Julia (Yulia), 18

This is 'Julia' -- aka 'Yulia) in Russian, taken in Ukraine, ON THE

STREET (this is an overexposure with no background cloned or cropped

out -- in fact although cropped to 'square' this is an 'unmanipulated

photo under the rules. Your ratings and critiques are invited and

most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit

a helpful and constructive comment; please share your superior

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! (She was photographed, turning her head to attend to a

customer while working the second of two customers at an outdoor beer

stand where she works six or seven days a week -- her second job --

shje works maybe 16 hours a day). John

Channel Mixer in Photoshop was used to desaturate, by checking (ticking) the 'monochrome' box and then adjusting the color sliders to 'taste' and leaving the 'constant' at 'zero'. I seldom touch the 'constant' unless I just can't get it right with the sliders and I have given up hope, and am very tired.

 

John (Crosley)

Julia called my name out after not seeing me from a long absence from this Ukrainian town's central square and in fact I hardly remembered her, but she remembered me. (Lucky me!)

 

In fact, she is one of the most animated persons, so full of life and vitality, that the fact that she also is very pretty just seems to fall into the background, as she does not trade on her beauty and in fact seems just to take it for granted and in a city where women 'dress up' every day, she dresses down, at least in her work attire, with a little eye makeup and precious little else.

 

In a town/city where most of the women wear high heels almost everywhere all the time, she is short and wears flats (stylish ones, but flats, almost like dance slippers, gold and pretty in themselves.)

 

She's attractive in her personality, dress (she has 'style' in her own personal way that is NOT dictated by designers) and in her own way, she has the personal magnetism of 50 other, ordinary women.

 

She's only 18, but unless she gets trapped into the marriage and have an early baby and a hopeless life school of life, she could go very far, as she obviously is very bright.

 

John (Crosley) (who barely knows her)

You can thank me f**king up my camera settings. This was supposed to be a normal exposure but it got overexposed, and I learned a lesson about 'high key' photography.

 

I am greatly indebted to the occasional f**kups for what they teach me; in fact that's one of the reasons I take photos 'on the margin' of acceptability for focus, exposure and other elements. It often leads me into techniques that bring wonderful results or teach me things that can be brought into other captures later - I'm always learning.

 

I'll use this overexposure technique, which looks like it occurred in a studio, on future 'street' subjects', as well as their 'ordinary' exposures, to show the 'fashion model' in them.

 

And Julia (Yulia) does look like a fashion model, though far too short to be a runway model.

 

She's also beautiful from the 'inside out', which impresses me even more.

 

Thanks for the encouraging word.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(Mahmoud's comment was deleted, and I no longer find him as a member -- either he withdrew or was 'kicked out' but his point was well made.)

this is just incredible.

Yes it was a smiley face.

 

I adore High-Key stuff and I think you should do more of this with your models. This looks like you did it on purpose and it makes her face shine and the way you took this picture is just perfect.

 

She is as you said, brilliant and beautiful. ~ micki

Hi Key, Low Key...know her, dont know her...who cares! One damn amazing photo. For all those who still resist and deny that love at first sight exists...here is the proof (grin).

I'll see Julia probably today; her work is centrally located, and she has asked for a copy of this photo, I told her it would be posted and she'll be delighted at the comments.

 

(Thanks raters for no derogatory comments on the models throughout except where I've posted one suggesting the photo is to derogate the model, in another posting).

 

I may have spent 30 minutes in the presence of Julia and you probably can guess my impression of her. It's repeated below by another poster.

 

John (Crosley)

I routinely 'try' to mess up and fire my camera at odd times and odd things often with odd settings to see what will happen.

 

See my photos of the Eiffel Tower (Tour d'Eiffel). One of them is set with the color setting set to flourescent . . . a little trick I learned from an article on a pro who had to take a photo but couldn't get any color on a drab day, but had to produce a color photograph of some fishermen. . . . In another of those photos I set the Kelvin setting to produce a bluish cast . . . and these color settings were very, very succcessful.

