tom_mann1

FWIW, when I look closely at a larger version of this image I am disturbed by what seems to be an odd and uneven treatment of the textures in different parts of this image. For example, there are regions that seem to be either wildly oversharpened, or, to which artificial texture has been added, immediately adjacent to regions that appear almost OOF.

To me, this gives a highly artificial overall impression in an image that otherwise seems to be trying to be quite representational.

Just my $0.02,

Tom M

There is, of course, another very important reason that people don't contribute to threads like this: Many photo.net participants might be interested in the subject, but don't have the time / interest to participate in the lengthy discussions / heated debates to the same extent as the regulars on these threads.

The posts by "the regulars" are typically extremely well thought out, and well written. This takes a lot of time for a person good at this, but vastly more time for a person not used to composing and writing such material. Thus, if a person had a POV contrary to say, the initial "piling on(1)" that happened in this thread, and had voiced their opinion, they would have certainly been met by a flurry of long rebuttals.

Their choice at that point is to either (a) jump into the fray and spend much more time than they had intended, or (b) say nothing and appear to have no answer to the rebuttals and hence, appear to have a weak / indefensible POV.

People with limited time/interest can easily see this as a likely outcome before they even make one post and simply decide not to bother. Even just reading the posts (now up to 218) that came before yours (ie, so you can compose a sensible message) is more time than many people can or want to devote to something that does not directly concern them. I know that this is certainly the case for me.

IMHO, there is no solution to this problem that would satisfy everyone. For example, to encourage wider participation, one could envision a rule restricting each person to some small number of posts per POTW thread. I think it's clear that our more verbose brethren would feel severely cramped by such a restriction and would argue strongly against it. OTOH, I am equally convinced that leaving the situation unchanged will hinder wider participation.

Tom M

Note (1) - For folks not familiar with American slang, "Pile on" is a phrase used in American football, where defenders throw themselves onto a pile of other defenders, under which is the ball carrier. It's a needless activity, since the ball carrier is already down and the play is over.

It's almost impossible to "de-HDR" an image, but here's an approximation of what this image might have looked like with less of the HDR effect.

Tom M

Since this thread began, I've been trying to figure out why the image under discussion, its title, and the strongly negative reaction to it seemed so familiar to me. Lex's comment about his 74 y.o. mother finally triggered my memory.

About 15 or 20 years ago, my mother was in the last years of her life, living in a nearby apartment building for senior citizens. Another resident of her building was an elderly gentleman who made beautiful, detailed, large B&W pencil line drawings. They had a flat but highly detailed look not that dissimilar to modern digital HDR B&W images such as the one being discussed in this thread.

At one point, this man began a series of sketches that dealt with sad / wistful moments in the lives of his neighbors. As I recall, they had titles like, "My Children" (depicting an emotionless family, backs all turned, leaving as quickly as possible after a visit); "The End" (depicting a crew (ambulance? undertaker?) passing through the lobby, removing the body of a resident who had passed away; "Dinner", etc. It would not surprise me if he had a sketch with essentially same title and a similar theme as Gery's "Seen Better Days" image.

His sketches were absolutely loved by his neighbors (eg, "He tells it like it is".). According to my mother, only a handful of her neighbors didn't like them, and these comments were always along the lines of "they are too depressing" rather than questioning the validity of the content, the intent of the artist, or his technical skills.

Initially, the building management enthusiastically allowed him to display his work in the lobby. However, as my mother relayed the events, his sketches were intensely disliked by many of the families that visited, obviously making them quite uncomfortable. It would not surprise me if their negative comments to the building management were along the same lines as the negative comments expressed in this thread, e.g., "false pathos", "simply awful", "does not seek to discover or understand", "another exploitative image", "insensitive", etc. Shortly thereafter, the building management asked him to take down his display.

However, the local government office that deals with the elderly caught wind his talent and theme, and honored him by giving him a show in their office building. As I recall, there was even an article in the local newspaper about him. It wouldn't surprise me if some of his works were still hanging in their offices.

Of course, the subjects of his sketches and the local government officials were far from the articulate and knowledgeable critics one finds on photo.net, but it is absolutely clear to me that work very similar to Gerry's appeals to and resonates with at least some very important groups of people, the subjects and people trying to help the elderly.

Obviously, my recollection of events and the quality of the work by this sketch artist may not be accurate, so it's possible that the analogy I'm making may be flawed. Unfortunately, I tried to find links to the artist in my mother's building, but was unsuccessful, otherwise I would have been happy to post the links and allow participants in this thread to make up their own minds on the matter.

Tom M

To me, one of the most engaging aspects of this image is having this massive, almost prehistoric creature emerge from a featureless, mysterious background fog onto a foreground populated with everyday objects such as small rocks and a completely banal, OOF duck (probably the most common type of duck in the USA).

I'm not sure whether to laugh at the setup, or think of it as harkening back to illustrations of menacing encounters in 1950s SciFi magazines, but whichever it is, I love it and wouldn't change anything.

