useful would be an investigation on the methods: why does this picture give these reactions? How do the elements sum together in a bigger whole? This would be an useful and interesting discussion to me.

 

Writing things like "adjust levels", "cut the girl", is sometimes a waste, other times an insult... unless there are evident technical flaws, but this is not the case.

 

I went to see an exhibition of Caravaggio today. There was a beautiful painting with the angel announcing to Mary that she was pregnant. The angel was painted in a breathtaking way. Mary not so much. I bet that some photo.net user would have written something like "the virgin is not painted as good as the angel, o:6, a:4".

 

The reason behind Caravaggio's choice was this: the angel is the subject of the painting, the "being" through which God reveals itself. Mary was just the "object", the "slave of God" who should have given birth to his son. Now, change the way Mary was painted, and you change the very matter of the painting... here is a link to the painting's reproduction if somebody wants to have a look him/herself: http://www.thais.it/speciali/Caravaggio/AlteHTM/Annunciazione.htm

 

What am I doing on photo.net? Just turning time around before death arrives... I hope in many, many years.

Marc,

I know next to nothing about lighting compared to you--let's just get that out of the way first. But are you saying that shining a bright light (whether it's the source or a reflective surface) at the subject from behind (with the subject between the lens and the light source) will NOT produce a silhouetted image of the subject?? Please clarify, if you don't mind. Thanks,

JS

Marc, what if the girl was, say, 10 paces to the right of where she appears in the current photo? Would you still say that she should be under approximately the same lighting conditions (assuming no manipulation) as the people in the background? I'm only asking because the surface there seems even more reflective than the one on which she's standing currently.

Buena... entre photo.net y me dije... esta me suena de otro sitio... !Felicidades! y pronto a por otra.

Excellent shot! It has its own mood.

Jeremy, I won't try to answer for Marc, but, if you shine a bright light at the camera, the aperture will either close down automatically or have to be closed down to prevent overexposure, thus darkening the poorly lit portions. The effect might indeed be a silhouette, but for the reason Marc gave: the aperture has closed down. The mere juxtaposition of bright and dark portions is not in and of itself what gives that silhouette effect, contrary to popular opinion. Unless the aperture closes down, that is, the darker portion will still show some detail, at least as a general rule.

 

By analogy, with regard to the PoW, the bright light on the water surely would affect overall exposure, which one would expect would darken all the figures, not merely the solitary one that was darkened the most. It might well be that, due to sky or reflective conditions, the figures in the distance were subject to more front lighting than was the figure in the foreground.

 

What I think happened is that the figure in the foreground thus came out somewhat darker because it was more backlit. Miguel saw this effect, liked it, and intensified it by upping the contrast--thus all of the talk about whether or not the contrast was overdone. I won't try to make a call on that.

 

All of this is subject to being corrected by those who understand exposure better than I do.

Jeremy, what Marc might be saying is that, if the shot is "natural," then the girl would be in silhouette even if she were not in the shiny part of the surf.

 

In reality, if we were all behind the camera and the scene opened up before us, then we would probably see the girl in silhouette because our eyes would adjust to the bright background, the same as Miguel has done with the exposure. As the surf receded, our eyes might re-adjust, and we might see detail in the girl, but the background surf would also be darker.

 

Light reflecting from the surf should not illuminate the side of the girl towards the camera because the light is reflecting towards us, not towards the girl. Exposing for the girl to be in silhouette *should* put everyone else in silhouette, since they are all facing the same direction relative to the camera but, because we see detail in the background people, the elves ask if it is not strange that there is no detail in the girl. If we were to disregard the people in the background, there would be no controversy because we would have no comparison for the girl.

 

Assuming the image is unmanipulated (something we all agree to be untrue, at least to one degree, or another), there needs to be a logical reason why the girl is silhouetted, while the background people are showing detail.

 

In my opinion, there is a layer of fog, or haze behind the girl that is contributing to the effect. That, plus a little help in scrinting.

What Marc was trying to say (just kidding marc). Miguel has already admitted, or stated, that he burned in the silhouette to add drama to the image.

 

 

He said: ?el postproceso de la fotografia unicamente consiste en ajuste de niveles, contraste y una leve subexposicion en la figura.?

 

Literal translation:

The post-process (done) to the photograph consists only of |adjustment of levels| contrast (adjustment of) | and a slight underexposure on the figure (girl).

 

I know the subject is getting old by now, but I?m well aware that the ardor is dwindling but some people still don?t seem to know whether or not there was any manipulation done on the front figure. So I?m just trying to keep the conversation going and clarify all points once and for all. YES THE FIGURE WAS DARKENED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER AFTER THE FACT! There I said it!

 

Miguel, la foto esta bien compuesta pero el efecto de subexposicion se me hace un poco exagerado. Disculpa mi franqueza.

Ok Bruno per your request here is my reply to you.