 

I am forever experimenting and suggest that if I could I'd be working the settings on how they close the casket cover as they close it, or how they light those incinerator flames in the crematory . . . . Yes, I'm incorrigible.

 

I don't know how you can tell she's bright, except that I told you, but she certainly is beautiful, and I caught her at the exact perfect moment for composition with the rotational forces causing a 'corkscrew' effect with her hair, as she turned to attend to a new customer . . . it was wondrous to look at in the viewfinder -- I showed it to her for just a second (interrupting her work). Her boyfriend tried to come over and 'buy' it from me for what he thought was a high price . . . probably a few dollars, which in Ukraine is truly a high price . . . but they don't know the REAL price of a great photo like this, even if you just went to a portrait studio and considering it was produced with $10 to $20,000 worth of equipment and all the opportunities I had to endure just to get one like this, it's very valuable (to me).

 

If someone hired me to produce photos like this, I wouldn't give them a rock bottom price; I can produce professional quality work, on a par with anyone, given my equipment, models and budget (here, none).

 

Here, I got 'the moment'.

 

If you saw Julia, you wouldn't recognize this woman as the same person, although you would be captivated by her spirit if you saw her interacting with people. I see her beauty and by God I caught it, even though she was 'dressed down' and not made up more than a modicum.

 

John (Crosley)

Why do you think I took this photo?

 

Anyway, she has a boyfriend, she kisses a lot, when I see him bring her things, and he attends to her faithfully, so she appears devoted to him.

 

And I'm really an older guy, damn.

 

If I were younger, and he were not there, watch out, she'd be the one.

 

She's got the right stuff.

 

Not 'stuck up' at all.

 

Plainly self-assured and bright.

 

A great combination.

 

A joyous personality.

 

I don't even really know her, either, so I have no 'fish to fry'.

 

No chance either if she were 'available'.

 

But a guy can dream.

 

Or he's ready to die.

 

John (Crosley)

... now given our recent discussions about sharpness and sharpening, you no doubt will understand that this shot is made for me by the absolute perfect focus on the right-hand eye. Model is beautiful, etc., no doubt, but for the photograph, that is it for me.

Thanks for noticing.

 

But we need to have a discussion about where in-camera sharpening leaves off, (and is necessary), where raw images which are devoid of sharpening demand it (if you agree they do, and how much), and when, and if, sharpening over the in-camera standard is ever justified.

 

For instance, Nikon is frequently criticized for their weak JPEG sharpening; I emphasize it by choosing 'high contrast' in my menus which should increase the sharpening effect (even for this photo which you like . . . ;-)

 

And when, if ever, is 'sharpening' with smart sharpen' or unsharp mask (both are essentially the same, I think) justified?

 

Is there a continuum or is it all or nothing and if so, where is the demarcation. JPEGS all have some sharpening, and without their 'viewer' adding default sharpening, RAW and NEF images don't have any native sharpening.

 

Where does that leave us mortals who just want to take photographs that look good?

 

Also, this was a full daylight photo, stopped down substantially . . . so focus was relatively easy, even if I f*cked up the exposure (or I am beginning to realize that particular lens has a 'contact' problem . . . it sometimes 'jumps' in exposure and Nikon is going to be looking at it in a week; I have a backup identical to it and two 80~200s in backup also, so my work won't suffer.

 

Let me know your thoughts, however.

 

John (Crosley)

... I prefer to shoot RAW so that any adjustments to the image I do myself. Almost always do some sharpening, "to eye", as it were. But I try not to introduce any noticable sharpening artifact. I use unsharp mask sometimes, otherwise the standard sharpening tool in Lightroom.

 

But I don't have anything really valuable to say about sharpening, except that I believe, as you know, that sharpening actually degrades an image, and to try to recover an out-of-focus image by sharpening only degrades it further, if in a different manner. In those cases, it is almost always best to write the shot off as a nice try, no matter how wonderful. That being said, one of my favorite shots in my portfolio is "focus compromised" from a mis-set tilt shift lens. But it is not overtly intrusive and I like the shot well enough to keep it until I go back to France and reshoot the image.

