The Apples of His Eyes

This young boy spots apples at a street market, lower Manhattan, New

York City. Let me know what you think. (If you rate harshly or very

negatively, please submit a helpful and constructive comment/Please

share your superior knowledge to help improve my photography.)

Thanks! Enjoy! John ;-)

oversaturated and too contrasty? Excellent capture of the moment and expression.

John, I am here following your comment on my picture, for which I would like to thank you once again.

I find this is a strong street portrait, yet a decisive moment: this young kid has a stunning expression towards the apples.

From what I see, I now can understand better why you find my shot rather washed out: on my LCD, this image looks like many of the dark lights were clipped (mainly under the kid's hat) as well as highlights (the hat, and the white tissue). Information is simply not displayed at all.I understand this is a choice, just that it is not in my preferred tastes to have big contrasts in color shots.

I definitely think we have a matching issue between our two displays ...

Cheers !

Really cute. The kid's expression is priceless. Colors really match well.

 

Is this an older shot or are you doing film again?

Thank you for your nice comment. The apples look exactly in this photo as they did 'on the street'.

 

John

It was the expression first that caused me to choose this photo, despite it's being too 'washed out' and lacking in contrast -- it was literally unshowable, and I applied contrast adjustment only, without touching the 'saturation' slide. This photo looks exactly like the scene -- the apples, for instance, were very saturated in reality -- the kid's skin is very dark, and maybe this photo renders it less than its true darkness but it's pretty close.

 

(see comment below)

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you for the kind remarks on the capture. I thought it was priceless, and the kid's cuteness I think I caught.

 

As to the issue of 'saturation' and 'clipping' this is NOT a photo in which there was substantial Photoshopping -- no more than a photo processor's machine would have applied (this was scanned from film by a photo processor).

 

Their machines have giant computers, and had I taken this for printing, with the negative in the shape it was in, I think it would have printed as such.

 

As to the issue of clipping, that is a function of the objects being photographed exceeding the dynamic range of the film, which was in the camera from being indoors -- a high ASA/ISO, and the white in the handkerchief compared to the darkness under his cap simply represents too much light and not enough light. The original capture was much worse.

 

This photo was taken under bright sunlight, and I think this is the best job matrix metering could have done.

 

Black/dark skin is particularly difficult to render--Nikon matrix metering on closeup will 'lighten' very black skin, and it's very flattering because it underexposes black skin (to lighten it) when one meters with the frame filled with a black/dark face, etc.

 

However, this face was a small part of the frame, and it's clipped under the hat, etc., just as 'clipped' in the original capture -- just that there was almost no detail in the shirt or pants, and the apples are almost white -- definitely not what one would consider the original scene looked like.

 

Here, the detail is RESTORED to what it looked like (sun was to the back) almost exactly. Apples look exactly as they did in original, the jeans of the man, behind, look as they did, and the only issue is the sunlit handkerchief (which is blown in the original) and the darkness under the boy's hat. Those are a function of the film's dynamic range, rather than one of 'pixel processing'. The original photo, unenhanced for contrast only (as a machine would have done) was unpostable.

 

It may be that the 'saturation' issue is because the child's black face is rendered more 'true to life' than usual, especially by Nikon Matrix Metering, which (full-frame) meters such faces lighter; as less than full frame subject, this face ended up with shadows being 'clipped' ON THE FILM.

 

Rendering black/dark faces light (when metered nearly full-frame) is a Nikon Matrix Metering idiosyncracy that usually is seen as flattering by blacks, but here, because the black/dark face was so small in the frame, the usual compensation wasn't made -- and the child's face was entirely dark.

 

(Levels or curves were not used to 'clip' the highlights or shadow areas --- that's just a product of a film exposure) and not a choice -- this rendition is the only way to present this capture with utmost accuracy.

 

Thanks for commenting; I note the extensive discussion under your photo and you will note I didn't rate it. I still believe that posting is something that must be viewed on the web before a final decision is made on thing like contrast, as WYSINWYG (What you see -- on your monitor -- often is not what you get when you post, due to idiosyncracies of the web. The rest of your portfolio/folders looks right on for contrast, exposure, etc.)

 

I appreciate feedback that is well-intentioned, acknowledge it and thank you for it. Sometimes it pays to have to think about things that sometimes are 'taken for granted', and well-intentioned comments can cause one to do just that.

 

John (Crosley)

Yes, the colors and the expression are what make this photo, I think. As noted above, it came scanned from film as being all washed out -- an unusual occurrence for me with film, (maybe it was irradiated against my wishes on the multiple plane trips and airport entries I made, and I didn't catch it). Likely it was just an idiosyncracy of Nikon Matrix Metering (see discussion above).

 

The kid was Really Cute, and that's why he ended up being a subject of my camera -- his look is typical of him. (His parents are very lucky to have such an amazingly aware child -- very well behaved too). Other photos from the same film show the same problems on this subject, and it was either ditch it or enhance the contrast.

 

Yes, I shoot both digital and film at the same time, with two cameras sometimes, or sometimes just two digital cameras. Film is very expensive, but it allows me to carry two ranges of lenses -- here an 80~200 f 2.8 Nikkor.

 

(It's interesting I got comments on 'saturation' as I'm the original 'no Photoshopping' guy, except to SAVE a capture, as here.)

 

The colors to me are a very strong part of this photo, and I don't think I would change it, as they seem to work together well.

 

Love to see you dropped by.

 

John (Crosley)

'The Apples of His Eyes'

 

I started to post with this caption, but got interrupted and forgot these words, so posted with what I think is a lesser caption. Oh, well.

 

Is this one better, and does it contribute more by adding a little rhythm and contrasting the photo with a well-known phrase?

 

John