gooseberry

Helpful indeed, Rob.  Unfortunately, I don't have any en face shots of him -- it wasn't a posed session and he never looked directly into or faced the camera.

Anyway, I've re-processed this portrait to bring his features out more still while trying to preserve the natural look; the result is above.

For some reason this photo displays "flatter" in my Firefox browser than in PS -- have double-checked that I converted it to the sRGB colour space, so not sure why -- while Safari displays it properly.  Maybe for the same reason it looks insufficiently contrasty on your monitor too?  Anyway, I gave it a wee midtone contrast boost; here's the result: any better?

Creative and interesting; have got to try it myself :)

Somewhat enhanced to emphasise wrinkles and other features -- is ittoo obvious or does it still look natural to you?

Please view Large!

...such as lack of critical sharpness on the subject's face (70mmequivalent hand-held @ 1/30s and f/5.0, ISO 400) and blown highlightsin the hair (could have controlled that better in post-production),what do you think about this portrait?

It is not posed, and was shot in available light only, which happenedto be coming from a window behind the subject; a reflector to bouncesome back would have done wonders...

That's right, LCE via USM -- painstakingly explained by Ron Bigelow in his Localized Contrast in Photoshop tutorial -- is not a substitute for sharpening (which apparently is better done via Smart Sharpen than USM.)  Back to the main subject, though, thought you may also be interested in a somewhat similar in terms of results but more sophisticated technique commonly referred to as Mac Holbert's Mid-tone Contrast Enhancement (click the link for more info.)

Have fun,

-Tomek

Looked a bit flat on my screen, so I've added some punch to it -- USM: Amount 20%; Radius 50 pixels; Threshold 0 -- any better?

Pity the two birds overlap, but splendid nonetheless.

...being the model as is here, ie rendered in high contrast, but on a lighter foreground?

What I'm mostly concerned about is how shadows in the model will print; there's little detail in them, so it might be better to block them out altogether (?), especially that contrasty pictures often have stronger visual impact, perhaps because they are more abstract and thus come across as more "artistic" than "realistic".

At the same time, I feel persuaded by Rob Polder, who wrote I like to see her shadow on the floor bound by slightly lighter grey in his feedback on option A (being everything lighter tone, both the model and the foreground).  It seems to me that a lighter foreground accentuates the model -- while the darker one "drowns" her -- so this might be just the combination I was searching for: fourth time lucky?  ;-)

 

I think you're onto something with regards to the lighter foreground, but then how about option D = a lighter foreground just like here, but a darker / higher contrast rendition of the model? 

What I'm mostly concerned about is how shadows in the model will print.  There's little detail in them, so it might be better to block them out altogether (?), especially that contrasty pictures often have stronger visual impact, perhaps because they are more abstract and therefore more "artistic" than "realistic".

It's an ultimate reward when someone finds my work inspirational, so by all means grab this idea and put you own spin on it, and if you feel like sharing back, please post a link to your take on the theme here.  I'll be looking forward to it!  :)

Have you compared large versions, John? -- Specifically for that reason, I've uploaded the largest possible size, i.e., 1500 pixels on the longer edge.  On my screen the differences are quite pronounced; low ambient light helps too.

@ Robert: not at all -- thanks for taking the time to tweak it :)
It took me a moment to figure out what's going on; it gained some abstract quality.
Amazing how many "hidden images" can be found -- well spotted!

@ Josemi: wow, that must be the most passionate feedback I've ever received, pun intended :P
Such a generous praise like yours humbles me because I'm worried that it might have been a fluke, and that I'll never again produce anything remotely as strong.

(A) this one = lighter / open shadows; or

(B) the previous one = darker / most shadows blocked (right arrow); or

© the next one = a combination of the two above (left arrow)

I'm thinking the high contrast version (option B) should make the bestdigital C-print (45x30cm @ 300dpi on metallic paper), but I'm guessingonly (little experience in this matter), so am interested in your advice.

Wow, 1/200s @ f/12 and ISO 200 -- how's that possible?!  Guess you could have opened the aperture up by a stop or two without sacrificing sharpness, jack the ISO up a notch, and you'd have been able to hand-hold the shot.

