gdw

Justin, this is a very good capture but it could use some help. The highlights, especially on the shirt are over powering the face and the high contrast of the light has put his left eye socket in extremely dark shadow. Reducing the highlight and opening up the eye socket shadow would help the image.

 

Short of returning to Bali and requesting that the gentleman turn his head slightly more toward the sun to reduce the dark shadow in his left eye socket it will have to be limited to post processing.

 

In the example, I have selectively reduced the contrast and darkened the highlights on the shirt on the right and the lower left. I have also reduced contrast and slightly increased saturation on the highlight the left side of his face (his left). Then working very carefully you can selectively lighten the deepest darks in the eye socket. You cannot go very far with the eye socket but any small bit will help pick up the color..

 

This is a good example of what I mentioned about blown highlights and shadows. Here of course it is not a bad because you are working with an overcast sky which gives a much more pleasant light. The hair here is great but the face is much too dark. You have detail in both so what you need to do as mentioned above is to lighten the face and pick up the contrast of the face slightly. I am attaching a sample where I have done that. Everything else about the image is identical, but notice how nicely your subject stands out from the background. With this small correction I believe this is the best of the images that you have posted.

Here the face is in shadow, subject is comfortable, but you have let the highlight over expose. Also a very cluttered background. One of your goals should be to simplify the backgrounds as much as possible. Either that or really blow them out of focus. The background here is soft but it is still very distinctive geometric shapes and many light elements scattered over the background. In a case where you have the bright highlighting you can frequently expose for the highlight. In other words do let it get blown out and loose detail as you have here in her hair. Then in post processing you can lighten the shadows, in this case on the face. It is easier to do that because there is still detail in the shadows but if the highlights are blown then there is nothing you can do to bring back the details.

Another very cute shot. Notice how much more natural the face looks here compared to the previous shot with the strange shadow. Also putting your subject into the shadows the way you have here makes them more comfortable and less likely to squint. Again, your problem here is the very distracting background. It appears that maybe a few steps to your right and you would have had a simpler background.

Very cute. Here you have handled the background much better. See how much better your subject stands out against the plain background ad opposed to the bright sky in the previous photo. Here your big problem is the highlight and shadow on the face. Notice how it breaks ups the face in a very strange pattern. The bright side is a little over exposed but you have handled the shadow side very well. You needed to turn her to her left to have the shadows on the face more natural or to her right to put the full face in shadow and then pick up the contrast a little.

Melissa, just some quick comments for a beginner.

 

What is nice about the image is the rapport you have with the subject, very pleasant and natural expression. The main problem is the very bright sky behind. Had you walked over to where the dark trees only showed behind the subject it would have helped. The white rectangle on the left bottom could easily be cloned out. The eye has a tendency to immediately go to light or bright objects in the photograph so they compete with the center of interest which is the face of the young lady.

 

How do you describe the difference between a black monochrome on white paper from a black and white photograph.

 

Or, since "chrome" implies a color, are you excluding black as a color? If you take the tack that black and white are not colors, one being the absorbsion of all color and the other being the refection of all color, I would suppose that you would see this as a colorless black and white photograph.

 

It could be either, depending upon your mindset regarding black and white.

Vladut, this is truly a beautiful photograph. Thank you posting the story. It is obvious that you are a person who is not only technically accomplished as a photographer but you approach your art with a passion in recording this vanishing history. It seems you also do it with a heartfelt compassion for your subjects. That is a combination that will produce meaningful, lasting and important photographs. I would hope you get an opportunity to photograph everyone remaining in the village.

 

There is something about the human spirit that hardships polish. You can see it in this woman�s face. In spite of her improvised and difficult existence, her eyes still sparkle with the beauty of the human spirit, in her raggedness you have captured nobility. An essay on her life alone would make a great work for someone with your sensibilities.

 

I also like that you included the piece of cloth hanging on the fence. It may have been unintended, however, it seems symbolic of the way so many see the improvised individual, of as little importance as a rag hanging out to flap in the breeze.