 

I certainly would not know how to give general sharpening advice to anybody, much less someone with your skills, John. It's all about the eye, as you well know.

I understand that.

 

You expressed some strong views, and I wanted to probe them.

 

I am satisfied with your general discussion, and wanted to know if your remarks had represented a concensus of printers or art dealers, for instance, as that surely would affect how I process and present my portfolio.

 

But 'to the eye' I know well.

 

I feel best when I am my own judge and can set my own limits.

 

In that one photo which we discussed in which 'rudeness' was involved by others, the only point that never was made that validly could have been made in all that 'noisy rudeness' was that the subject herself was unsharp and had been horridly sharpened' -- and NO ONE commented on it, not even those critics.

 

If that point had been made, rudely or not, I readily would have admitted to it; and even thanked the person for their careful observance --- I acknowledge 'valid' critiques . . . it's just that the one valid critique to that photo was never made amid all the noise.

 

That was quite amazing to me.

 

It also interested me, since it did NOT meet my standards, and I only showed it because of passing interest, I was surprised to find it a top rated and top discussed photo (here).

 

Best wishes to you, Dennis.

 

John

... John, just wanted to show you a quick demo I did to demonstrate the difference between unsharp mask and the Quick Sharpen function. Had to push the unsharp a bit to make it clear (300%, 2 pixel, 15 threshold). Then subtracted the value pixel by pixel for each version from the original. A pixel value other than zero represents a change in the image. You can see from the left hand version, the kind of change that unsharp mask does. From the right, you can see a more generalized, less controllable sharpening done in the standard sharpen function. So the sharpening that you want to do is dictated by the kind of effect you want on the original. Hope this helps.

When in fact I know very little at all.

 

I understand there is a difference between 'unsharp mask' and 'ordinary sharpening' whatever that is, but I am unable to determine exactly what that is.

 

In Photoshop CS2, there are a variety of sharpening tools listed under 'sharpening' alone, as well as 'sharpening' under a noise reduction tool, just for editing of JPEGs, TIFFS, etc., let along ACR, which is their RAW processor, so you can see my quandary when you write about 'standard sharpening'.

 

By that, do you mean 'smart sharpen' which I thought was a variant of 'unsharp mask'? Or do you mean 'sharpen' which I never use, 'sharpen edge', or 'sharpen more' which also are choices under sharpen?

 

Without that knowledge I have no basis on which to understand your post; I'm just too ignorant, and I'm sure it is important.

 

I also am too ignorant about the importance of what is shown by the gray scale images. I presume they are desaturated idealizations that show the effects of sharpening (in degrees one supposes represented by the relative levels of black to white in shades of gray) but beyond that, I am lost.

 

I often look at the blowups of the pixels themselves in the 'view' boxes that are provided for the images in the two tools -- 'unsharp mask' and 'smart sharpen' and am often guided by the full size version and a greatly 'blown up' version of the same scene by examining the pixels for 'sharpening' halos and other artifacts.

 

Sometimes I might see halos (of various sizes) but decide that in order to view the photo, they are necessary (or in your view it should maybe be chucked), but they come in varying sizes.

 

Photo magazines have suggested 'starting' with a 1% amount and a pixel radius of 100 for digital captures, depending on the manufacturer's 'native, in-camera sharpening, then adjusting from there, and if often works for me with Nikon cameras and lenses.

 

Sometimes with my 12~24 f4, I'll forget to use smart sharpen, the tool referred to above, and it'll look great. Other times, with the same lens, but usually with less sharp lenses, it is necessary to 'sharpen' a little bit, always watching the pixels on blowup to see what happens to them.

 

A 'street' capture at ISO 3600 I allow greater leeway for unsharpness than a nature or landscape shot, for which I have almost no tolerance.

 

'Street photos', 'war' photos and 'documentary photos' are almost in a 'category of themselves' in my mind when it comes to sharpness. There, the image comes first, and any thing that detracts from the image is something to be 'handled'.