 

1ST point-

On your Caravaggio example you are taking it upon yourself to provide possible examples of what we the critiques would or could say about the painting. While your points are valid, there is no way to tell which way the 'actual' objections to the painting would go. It could very well be that we would like the artist rendition of highlighting the angel more then Mary. It could be that those of us who suggest(ed) changes on the POW would agree on the painting as it is. So to postulate a specific objection on our part--even though your point is quite valid--is IMO, out of context. I tried visiting the link you provided but it leads me somewhere else and I can't locate the painting you are talking about.

 

 

2nd point-

Even if Caravaggio's painting is excellent, we could still give him our opinion of it, especially if he posted it in an amateur site such as this one. It doesn't mean that our interpretation (wish list) would be better than his (at least to him) but it does mean that it could be better to 'some of us' and it would be unfair to say that nobody has the right to suggest changes to the work on display merely because the artist is finished with it. He may be done with it, but we have just started. This is our forum; this is why we gather here. We do this so we can learn from each other?s input and mistakes. And presenting our ideas for the rest of the viewers to see is, IMO, the best thing we can do.

 

3rd point-

"I see art as an individual expression, rather than an expression of the collectivity. This is very subjective, since some people think and practice in the opposite direction." --Bruno

 

I see all art as an individual expression as well, it can be noting but, because every artist is only one individual, therefore, every single piece of art in display to the world is one man's vision. Whether it is a good, or a bad one, is irrelevant up to this point. But we are not seeing this POW in a gallery or for sale in printed form in some store. It all boils down to taste. And even though it may superfluous to make suggestions to someone who is completely satisfied with his creation, nevertheless, the rest of the public can benefit from the discussion. All the photographer has to do (if he is so confident in his craft) is ignore all suggestions and corrections. But I don't think he has the right to ask us to keep quiet. It is one of the P.Net rules that if we post any work in their site, we are IN FACT agreeing to have our work scrutinized. Why else would the elves themselves begin the 'discussion' with a question on each and every single POW? To me, the fact that they begin the discussion with a question has, per inference, the idea that we can discuss its qualities, its constitution and its structure.

I'll point out one last time the logical difficulty of referring to "underexposure" as being a part of "post-processing." Yes, that is what Miguel Angel says, as Isidro correctly says, as did Julio Fernández much earllier, in correcting my translation of December 28.

I did not see the logic in translating "subexposición," as "underexposure" in my December 28 translation, although a literal rendering would leave no other choice. In terms of translation, Isidro and Julio are thus absolutely correct: this is indeed what Miguel Angel literally says.

The problem is that it did not make sense to me then (nor to me now) to refer to "underexposure" as being one of the three things that he did in POST-processing. Adjustments in levels and contrast are indeed part of post-processing, but the use of "underexposure" has left Miguel Angel's explanation vague and misleading, since he clearly referred to it as one of three things that he did in post-processing, but "underexposure" to me implies something that happens during the capture phase, not the post-processing phase. (If I am wrong in seeing "underexposure" as belonging to the capture phase, then, please, somone correct me.)

One can thus only speculate as to exactly what the photographer did by way of manipulating the relative darkness of the foreground figure AFTER the shot, and as of yet Miguel Angel has yet to offer further explanation.

I call upon Miguel Angel once again to offer the original and to explain what was done to the RAW image. The point is not to challenge Miguel Angel's credibility, but to understand precisely how this effect was achieved.

Some see this line of request as challenging the legitimacy of the photo, or as challenging Miguel Angel's honesty. This is not the case AT ALL. To me and many others, it is simply a matter of our usual curiosity as to how certain effects were produced.

Most of us come to this site to learn. By now, many of us feel that we have a sufficient degree of facility with Photoshop to have a pretty good idea as to what was done. We are not asking for revelations of professional secrets, since nothing new was done here in the post-processing phase, but simply asking for explanations that make sense in terms of our own understanding of these processes.

So far, Carl Root's allusions to darkening and gamma have made the most sense, and so Carl's explanation is my going theory. I would just like to hear it from the photographer himself.

For those who see this kind of inquiry as hostile or suspicious, I can only say that it is for most of us the kind of typical curiosity that we exhibit where technique is concerned. We are used to having the original file offered in a form that invites us to do our own experimenting. The photographer is never under any obligation to offer such a file, but many have in the past, and the subsequent reworkings of PoW photos in post-processing experimentation have often resulted in some of the more insightful analyses and critiques. This tradition of reworking others' photos is a long-standing one on PN, one that is typically viewed as part of the critical phase of commentary: we offer our own versions not typically to say that "this is better," but to say, "Look what would have happened if you had done such and such."