• Oooh, that's where that ugly CA-like fringing came from...
  ...it was much worse, but I've managed to remove most of it in PS
• I'm such an ignorant it's amusing! :D
  Didn't have a clue about turbulence and refraction affecting celestial bodies positioned low above the horizon; just like the moon most as it rises and has this deep orange colour.
• Yeah, I was able to aim at it while having the rig resting on a pillow on a window sill, so it couldn't have been high up the sky.
• Be careful with the EXIF time stamp: you got it right only by an accident -- I have it set for New Zealand (where I currently live), but was in Europe (visiting) and didn't remember/think about changing the date + clock, but since the time difference was 11~12hrs, 09:28 [am] still makes sense ;-)

I was looking into deconvolution as yet another avenue to increased sharpness.  The most popular (non-astro specific) is Focus Magic, but I'm out of luck with it for now as an Intel-Mac version will be in the making in some unspecified future (funny enough, Acclaim Software, who developed FM, is a New Zealand-based firm :)

Then I read about the adaptive Richardson-Lucy algorithm; apparently Mike L. Unsold's ImagesPlus has that in the toolbox (mind you, someone was claiming its far superior to RegiStax!), but I'm out of luck again: Win-only. Stark Labs' Nebulosity might be my only option as, for a change, it does exist in a Mac version too, but don't know yet what it can and cannot do; it's supposed to be less feature-rich as compared to ImagesPlus, but easier to learn/operate, which for me is a BIG plus (pun intended :)

Finally, though you might be interested in Joseph M. Zawodny's Imaging & Image Processing 'technical essay' on Flickr; I hardly understand a word of what he wrote, but figured you'd be able to make more sense out of it.

Enjoy!

 

Thanks Ken,

I've been on the mountain once myself, rock climbing on some cliffs only (definitely not this one though ;) so didn't hike to the summit.

Yeah, I got lucky with this view -- btw, here's a close-up -- which was like a "compensation" for being stuck in the Auckland airport for several hours due to dense fog, right on the "last mile" of a rather long trip from Boston, MA, via Chicago and LA, back to Welly: door-to-door 40 hours.

Could you translate the calligraphy for us please?

...was the theme of November Monthly Project: you should have submitted this one!
(maybe you still can?)

What did you cover / paint your model with this time? -- it looks like printed on Kodak's Metallic paper (and that's the medium I'd have printed it on!)

5.3 isn't a low average score, but yes, I also think it belongs to the 6+ category.

Ratings aside, one thing that looks odd is model's right breast: it seems devoid of areola and nipple, which is not the case in s h i n e -- is that an indication of how thick the layer of plaster is?  :O

...or have you covered your model in clay and wait till it dries out and starts to crack?  Suspect it's the former, but it looks completely realistic.  The only imperfection are some stains on the table she sits on.  Actually, I'm not sure whether a table like this one was the best choice here; it just doesn't add anything, and while I don't know what it could be, I feel there should be something complementing the "aging" model.

...which visits me frequently :)

Thanks everyone for your comments!

 

@ Alan...

I took a number of pictures of her, but this one was the winner.  I also though about the guy as well as the bus -- with regards to the latter, I considered changing its colour to something more neutral -- but eventually decided that actually both contribute to the story by giving it a context: the parallel lives, seemingly oblivious of one another, underscore her detachment.

 

@ Robert...

No, she was feeding them :)

Think you're both right:

• the tighter crop really does focus the attention on their faces, which indeed are the key element of this picture...

...but...

• ...it achieves that at by robbing the picture of its environmental context (which I find as undistracting as it gets), so it conveys the same feeling no more, especially that their whole body language plays an important part here, complementing their facial expressions -- reckon it's the entire package that makes it complete -- so not the same impact with the remaining 10% of the feeling missing  ;)

Great to hear such a positive response.  I considered it one of my most successful nudes -- and the first one of not a female model only -- so your validation is very useful. 

 

@ Clemson...

...and you did!  :)

Don't know whether the "main" picture is simply too small to do her facial features justice, or whether even on a full-size one her nudity would continue to distract me from her face, but as is, the close-up of her head makes stronger impact on me that her entire figure, attractive as it is.