 

If it's a little unsharpness, and that can be handled without detracting, there are digital tools for attempting that, but I am not the best at that. I have a few techniques, especially for bringing out eyes in shadow for photos taken without flash at night, that might stand the test, and may not yet be written about, but I don't read or even peruse Photoshop books -- I am far too busy just downloading (and taking) my own shots even to edit my own (or even to view them).

 

Incidentally, I do spend a lot of time viewing my own successful captures to learn from my own successes (and the parts I can improve) so that each time I go out, I am exponentially better prepared from time I spent reclining, viewing a slide show of my captures that I've edited or even that are downloaded (rare -- as it eats up computer memory and is erratic and slow, except under VISTA, and with a 2 gig internal memory). Vista is faster with the D200 and D2Xs larger files.

 

I met a man with a Leica M8, who said that the camera was so sharp, had such great algorithms that it never ever needed sharpening (I asked to see it, but he said it was in the shop -- it didn't function at all because of other problems -- buyer beware -- but there are numerous such reports of superb optics, superb photos and, alas, numerous 'bugs' and especially 'color' problems that would make a Nikon owner blanch and turn back his camera to the dealer forthwith.

 

That man had an entire collection of Leica lenses, so the body purchase made good sense.

 

He said in use, it was optically superb and in-camera sharpening was fantastic, if reserved.

 

But, Dennis, for me to understand your diagrams, and better understand your point about 'sharpening' in general, it is more helpful for me to see the 'large' view and the 'pixel' view on large blowup to see the artifacts.

 

And, of course, each photo for me, has its own sharpening threshold according to the photo's worth and subject matter. That for me is an entirely 'personal' decision, but if there is consensus among photo buyers, then I certainly need to be aware of it, particularly galleries, museums, fine art buyers, as well as magazines, advertisers and other commercial users (I suspect that their thresholds are 'elastic' depending on the shot and their intended use, but remember when I was with AP we threw out some shots (out of hand) just because they were 'soft' and didn't even look at them.

 

If we then had had smart sharpen or unsharp mask, maybe we would have looked at them differently . . . I think.

 

Why knows?

 

I hope others are watching this discussion, as you are a luminary in the business of photo reproduction . . . (a fact I know but others may not), and a nationally known figure in that field -- a man whose knowledge I greatly respect -- but then again, I'm a somewhat slow-witted dunderhead who sometimes has to be hit over the head to understand simple things, so there you go.

 

I look forward to any further post you might have time to make, but no obligation;.

 

And with many thanks -- I'm trying hard with what little GOD gave me.

 

John (Crosley)

I really like this photo John, beautiful.

I hoped to see Yulia again, but they're remodeling the plaza where she sold beer last summer and it is unlikely to be finished through this summer and I no longer have her number (also because of language difficulties and an overbearing boyfriend, she is suspicious of me -- he thinks if anybody gives her a photograph I take of her it should be him as though HE took it. FAT CHANCE!

 

She is model beautiful and this was taken as she was vending beer on that plaza, somewhat overexposed and processed to be high-key (low contrast, lots of white).

 

I could spend days photographing her, if I could get boyfriend under control -- he's taller, much older than her 18 years, and a good-looking guy (a good catch in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, I think, so she pretty much takes his direction.)

 

She could go far on her looks alone, I think, with a modeling career -- she's also got a very animated face which might portend an acting career -- she's a 'natural' in every respect.

 

(Your comment has me thinking just after I was processing old photos and saw some others of her -- with her boyfriend -- who seemed to think I was poaching on his territory -- lion style, I think, even though I'm old enough to be her granddad, or at least pappa.)

 

;~)

 

Life is like that -- the one time in life a photographer takes a photo of an 'unknown' beauty who could use the exposure and the money that comes from notoriety, he can't convey the messsage to her so she can make an informed decision -- maybe even about becoming famous and even a little wealthy.

 

Too bad (tant pis as the French would say; the world is like that sometimes.

