dougityb

bright whites, deep dark blacks

Such people tend to be regarded as lower forms of life in Western civilization.  I'm glad to learn that it's not the case worldwide. 

Thanks Lannie. 

And thanks John. I apologize for not responding to your efforts for so long. 

John, I like your version quite a bit. It's very vibrant. How did you cut through the fog like that? 

This is my problem with the photoshop and its ease of transformation: I like just about everything it does!  There are so many permutations possible that I find it so difficult to choose one as the end-all of an image.  I think both our versions are good, yet obviously different.

Just to be clear, though, that fog is real.  It's not a photoshop filter.   Well, it's not "fog" as in suspended droplets of water vapor caused by cool air over top of warmer, moister air.  It's predominantly smoke from a commercial fog machine.  There was natural fog present, but the make-up/wardrobe crew took longer than anticipated, and most of it had evaporated, so we augmented it.  My point is that it was an intentional choice for this picture, and it works well (in my opinion) with the softness of her pose and expression.  There are other exposures from this shoot that are more in line with your revision, though, so don't misunderstand my defense of this particular one.  I like them both, for different reasons. 

Comments on composition would be especially appreciated, but also on

lighting, mood, posing effectiveness, etc. Thank you very much.

Mark, thanks, I appreciate hearing your echo on all the reasons why I like this shot, too.  Jeff, I'm going to try to brighten, ever so slightly, just the catchlights in her eyes. John, I'm afraid I can't remove the fog, but it's interesting to note your distaste for fog as a pictorial element.  I thought everyone liked fog.  Go figure.   Grayham, I agree.  I don't put *too* much stock in the ratings as I know that photos that are glossy and slick do the best, but I do use them as a basis for understanding how the average viewer might regard a picture.  All of us know how we can get too involved in a shot, either in the production, or the post processing, and thereby lose our objectivity.  If anything, those armchair photographers have that--a greater sense of objectivity. 

Thanks very much.  Everyone's feedback has been very helpful. 

Grayham, Thank you.  I was about to give up hope, based on the ratings.  Good point about the eyes, and fortunately something that should be easy to remedy.

overall critiques welcome: Light, mood, makeup and styling, cropping,

etc.. Thank you.

Mike, thanks.  Mark, thanks, I think I agree with you. I act on defaults too often and just plopped her in the middle, but you are exactly right. 

-Doug

Concerned I may have cropped this a little too close to Beth's head.

Or too far from the shirt tail.

Raymond, thanks. When I finish this series, I'm posting a collection showing all the different variations available.  Technology has changed the way photographers present their work. We're not longer all about capturing images as we are making decisions that are more or less equivalent to editing. 

ok, cool. Thanks for the commentary. Everyone's remarks have confirmed that the better picture lies somewhere in between these two, i.e., the expression and feeling on the left with the body posture and pose of the right.

Next time.....

I'm hoping to get feedback on which of these two pictures is better,

or if they're equal, but different. I tend to favor the left, but I

have a few misgivings here and there and I don't know if those

misgivings are strong enough to choose the one on the right, instead.

Or, if the final presentation should be just like this: A diptych.

Apologies for the title, too.

Revision

Here's a revision

Michael, as noted on the other image, I'll be repairing these with your observations in mind.  I'll also include here the pertinent EXIF data, for a more rounded understanding of the origins, although the effects you are responding to were achieved in post processing. 

Nikon D700

70-200 f/2.8 ED

ISO 200,

F/6.3,

1/160 sec,

82 mm 

June 22, 2011, 9:08 am. 

Steve and Michael C. I appreciate your comments.  I feel a little deceptive for posting this series without the full disclosure as to time of day, but it was important to see if my post processing was convincing enough to carry the theme.  Apart from Mike Palermiti's observations, I seem to be on the right track. 

Well, that's a very fascinating bit of information about the eyes and the colors.  I was completely unaware, apart from my own observations, about this, although I now remember learning about everything becoming gray.  So, according to this, the color tones on this picture, given that I want you to believe it was taken under moonlight, (it wasn't) are completely unnatural, and I need to remove the magenta/red influence and replace it with more green.  I believe, when I was preparing this one, the third in the series, that I was working towards a blue cast, and I failed to notice how the magenta became so strong.  That should be easy enough to fix as the blue cast is nothing more than a solid color layer blended and reduced in opacity.

For those of you interested, these were taken between 8 and 9 in the morning on a lightly overcast day.  Since I'm not a journalist, and not overly concerned with using photography as a vehicle of truthful expression, I wanted to try this moonlight effect because of its romantic and moody feelings. The idea came from a b&w shot of cedars from several years ago that experienced several ...uh...unique and...significant ...miscalculations, both in the field, and the darkroom,  the serendipitous result being a beautifully luminescent scene reminiscent of a moonlit night.

Mark, Thanks for that sample.  I'm not afraid to go there, but I try not to, if at all possible.  On computer screens, such blackness is ok, and I guess even in prints, but it's much more rewarding to be able to examine detail in those darkest of areas.  Not always, for sure, but most times.  In my way of thinking, at least. 

Michael, there's not real correlation, I don't think.  I can't find it either.  I'm looking for a feeling of the substance of her body in this particular light.  I may have overshot a bit on the halo, though.

Michael, Mark's comments land where I wanted this one. I have many more from this location where she is turned, but the angle of the incline, as you observed, factored into her posture.  With her body to the camera, the pose became too glamorous.  Well, not "too" glamorous, I do plan to work on them, but I was attracted to this exposure because it seemed more natural, like she wasn't posing, and that's what I was looking for.  I agree about the light and its placement, and I'm ok with that.  I like how it lands right on her feminine hip, and then sort of kneads itself around the other contours of her body.  Had she been facing forward, the picture would've been, in my opinion, all about her body.  With this turn towards the door, and her hand on the handle, it makes it more interesting to me.  The two-dimensionality you see might be from the monitor difference. (or, it might not). The tones are so close to the bottom of the scale that it wouldn't take very much of a difference to render them all as black. 

Pierre, thanks for this, and your comment on the other picture from this same series.  Thanks Ilkka. 

Michael, the D700 is fun, yes, but I got it 3 years ago and, although there's nothing wrong with it, I'm lusting for a new one, mostly for the megapixels.  Yes, this is different for me, isn't it?  Be careful with that fog machine. I bought one in February or March, and successfully using it outdoors is a feat.  You need zero wind, for starters.  Even the slightest breeze will blow everything away.  And electricity was an issue, too, at least where I was using it. 

The color wasn't that hard: A monochrome layer over the original, and a solid color layer over that. 

Thanks.