emre

Ugh, that is what I call poor light. Straight to the bin. If there is no light, you should at least have color, otherwise everything melts into one.

Okay, the subject is original, but the execution is questionable. The tonality looks a bit bland; is that what you wanted? There are many ways you could approach this: high-key, low-key, high contrast, selective lighting (dodge/burn) ... anything but bland. Plus it is difficult to see just what you have focused on; everything looks a bit soft, for no good reason.

Yes, it is stereotypical, but you pulled it off. Good composition and exposure. The birds are a nice touch.

Come on mate, this is a disaster! The light is really distracting and you can barely see the subject. I would toss it without thinking twice.

Pretty unremarkable. There is no completeness in this picture. It literally looks like a cut out. The light is ugly too.

Interesting angle, though your others are better. Did you try tilting it the other way (so he is descending?)

Oooh, what coloring. He looks like an icebreaker (that is the idea, right?) I would reconsider the purple around the frame; how about an appropriate green?

Now this is art! The angle again is spectacular. I very much appreciate the fact that the surfer is in the dark, otherwise he would compete for attention with the beautiful light.

I think this is just a great angle. I like the way that the wave constitutes the right side of the frame. My two gripes are the blown out right, and the fact that the wave is perhaps too far to the right.

The foreground fails to add depth, and is merely a hindrance. What would have worked better here is to go right up to the wall and show the texture. Another possibility is to approach the rope from such an angle that it looks like it is around the painting.

Restore the sky and crop the protrusion on the right. Increase the contrast of the dirt path for bonus points.

The toning is great. I think the windows would benefit from perspective correction.

There is a distinct warm color cast (tending to magenta, in fact). You can confirm this by using an editing program and comparing it with the desaturated version. Since it is not intentional, I will disregard it.

What can I say? Your nan is a photographer's dream! Again, your timing is great, and so is the light. I like the lines; both in the coat and on her face (notice the arc formed by her eyebrows). I think no modifications are necessary, but for fun you might like to decrease the depth of field so only parts of her face are in focus.

This is not scanned well; nevertheless, this is a great picture of a great moment. I like the fact that the background is black; it suits her stern expression. The toning is not pleasing to my eye.

Unless one is making a statement about blandness, one usually chooses an interesting subject. I don't know what drew you to this image. You should have a clear impression of what it is that you liked about this moment. If it was the clouds, you should have used a longer lens.

Frankly I think this is more creative than the nudes in the folder! I like the title and the plant. The light is a bit boring but what can you do? I would have desaturated the background foliage to make the foreground stand out.

The issue is not only about which color space is wider; it is also about how to get your pictures to look right in an application that does not recognize profiles (e.g., the ubiquitous Internet Explorer). In that case, one must convert to a profile that is closest in parameters to that of an average monitor, and that happens to be sRGB for PC users.

 

I think Stephen's interpretation (the last picture) is the most ordinary, regarding its tonality and palette. It's the "natural" choice for most people. The first one shows more artistic licence. My current thinking is that impressionism should be encouraged when it works, and here it does. I am merely expressing my preference... and it changes over time.

By using "Convert to profile" with source "Adobe RGB" and destination "sRGB".

 

PS: I think the original is the best; the last two are run-of-the-mill interpretations.

Hi Mike,

 

I must say, after several years of looking at this picture I still love it. I live in Boston and while I met some colorful homeless people, I have not yet encountered a scene as special as this. You would not trade a print for this, would you ;)

I must be the only person who remembers the original picture. You fooled 'em all, John.

Who cares if the lighting is not realistic? Since when has art been constrained by the laws of nature? The only thing that matters is that it looks good. And it does -- your version that is.

 

If I were doing this, I would add some streaks of light descending to the left hot spot, and reduce the size (but not intensity) of the right hot spot. I also think the road reflectors spoil the natural look.

 

The color palette could also do with some manipulation (consider separating the sky and water by hue or saturation) but that is another story...

 

F(orget) realism!

What would you say if you saw this on the cover of a book?

I think the softness is exaggerated. Instead of unfocusing, try soft focusing (diffusing the highlights) or slightly blurring the skin. The facial light and toning are great. I have reservations about the bright background.

Never say never, Ted, otherwise you will end up with uniform pictures. Maybe the effect is overdone here, because there is nothing left to focus on. The picture is also a bit small.