The reworking of others' images is thus in the best critical tradition of PN, and it usually results in lots of interesting commentary and more insightful analysis. Some new to the site often cry "Foul!" when they see this kind of "messing with someone else's photo" occurs. It is not. It's the kind of thing that we often do, and a lot of us feel that it is the best kind of criticism. We do not merely critique with words, that is: we offer another picture as a form of benign criticism. Some not new to the site also are offended by this kind of manipulation of others' photos, Tony Dummett being one of the premiere and classiest examples, but most of us just see it as good clean fun--and usually productive of better analyses and discussions.

Again, Miguel, I congratulate you on this excellent photo, and I hope that this kind of request does not put you on the defensive. We do this sort of thing all the time on this site, and it is almost always a kind of friendly exchange of ideas and techniques. I hope that I have not offended you in asking for a further explanation and for the original file in a form that we can experiment with ourselves. You are certainly under no obligation to offer such a file, but it would be a lot of fun for some of us if you did.

By the way, for the record, I like the photo just as it is. It is truly excellent, in my opinion. Even so, I would still like to see what some of the Photoshop meisters would do with it.

I see that the same problem of ambiguous language ("underexposure") continues with Miguel Angel's newest upload. In this case, however, he clearly refers to "a little underexposed over the man," clearly implying that some manipulations were done on an isolated part of the picture.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2992989

I just hope that the silhouette can be lighten to have a more natural feel to the shot. For me, there is no point in "blacking" out as the shot has already have all the ingredients for a classic.

Miguel primero darte mi enhorabuena por que tu foto sea la foto de la semana, despues desearte un feliz a�o, y por ultimo darte animos para que sigas superando este mal trance familiar.

 

No me he enterado muy bien de la polemica creada, solo decir que los grandes como tu jamas necesitan justificar sus obras de arte.

 

Si yo fuera envidioso, haria muchas cosas menos demostrarlo en publico.

 

Feliz a�o a todo Photonet.

 

Un abrazo Miguel.

Paco, no one is suggesting that Miguel "needs to justify his works of art."

Explaining his works would be nice, on the other hand, as long as we realize that words like "subexponer" have broader meanings in Spanish than English speakers are likely to realize or appreciate, especially if they go to the dictionary and see that "to underexpose" is among the possible meanings given. It can also have other subtly different meanings.

I have never meant to suggest that Miguel Angel has deliberately misled by using the word "subexposición." The problem is in assuming that literal translations out of context are ever going to be adequate. Those who expect every non-English-speaking contributor to offer an accurate English translation don't know what they are asking. The translations could quickly become more controversial than the photos, since no word-for-word mapping from one language onto another is likely to render an adequate translation.

Again, Miguel Angel, thank you for the great picture. Frankly, I think that the critical remarks have been overwhelmingly friendly and constructive.

To me a photo that works is simply one which leads the viewer to feel emotion. I believe this photo to be retouched, this does not bother me as the resulting image and the emotions it creates are powerful.

 

In a week that has seen the deaths of over 120 thousand people to the devastating and unpredicatable power of the sea this photo touches me deeply. The lone finger without detail entrying the sea leaving masses on the shore is a powerful and emotional image. I congratulate the photographer on a job well done.

 

Adam

Bruno, you wrote: "If the photographer reached what he envisioned, discussing is useless. I had a look at Miguel's portfolio before posting my comment, and I had the impression that he knows what he does."

I disagree. Yes, Miguel knows what he does. So do many of us. But this doesn't mean we get it right all the time. And sometimes - quite often actually as far as I am concerned -, we get what we wanted, but wanted "the wrong thing" in the first place. For example, I took recently a very contrasted portrait a couple of weeks ago, and ended up finding the scan of the face was a tad too white; the negative seemed to have a bit of skin texture, and this texture was gone on the scan. Since I didn't want to rescan the picture, I thought having a 240 levels output instead of 255 for whites would do the job; well, no, it didn't. The face turned greyish but gained no texture, and the picture became unnatural. At first it could have looked ok, but after a few views, I could no longer stand this grey face. Yes, I WANTED it grey at first, but later realized my mistake: what I wanted was nonsense.

You wrote: "Changing the artistic matter, means changing the artist's creativity, thoughts and so on."

Not necessarily so. It may just mean that we find the artistic decision weak, and we may, by saying so, draw the artist's attention to a weakness he had overlooked. A critique is written to be read: the author of the photo is always free to disagree if he feels what he did is what he wanted and if he still feels he wanted the right thing.

You wrote: "Yes, you can talk about the photo you would have liked to see, but then you're talking about something of yours."

Agreed ! But nothing wrong about that imo. The photographer may still decide to leave things as they are. Or not. Criticism is a win-win situation in every case.

You wrote: "If - and read: if - any piece is just a creation of the artist, what I would find useful would be an investigation on the methods: why does this picture give these reactions? How do the elements sum together in a bigger whole? This would be an useful and interesting discussion to me."

If you read carefully the criticism published on this page, you'll actually see that we discussed the methods that made this POW feel unnatural to M. X and M. Y. The "bigger whole" is nice imo, but looks a bit artificial - again, imo. Regards.