Untitled

Thanks for viewing. Comments welcome.

I don't know if this is HDR but the effect is similar. With the curving arcs It makes them seem as if they're somehow floating through some futuristic high tech space.

Like Jack, I like the composition a lot. The curve is used effectively and really brings my attention to the couple as part of their environment. Their facing different directions works well. and I like her intent look behind his much more relaxed bearing. The water has very nice patterns, especially when I look at the larger version. The lighting is very nice, but I'm not big on the processing. Their hair feels oversharpened to me and the skin is feeling quite modeled, so an everyday and very human story starts to feel somewhat artificial and the natural beauty is getting a little lost for me.

Jack:  I suspect that I may have been trying to transform a pig's ear into a silk purse.  I realize from Fred's comments that my approach was not suitable for this image, and I will try again.  Please let me know what you think once I post the next attempt.

 

Fred - I suspect that my use of NIK HDR Efex Pro accounts for the appearance you don't like.  For experimental purposes, I will re-process the image.  When I post the 2nd version, your additional feedback will be most appreciated.

Michael,

Nice portrait of two people who are already a long time together. Best regards.

Alternative . . .

I prefer the original. It has a better tonality overall and better level of contrast. The redo has a little less of that airbrushed skin quality but the tone of the skin seems dark and not as flattering as in the original. Did you go back to the RAW file or the original jpg to create your second version, or did you start with the 1st version? If you want, post the unprocessed version for us to have a look at, unless it's already been run through this program in camera, in which case that's now built into the file.

I went to the original (jpeg) to produce the 2nd image.  Here it is.

Here's where I'd start. I just did a straight conversion to black and white, using Channel Mixer in Photoshop and then applying a basic gradient for a little more contrast. I'm concentrating mostly on the people, as I think the background can be dealt with a little differently but didn't take the time to do so. I think the curved concrete area needs to be darker as in your photo but, concentrating on their skin and hair, I think this straight conversion comes closer to a natural-looking skin tone. The camera is in part responsible for the sharpness of the hair, so I'm not sure there's anything you can do about that, but in my conversion, their hair doesn't look quite so brittle and wiry and the skin feels less airbrushed and modeled to me. It's really only a start but I hope this gives you some sense of what I'm not thrilled with in your versions, especially in terms of the two people.

Now having seen the original, I think your processing on the version you first uploaded is about as good as you can manage. The composition is a little tight and the light rather flat so the picture, though it must have seemed to have some potential, is actually limited in what you can finally make of it. It's certainly not a bad picture but it's value lies more in what you can learn from it rather than as a finished product. The fact that it has sparked extended reaction from Fred and myself indicates that it has rendered a valuable service. That's the purpose of this site, after all, a study of and reaction to photographs, hopefully in the form of thoughtful comment.

Fred:  I am very grateful for your processing of the image and your instructive feedback.  I am left with 2 responses, though.  (1) You've referred to the woman's hair as having a wiry appearance.  In looking at both the original post and the alternative, I think you are referring to highlights in her hair.  I don't think my versions are necessarily any sharper than yours.  Of course, this may be nothing more than my perception and/or differences in our monitors.  (2) I must confess that I may not recognized an airbrushed skin tone if it smacked me in the face.  Regardless, although her skin appears smoother in your version, I think it is overly dark.  That's what I was trying to fix in my versions.

 

Jack:  Your thoughtful remarks go right to the heart of the matter.  Through this image, I have attracted two expert photographers - you and Fred, and I have been able to have dialogue with both of you on a reasonably competent level.  If we end up disagreeing, so what.  It's not necessarily the end that matters anyway.

Thanks. Yes, an excellent discussion. I'll refer you to two specific areas. Remember, I just did a quick conversion as a beginning. I would put a lot more work into getting the tones just as I wanted them. I was not presenting what I'd consider a finished product. If you look at the woman's temple and the shadow on her neck in yours compared to your original color version or the simple conversion I did, you may notice the strong graphic black appearance of those areas in your black and whites and the relatively more organic nature of those areas in the color version and in my conversion. (Your 2nd version handled those two shadowed areas better but I didn't like the overall feel of your second version in terms of tonality and contrast. Also, notice his hair. While darker in mine, it could be finessed to be a bit lighter, but it doesn't have the white shininess/metallic look (which is what I meant by wiry) in the conversion I did. In any case, the feel of the two of them, their seeming to be a couple while looking in opposite directions and having such different body positions, and the semi-circular lines of the pool (with added linear graphics) are the essence of the photo and the feeling and composition, as Jack notes, are certainly there. Processing, for me, is extremely important, but also a matter of personal taste and a lot of finesse, and I can spend weeks on the various nuances in my photos and then do it differently the next time I approach it, so . . . whatever we each get out of this discussion is worth every penny!

I can't begin to tell you how grateful I am for the detailed explanation you provided in your last post.  I do need to make you aware that my primary pp software is Elements 11, so Channel Mixer is not available to me (as far as I know).  My B&W conversions are done in NIK Silver Efex Pro 2, and it has filters for adding structure for images.  That may account for the airbrushed appearance which you've mentioned.

 

Again, many thanks, especially for your collegiality . . .

As they say a story telling photograph! Also a psychological study if you want! Well seen and well clicked!

 

Best regards, Michael

 

PDE

 

P.S. Don't see why the curved area should be darker?! Enough is the elimination of the hose looking pink element and the converting in B&W!

I love the way you captured this moment, something banal that looks extraordinary, and is open for all kinds of interpretations - funny, serious, deep, etc. 

Best regards

Kristian

Well seen and presented, love the leading lines.