The 'About-To-Be' Contest Winners

The contest winners had been announced but were not present which

was required to take the prize, however these entrants WERE present

and hoped to win the local supermarket contest for groceries and in

fact, they did (just moments after this photo was taken) because they

were present and their names were drawn. Your ratings and critiques

are invited and most welcome; if you rate harshly or very critically, or

just wish to share your thoughts, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to

help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

As always, I did not need the story.. Mine story was more tender and emotional. The composition is excellent. If it were mine photo I would work on the contrast and try to make the skin tones look more natural - (a problem with digita bw). this is my taste.

It's a lovely double portrait with the juxtaposition providing a nice sense of geometry and also of human warmth. Her fingers just barely entering the frame is a nice touch. For me, there's a problem with the woman's eyes and more significantly with the far side of her mouth. The black in the corner of her mouth feels gritty and is working against the loveliness of her smile. Though her eyes are quite stark as you have them (and maybe that is just what you want), I think it would feel a little more gentle (to go along with the pose and expressions) if more light were brought out in those dark eyes.

I would very much appreciate it if you could recreate your work flow (if it's in Adobe CS3 or CS4), and send me the 'actions' or each 'filter' etc., and the values of each if you know them, and whether or not you worked on individual sections by 'selection','masking' or otherwise, as I did not do more work on this photo than simply adjusting shadows/highlights and contrast somewhat, and that was hard for this fairly gray-toned capture.

 

I prefer to post minimally worked photos to see not only the impact of the photo itself with the captured composition carrying the day, but also to escape being rated on Photoshop skills (or my noted lack thereof).

 

Imagine having a great photo, but choosing the wrong Photoshop or other image editing technique or 'view' of that photo, working it up, but not well, then presenting that image as though it were the 'captured image' without much clue how a viewer., photographer, could go back and recreate the original image.

 

Critics then would be judging less the photo (as captured and adjusted minimally) than the photo PLUS the Photoshop/image editing skills as applied specifically for that photographer according to his artistic vision.

 

But what if the photo is very good to excellent and the photographer chooses poor exposition through editing?

 

If the reviews are not good, and no one thinks to suggest other changes to the original view (since viewers cannot by definition see something that has been changed), the photographer might conclude that the original and posting image which NO ONE HAS see are also undesirable whereas he/she is being down rated for poor or lack of image editing skills (and/or application).

 

The result: the photographer might ruin or partially ruin in Photoshop in image editing its 'apparent' attractiveness, the photographer will 'see' it as a less worthy photograph, and consign it to the hard drive (or negative sleeve, etc.) even if low rates are a result solely of bad image editing choices only.

 

I vastly prefer to present a largely unedited photo; done so with minimal image editing, then allow others to present versions, exactly as what has happened here with your original 'view' compared to my more 'unedited' or 'less edited' version.

 

In other words, I'd rather give you a base with which to 'teach me' than insist I was already a master of presentation, and thus see your advice transform my photo than present you with a photo 'transformed' to my taste, but so strongly so that some or many might reject it for that/those reasons, more or less.

 

Thank you for presenting me with an attractive alternative; perhaps I can learn from your example, then adjust to my taste.

 

I find absolute transformation from blacks to whites more difficult than adjusting for 'skin tones' in black and white, especially when shooting higher than minimal ISO even in a D300, and in that regard do envy those who still shoot film, as it is one aspect in which film has some advantage over digital, all other things being considered.

 

Thank you for the compliment on the photo itself. I try to compose always in the camera, and seldom crop. I think that is apparent. I prefer generally first to show a 'natural' image unless I have a 'clear artistic vision' of how a certain image should be presented, and often I do not. In those cases where I either have a clearer artistic vision or image editing fails to bring about other possible 'views' of an image, I will present a more edited version.

 

Helpful advice such as the above is quite welcome here; it is the foundation upon which I have based my return to photography . . . . the helpful hints and critiques of others . . . . posted with an intent to help improve the images and their presentation.

 

Thanks again.