 

Thank you for posting. It does my heart good to know that young people can still approach photography with passion and compassion.

 

 

Alf, there is always a naysayer in the group. There are many elements of this image that are very nicely handled, The colors and the composition are excellent. Unfortunately, the vegetables are much too bright. The final result is an image that is as much, if not more so, about the light than it is about the subject. The lighting also washes out the textures and richness of color in the vegetables. IMO, doing a localized levels adjustment on the vegetables, both darkening and picking up contrast will make the colors richer and more in line with the rest of the image. They can still be emphasized by being lighter and brighter but brought much more in balance with the rest of the image.

1957, Bellaire?

Shot in the median of a major street in Houston. Nikon D200 with 50mm

f/1.4 and 20mm Kenko extension tube. Lens set wide open at closest

focusing distance on manual. Wanted to capture an impressionistic

image rather than a more literal image of the bluebonnets. More in my

wild flower folder.

Too much light? Move the strobes farther away.

Alessio, Thank you very much.

Waiting to board the B17 for a Birthday Flight.

This is not the portrait I wanted. She is wearing a bright red Lone Star Flight Museum shirt and I wanted to photograph her in the red shirt inside the B17. Unfortunately she was not able to board the plane in spite of all the good intentions and help from the crew. She did not get to make the flight but she gave it a good effort.

 

I loved the sky background and the color harmony of the image. I feel that the darkness adds a little of the disappointment experienced. Even so, we had a good day watching the planes and made the best of the ocassion.

Anurag, I like this photograph very much. The ambient light has a great old world painting quality and color. Viewing the larger size shows a lot of artifacts on the contrastier edges, which I hope if from the downsizing for posting. The figure is a little soft but I do not think that hurts the photograph and may contribute to the nostalgia of the look. There are two things that do bother me. First is the shirt and jacket being so much lighter than the face. I believe that some judicious burning on the shirt and dodging on the face would improve the image drastically. The second thing is the light dot that kisses the border of the image directly behind the figure. I would prefer it be cloned our or that the lower border of the image be extended to fully include the dot. I am ambivalent about the red dot on the far left of the photograph. In some ways it draws the eye away from the figure but, truthfully, I like the bright red. It adds an additional spark to the image and it also justifies the long narrow crop and the additional distance behind the figure. I know that is more complaints than is justified for an image that I enjoy as much as this one. On a whole it is a very nice portrait.

In looking through some older photographs I realized that one of the

problems I have with digital photography is the lack of grain. I

think this is especially true in the area of trying to capture

emotion in an image. I had forgotten how much grain added to the

gritty rawness of an emotional image. I have added digital noise to

this image, it?s not grain, but it is better than the solid calendar

image look that digital does so well. Does anyone know of a software

that can come close to duplicating film grain, not the color, but the

grain in digital images.

 

Nikon D200, 18-200mm VR, 1/3 sec, f/7.1, ISO 400, handheld, Capture

NX and Paint Shop Pro

Leo, great example of "painter adds, photographer subtracts." Very nicely done but I would be inclined to crop the bottom to above the line of dark rocks for even stronger lines leading to the island. Gary

John, looked at your Flickr site and see that we both enjoy extreme manipulations. You have a number that I am envious of. Keep up the work, I will be coming back.

 

Sebastian, you are absolutely correct. I will not use either image on an employment application. However, I am so old and ugly I?ve given up on anyone hiring me regardless. Again, thanks to both of you for the input.

 

John, Sebastian, thanks greatly for the comments. As I said this was not an original idea, I saw a post by Snapify on the Strobist group on Flickr and just had to give it a try. Actually the flash would not fit into the bellows so I had to do two photographs; one with the back off the camera and the strobe hanging out the rear and another with the back on the camera. I blended the correct back onto the camera in PSP. I think that I will try putting a snoot on the flash and trying it with the SLR and do the same in closing the camera. A friend suggested that next time maybe I should shave first. Sebastian, pushing seventy and working that close I can?t see with or without glasses so the next time I will take your suggestion. Again, thanks. BTW, this was not the photograph that I intended to post. The one above is the second attempt and I believe it is better. Basically same set up, just moved the camera so the back did not blend with the painting in the background, got a little more light on the bellows which is red and put on a red shirt to tie into the bellows and the background.

