'The Eyes Have It (II)'

Sometimes an indistinct background, caused by a highly reflective

plastic billboard cover, can 'help' rather than hinder a photo, in my view,

by helping focus on the central point of the photo -- here the triad of

pairs of eyes. What is your view? 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 photographic knowledge.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

If is a matter of what one thinks is best, I guess but in my eye her skin tone might be brightned to be more like the real thing and give a little more contrast. Maybe even a little brighter than I made it. Then going on fotonet it seem to get darker. edited..

 

 

Meir has got a point but it isn't the best of scans and converting it in greyscale didn't help either. Nevertheless it's a very good photo that appeals to me tremendously. It needs work yes but I myself would work it in a different way despite admiring Meir's way of working and his generally spot-on opinion. As you know HCB has got a lot of "triangular" compositions.

This is a photo capable of many interpretations. The billboard behind is covered with highly reflective plastic, it reflects much of the town around the Dnipropetrovsk train station, and I have narrowed that through use of various Photoshop 'tricks', but it has left the reflections a little 'muddy'.

 

That's OK, and it actually seemed to 'focus' the attention on the 'eyes' with were the attention rather than the faces.

 

Your version, for all its good attributes, brings out the variabilities in the plastic and its reflections, which is why I didn't increase the contract -- it's kind of a trap, and in my view doesn't enhance the value of the photo much.

 

It does make it look more 'snappy' but in the overall scheme of things I feel it detracts from the theme of the 'eyes'.

 

Of course you have shifted attention from the 'eyes' to the 'faces' which is another interpretation entirely, and that's just almost another photo, and also OK.

 

Admittedly my version is rather bland -- it was put up as an experiment -- a conversion of a similar photo from color in a color folder did not do well at all in ratings, but this photo, in B&W seems to be doing very well, and does have great potential and great potential for interpretation (which probably is a plus)

 

I want to thank you for the personal attention you have taken to make a personal workup of this photo.

 

Personal regards.

 

John (Crosley)

of course it's no longer your version but mine but that was not the point. In the context of discussing a photo as such it can add value to discuss different takes. Actually I think you could have it both ways because the reflection marks in the faces can be removed.

I always value your input, especially here where there are many choices.

 

I don't have a viewpoint fixed in concrete, just one I prefer, and that's because I prefer minimal post-processing.

 

I would prefer to hire Photoshoppers to complete a vision I have, than try to spend all my time completing a vision that I (or others) might have, and devote my time to shooting; I'm that prolific. I had just found this in old captures as a color photo and decided it merited further work.

 

Thanks for adding your view and sharing it.

 

I'm always grateful to see your presence here.

 

John (Crosley)

from the halo around the cap it seems oversharpened and don't see a reason to sharpen. Seems like would be good as it is.

The halo is on Ton's version, not the original as I thought.

A good capture should inspire emotion in my opinion, this one certainly has!

I like the original as for me the eyes are the focal point. As this has been categorized as "street" I personally think the emotive content and the ability of the picture to tell a story or connect with the viewer is more important than the technical correctness of the picture (as per the classical street photography genera).

Hi John,

 

A great composition. And a fitting title.

 

The background is of course what makes the image.

 

A snap close to my heart. Here htere is humour, surprise, storytelling.

And a type of image I am forewer looking for - but rarely mange to find...

 

My compliments.

 

All the best

 

Peter

 

 

First a compliment . . . on your writing.

 

It's excellent.

 

Not an extra . . . or a missing . . . word.

 

It's to the point then ends. Magnificent.

 

And thanks for telling me what you think; it's music to my ears, for that is exactly what I strive for.

 

And to think this is a 'rescued' photo -- a photo from last summer's series. I had posted a similar one in color that rather fell flat, because it had too many colors and the eyes were too indistinct. (You can look for it, but it may be unimportant unless you're a person who is a stickler.)

 

Here, all the eyes have been dodged, just a bit, but not much at all.

 

It's my first attempt at dodging.

 

I am dubious about manipulation generally, but here it worked pretty well.

 

Thanks for a nice comment and taking the time to tell me (in such a nice, succinct, and well-written way).

 

John (Crosley)

John,

this is one of these images that demonstrate that "simple" and "easy" are not the same. The eye is drawn with great force to the three faces, and for some reason I'm not sure of, I always look LAST at the real woman, the one that is looking at you. A coup de theatre, in a sense. Not everyday one sees such a nice composition.

Regarding the story of the tones, I had too the impression that the image was a bit dull, at first sight. But after looking at it in the larger version for a while, I think it is just OK like this. Sure, the beauty of the tones is not its strongest asset. But this cannot always be the case. Cheers!

L.

I had not heard that expression, but I'll add it to my lexicon. Thank you.

 

The woman, foreground, eyes, were never meant to be the main point of the photo; it always the triad and the skin tones and individual eyes were never to be emphasized, and rather de-emphasized, if that makes sense, so as not to draw attention away from the composition of the triangle implied by the triad of eye pairs.

 

Do you understand.

 

I had a composition, and no matter how much one can work on any element, it seems to detract or pull away from the main theme of 'the photo'. When I was tutored under Michel Karman, Lucie Award Winner, he taught me to go with 'the photo' and whether or not he would have made this choice is beyond me; I have barely seen him in over a year, but his lesson was clear: go for the essence of the photo rather than its parts.

 

Sure, I could have worked on skin tones, etc., but the essence here is the composition, which is the implied triangle and the varied looks of the eyes. Each particular woman or woman figure hardly matter -- what matters is that we see them as an ensemble. I never lost sight of that, (as apparently you didn't either).

 

So all the above on 'skin tones' etc., is helpful tutorial on Photoshopping but so much fol de rol in the instance of improving 'the photo' or better 'the essence of the photo' at least in my opinion. Soon I may have the honor of asking Karman's opinion, and he may have suggestions. Until then, I'm going with this.

 

I owe him a huge debt of gratitude just for imparting the ability to 'think for myself' and to 'go for the essence' of a photo rather than pick it to death by improving this part or that, posssibly to the detriment of its essence overall. (not always, of course).

 

It may well be easy to greatly improve one or another part of a photo, only to detract from its overall appearance.

 

When making adjustments of any sort, I almost always 'zoom out' to full page view before making the adjustment, even though viewing it up close and in detail might be more exact, because the effect of the adjustment on the whole photo is what I am interested in, not its individual 'building block'.

 

Capiche? I think you do.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

That you should, above, mention a photo of mine and a composition of mine, in reference to anything produced by the great maitre, Henri Cartier-Bresson, is greatly flattering.

 

The mercurial gent drove me out of photography. I saw his work, met him, and literally ran from any possible career in photography, so gigantic and overpowering was his photographic presence and force.

 

Now, I didn't know then he was retiring. Had I known, I might have stuck to it; lucily I 'still have it' or something akin to 'it'.

 

Thanks for the comparison and the endorsement Ton.

 

John (Crosley)