 

John (Crosley)

I take your advice seriously, for not only are you a portrait artist, but you are now a Photo.net acknowledged portrait artist.

 

Congratulations!

 

I agree with your assessment; you can see the post above for my general practice in image editing and posting, where I do not see clear need; if I see need or have a clearer vision than I did here, I might have posted as you suggest; I think it is quite similar to Meir's version, above, which I do like.

 

Thanks for the time spent in analysis and the additional effort spent in letting me have some helpful hints (from an acknowledged Portrait Artist).

 

Thanks for the note on composition; this couple had heads together, touching and suddenly as I was firing on "C' drive (as I do on many low-light photos seeking to get ONE in focus properly and without subject/camera blur)), his head swung to his left, and ended so far left that his eyes were obscured, so this is near the end of the horizontal rotation of the head that was occurring while I was firing.

 

Neat, huh? Sometimes things just work out better than planned. This is one of them. Naturally, it was my choice to keep firing as I saw this develop, and of course I was delighted.

 

Thanks Fred.

 

Very much.

 

John (Crosley)

the black, eyes mouth.....I think that this is a digital artifact. It has never happed to me with film-wet prints. I think I have never seen it when I scanned a "wet"-print on a flat bed but I see it with direct digital camera input and film scans. It is worse for me with Tif rather than Raw. Depending on the light the artifact is just is not there.. I used to think that it was because silver grains are finer/denser than pixels but now I am inclined to think it is software (I used to do digital binomial regressions) or maybe I am just plain wrong. I see this sometimes with the Hasselblad 39 megapixels; I've seen it in Lenswork magazine, etc. The artifact is very apparaent in the other recent post "nina III". Sometimes with my photos I can dodge to make the tone change gradual/smooth and sometimes not. -my two cents

My post just above was written and posted just after Fred's but johns two comments posted between... guess we were writing at the same time.

Meir above notes that the small story does not help him.

 

So why do I post 'stories' about my photos and talk about the captures as I do?

 

The reason is that this is a sharing site that is photographically based.

 

Many here are newer to the craft than Meir who is exhibited as a photographer; they have lower skill sets and less 'vision' than Meir.

 

I feel it is interesting for them (and get loads of comments and emails thanking me for doing so) to let individual photographers know how a particular photo came about.

 

Rather than mysteriously post an image or just post an image with no clue how it came into being, I think most of my viewers are interested in how I manage to get the great variety I do (here it was being present at supermarket giveaway, in Kyiv, Ukraine, and by learning that and for those who know I usually just go about daily stuff with two cameras around my neck waiting for opportunities, will recognize that I was merely shopping for groceries, and here waiting for a taxi with my companion when the giveaway began so I walked over with my camera, and in two minutes had this capture (which I showed to the couple. I had been attracted by their obvious love for each other and the vision of shared warmth, not the pose which initially was not present.

 

In other words, my version of comments and critiques is to make it comfortable for all, not just exhibited photographers and invite ALL to learn.

 

John (Crosley)

I do not have CS3 or CS4.. I have a 2003 version of Adobe Elements Version 2.0. So I so not know about filters masking and layers and desaturation. What I did to your photo is of no credit to me. It is what Len Marriott on photo.net taught me two years ago.... I set feather to 0. I lassoed the face (see attachment). I changed feather to 50 to smooth the boundary. Then Enhance->Adj->Levels and tweaked the histogram for more contrast within the lasso area. Then deselected the lasso. Then I very slightly burned (I think 20% "midtones") the facial areas that I thought were just a little too bright. If it works for you, thank Len.

In the beginning if you remember I strongly objected to the story. However I have come to enjoy reading and do not suggest that you stop your writing. And you are correct. Photo.net is for sharing. But stories do not help the photo per se: re: Robert Doisneau, "The isolated image has an evocative power ....... I can't remember who said that 'to describe is to kill, to suggest is to give life.' This I think is the key...You offer the seed and then the viewer grows it inside himself." -Robert Doisneau 1912.....- I continue to object to Subjective Titles, which everyone does. Titles should be "objective" not "subjective". "mona lisa" is a better title than "enigmatic smile"; "child playing", "Jennifer" or just plain "My daughter" beats the hell out of "happy days". "Nina III" is a proper title. It is not only objective but it credits Nina. One can never dispute an objective title. And that is also in agreement with Robert Doisneau.