 

John (Crosley)

I upper forhead is a digital thing that happens to me too...... I did not think of overexposed until I read the comment. I do not see overexposed. It is the high key that I like. High key fits her well

High key is just another word for more exposure, and if one is in the street shooting with a meter that is misadjusted then one will take in too much light for a 'proper' 'well-balanced' mix of blacks through whites (0 through 255 on the gray scale).

 

This was taken on the spur of the moment with 'Yulia' or 'Julia' turning her head as she was taking a new beer order from a street customer, and I caught her in mid-turn, but the camera was mid-adjusted, as I have noted.

 

The result was a seriously 'overexposed' photo that did not show so well in color, but desaturating it showed Yulia for the true beauty she is. I tried to contact her and did several times as she sold beer, but each time her boyfriend (a tall, nice, affectionate and loyal guy) saw me near her, he literally snatched her attention away and kept her away from me.)

 

(There are rumors throughout Ukraine -- some true -- of flattering foreigners who entice pretty young women to supposed jobs abroad such as 'models' then when they arrive at foreign destinations with promises of a great job, their passports are taken and they are turned into prostitutes. Really. And those rumors are absolutely truthful, at least for some, and the parents really believe them, and maybe she couldn't tell the difference between an older guy from America with two or sometimes three cameras who is a regular in her city and some guy from Turkey, Saudi or elsewhere.who might truly kidnap her into prostitution.

 

I actually lost one friend whose mother cautioned her about this 'scam' even though the girl had known me for two year and I'd photographed her numerous times, and we had hung out together (just as friends). Her mother, father and I met, and mother expressed fears that if she traveled with me and my assistant (a Russian woman as we proposed) that we'd turn her into a 'white slave' - fat chance.

 

It was horrible and awful to lose a friend over such a misunderstanding with overcautious parents who cannot discern truth from awful other truth.

 

(That same woman eventually ended up supping at the table of the vice mayor of Kyiv, being the assistant to a professor (retired) who hoped to revive the entire economy of Ukraine, and last I heard ended up as a professional stage dancer in Kyiv, but our friendship is lost I fear -- Dasha, elsewhere in this portfolio).

 

To date, I haven't turned any poor Ukrainian (or other) girls or women into white slaves, but have met a lot of friends.

 

Unfortunately the rumors keep me from meeting and keeping more friends, as I am sure Julia who had a wonderful personality would have had the makings of a wonderful friend.

 

I don't know how to contact her to tell her how many people have expressed admiration at this sole photo of her.

 

To my regret.

 

This woman has a personality as sparkling as her photo -- she is one of the most photogenic persons I have ever seen; she literally steals the scene when she's photographed -- she sparkles.

 

(And her love for her boyfriend was clearly evident -- I fully would expect that by now or soon they will be married - based on passing by her and viewing her and him casually over time.)

 

Even over-exposed (or high key) she steals the show.

 

There's a living out there for her as a photo model (not runway, she's too short).

 

She may never know.

 

Life's full of choices, opportunities, and missed opportunities.

 

Thanks for commenting Meir.

 

John (Crosley)

Bellissima.

Language difficulties: "She speaks Russian/Ukraine and this is a 'blown ' snapshot of her vending beer in the Central Square of Dnepropetrovsk, showing her at her loveliest, but when I went to try to explain I had a beautiful photo of her to show her (not a print as those are expensive) and I would like to have her model for more photos or at least come to 'see' this photo she and her boyfriend (a tall, handsome guy) tried to edge me out of the photography process and prevented further contact.

 

Her loss (mine too).

 

She might have had enough photos to be a very good and well paid model, though she's short, and she'd only be a photo model.

 

But at 18 two years ago, she was stunning, just selling beer out on the square probably still thinking I'm a dirty old man (well, I must confess, maybe I am, but my intentions were entirely honorable regarding her).

 

Thanks for your comment,Rob. I will always think of her as a friend I might have had, regrettably.

 

John (Crosley)

Marvellous girl

I wish I had known her.  She had an uncommon abundance of spirit and life.

john

John (Crosley)