Placed a Nikon SB800 inside the bellows of a Graflex 23, held the

shutter open on Bulb and triggered the Nikon D200 with a

PocketWizard. The light on my face is coming out of the camera lens.

Flash in bellows and a second bounced off ceiling for background were

triggered by the Nikon SU400 controller. I borrowed the idea and

wanted to give it a try. Tomorrow I will try it with a film SLR if I

can just figure out how to fold the flash.

Erika, there is no single definition of what a photograph is or should be that I will accept. However, I am having a difficult time critiquing this image. I want to say that I like very much what you are attempting to do although I am not sure that you have done it as well as it could have been done.

 

From the title, I assume that your intent is to make a religious statement making a connection between the bright area and the cross. That is an admirable pursuit, not simply because it is a religious statement, but because you have seen beyond some of the more narrow definitions of what photograph is or should be and attempted to lift it to a higher plane by illustrating an abstract thought.

 

The use of flare and overexposure is an appropriate technique to capture the light of the experience you wish to portray. IMO, where the image falls short is the separation between the bright area and the cross. Were the cross larger and silhouetted against the bright area with the flared area below the cross the image would have much greater connection between the two important elements.

 

I am aware that the result is actually a valiant attempt to salvage an image that didn?t come out quite right--we all do that, or at least we should. In the process of that effort you saw a statement form. Consider that you have been lead by this mistake so that now you can return to apply what you have seen to a much stronger image.

 

Jason, this is a beautifully done family portrait. Concerning the photograph, I would like to see a little sand, or at least dark sand color, in the bottom. The black with the well exposed legs tends to look somewhat artificial. I?m trying to decide whether this is actually done at the beach, done in a studio or a composite. I can understand and will agree with having the bottom of the photograph dark, but here it is so dark that it takes away from the authenticity of the image.

 

As far as the borders. Thank you for losing the faux perforated film edge?calls way too much attention to itself without adding anything to the image. I do like mats around posted images and I do like black mats to really bring out the color of a photograph. There?s always a but, but I would tone down the text to something readable but not so eye catching.

 

Back to the photograph, it is, as stated, a beautiful photograph of a beautiful family. Anyone would be proud to put this one on the mantelpiece and only a critic would even notice the black at the bottom.

 

Mauricio, this is fantastic, great shot. I only have one small nit pick. I would like to see the complete eye and eyelid. I like the eye tight against the edge of the frame but I think it would improve the feeling of the image if the eye were not cropped into. As I said, that is a minor nit pick and not anything that really damages the graphics of the image.

Bill, as a personal opinion, I like this image very much. It is an intriguing photograph to study.

 

The image has a lack of depth in both color and contrast that seems to put everything on the same plane, thereby making an interesting comparison between the modern cell phone and the ancient upright typewriter as methods of personal communication. Is that to make a comment on changes in technology that you have witnessed during your life or just a comment on communication technology in general?. Or, does it have nothing to do with technology? It is simply a time line in the life and growth of Bill Lawson? Rather than eliminating all but the essential elements for a self portrait, you have populated the image with elements elevated to a level of equal importance to the person (yourself);from the cell phone and the typewriter to the distant room with it's unidentifiable elements. This breaks the rules but makes for an image that is well above the mundane or formulated.

 

I also like the mixed tungsten and daylight. Although it is difficult to tell just where you had the white balance set. The cool areas look like tungsten exposed to daylight and the warm areas look like daylight exposed to tungsten. I am curious how your achieved the flatness of the color. Was it done in PS or possibly another software like Painter? I also love the outfit for New Jersey. It's more African safari or Australian Out Back leaving the question is it simply a preferred way of dressing or does it relate to a life style, your work or other element in the life of Bill Lawson. It is a wonderful photograph that asks questions to hold the viewers attention. One that you should be very proud of.