P.S. I do not think "lasso" or histogram adjustment is cheating because it simply makes the photo appear as you saw it; not as the camera and software saw it.

Your editing suggestions are just about as concise and perfect as I could imagine.

 

Although with photos that 'need rescuing' I will engage in a substantial amount of 'manipulation' for such a straightforward photo, I'll post it with proper contrast/brightness adjustments, eliminating globally too much light and too much dark, through shadow/highlight filter, occasionally 'levels' and so forth, until I get pretty much what I want.

 

I now almost always start with the RAW version -- nearly universally - and it's a short step through Photoshop CS4 (for me), to finish it off, if not filled with 'unusual areas'.

 

I often do not even further sharpen posted images, especially if focus and light are 'spot on' . . . it just seems like gilding the proverbial lilly.

 

I aim for 'naturalness' in my photos, and many remark that I achieve that, rather than more formal, 'charging documents' - photos that are heavy with 'mood and somberness', except some portraits designed to see inside the 'soul' of individuals.

 

For that see, for instance, my photo of the man (with wife) who was stopped by me in a shopping center in Los Angeles, because he seemed 'out of place' though obviously shopping with wife for touristy things at a touristy place and otherwise appropriate in all regards.

 

He just looked 'out of place' among the happy-to-have-a-day-or week-off patrons.

 

And I told him by offering a 'free' photo, I'd try to 'capture (his) soul'.

 

He revealed as I took his portrait signs of the 'fear', 'anxiety' and a'struggle' as he was undergoing 'low dose' cancer chemotherapy which allowed him to walk around normally and didn't sap his strength but tugged at his very soul, which he believed through his religion (which we discussed) was already 'saved'.

 

'Saved or not' that photo showed fear and upset. His wife, daughter and son-in-law (future son-in-law) who viewed it, all said it 'captured his essence.'

 

They were all thankful and full of compliments, even though it is more in the order of a true portrait 'into the soul than a 'head shot'.

 

I had sensed something uneasy about the man; I was right (in spades). He was fighting for his life and introspective, but being diverted by loving family.

 

Another is of the man titled 'living history', which otherwise is unexplained, but taken at the wee hours in the back of a bar (I was not drinking) with available light with a very old prime lens.

 

It seems to have 'gone through' this man's skin and captured his 'inner being'.

 

This mysterious man liked it very much, and the few who have seen it who knew him, said 'that's really him . . . exactly.'

 

Lighting in that was dark and moody; his aging features emphasized.

 

Another soul, this time with alertness (and some darkness) captured. I know personally of no darkness in him or his life . . . . though his former (unnamed) occupation suggests some cloudy or gray areas . . . . . . Sorry to be mysterious - it is from keeping a commitment to him that I do not disclose until his death is confirmed.

 

This couple is lightness, love, commitment, happiness -- two people as one but without overt sexual overtones.

 

I chose to let the - I thought - excellent composition and their great expressions capture the day.

 

You later quote Doisneau.

 

I do not quote Cartier-Bresson, but note he did not print at all after the late '40s and the start of Magnum, and often sent away raw (undeveloped) film with caption material and only later saw it.

 

Videos of him showing photos being printed show his involvement in the process being 'rejecting one or two because they were not to his licking in one regard or another, but otherwise saying 'BRAVO' to his printer.

 

I tend toward the HCB school, though I do like some input.

 

I would be happy with a personal Photoshopper and to be relieved of Photoshopping, as HCB was with printing.

 

WONDERFUL, HELPFUL, COMMENT -- AN EXAMPLE FOR ALL.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Your comment above is correct.. For this genre of photography the value of photoshop is to make the photo to be as it really was -not the way I want it to be. So yes, some "rescue" is often necessary.