Tom M

I am torn - I appreciate some aspects of this image (for some of the reasons already given in this thread), and, like others, I am bothered by other aspects of it, eg, grain, heavy shadow areas, color, specks of dirt, etc.. After spending some time trying to get to the bottom of what really attracts me to this image, I decided that there is a suggestion of graphic simplification contained in it that I really like, but I feel that in spite of considerable simplification of detail that has already taken place, it still has too much of the feel of a photograph and was not brought far enough away from the photographic realm. Specifically, I think it could do very well as the basis of a painting (either digital or real) or even a very highly simplified piece of graphic art.

I'm a very visual and concrete type of guy, so I always try to test hypotheses and suggestions that I make by actually trying them out myself. Changing someone's photo is almost guaranteed not to be in accord with the original intent and goals of an experienced artist, and is at odds with how many experienced people critique images, but at minimum, it helps me clarify my understanding and appreciation of a piece, and hopefully may do the same for others.

My first little experiment produced the attached version of the OP's image. On the plus side, it allows me to get an idea of how the image might look if the grain, color and heavy shadows were all reduced and it was moved further away from photographic "realism". I now get a feeling of strength and nobility in the woman that I hadn't seen/felt in the original. However, on the negative side, I feel that I managed to almost completely kill the 70's-young love-beach nostalgia feel it had and I made it much more conventional and less interesting / mysterious / suggestive. Bah! There must be a way to retain more of the good qualities, but I haven't figured it out yet. Phooey!

Tom M

Hi Oliver - I strongly prefer the treatment of highlights in your most recent version.

However, with respect to shadow detail, in your most recent version, I can now easily see the pattern on her PJs all the way down to the extreme lower RH corner of the frame. I disagree with some of the previous posters who wanted more shadow detail than your 1st version. If it were my image, I wouldn't want to do this. I would prefer a richer black in this area -- not just darker (like your 1st posted version), but also smoother, simpler, and more painterly and mysterious - almost slightly Orton-like. In fact this is exactly what I did in the tweaked version I posted.

Yes, some might consider my slightly Ortonized shadows to be a schlock, expected treatment for this type of image, but one could say exactly the same thing about a knee-jerk "need more details in the shadows" reaction.

In fact, I would say the same about the mid-tones: I would prefer a smoother, less detailed treatment for most of the mid-tones, as well. I would prefer to see only an absolutely minimal number of high sharpness/contrast areas/edges -- just enough to outline the essential elements in the image, no more. For example, in your last posted version, I can see so much detail in the reflection that it is almost clinically obvious that it is a reflection. I would prefer a bit more of a ghostly look to her reflection, almost causing the reader to subliminally wonder if it is really her reflection or an awake-dream she is experiencing.

Anyway, I am obviously projecting my own psychological and visual preferences on your image. Your preferences are guaranteed to be different. Fortunately or unfortunately, the changes we are talking about are relatively small and I would guess that most non-photographers would barely notice them, and only photographers with reasonably well calibrated monitors would be able to say with certainty whether the changes in the deep shadows and top highlights were intentional or just a product of (uncalibrated) monitor-to-monitor variation.

Just my $0.02,

Tom M

Arghh - I was writing at exactly the same time as Oliver. At least one of my goals (cleaning up the window) seems to have been consistent with his.

T

It's a very nice shot -- tranquil, contemplative, kid pondering what the future will bring, etc. If this had been my shot, I would have been quite pleased, my wife and family would have liked it, etc..

The problem is that over the years, I've seen a huge number of very similar shots. For example, I can distinctly remember a very similar "kid sitting by a window" shot in one of the first photography books I ever owned, a late 1950's Kodak publication. To me, this general look has become virtually a stereotype. Unfortunately, IMHO, this then sets the technical bar higher for anyone attempting a similar shot at an advanced level.

So, if we are trying to truly optimize the technical aspects, the first thing that I notice (like some of the earlier posters) are the small areas of burned-out highlights the general harshness of the lighting, the grittiness of the reflections in the window, etc.. IMHO, these just doesn't go with the softness one expects in photos illuminated by oft-cited "soft window light", particularly when a small child is the subject.

In theory, the best approach would have been to modify the light, but often this just can't happen when it's an semi-impromptu shot. So, if the OP likes the idea of softening up the image and doesn't want to reshoot it, the only option may be to try to soften it in software. Below is one quick attempt at this. This approach definitely "schmaltz-ified" the image, made it much more conventional and changed the tonalities of some important areas in the image. Obviously there are many other ways to deal with blown highlights ranging from "stealing good skin" from elsewhere in the image, to making a photo-painting out of it. Only the OP knows whether or not any of these approaches are consistent with his (photographic) goals for this image.

Cheers,

Tom M

PS - Obviously, it's almost trivial to blend various amounts of the highly diffused version with the original, change the brightness of the reflections, etc. So one can go continuously from one extreme to the other.

Well said, Fred.

Tom M

This image just popped up again at the bottom of a thread, and after having it pop up many times before, I've got to tell you that it brings a smile to my face every time I see it.  I like the spontaneity, the smile, your crop, the restrained colors, the sense of place, and last but not least, I would that cutie snap my picture any old time she wanted. 

;-)

Tom M

My guess is that if you showed this photo to a bunch of kids around her age, and asked them if they thought they could be friends with this little girl, 90% of them would say, "Sure!". To me, the attractiveness, interesting and fun nature of this little girl is captured wonderfully by the photographer, and that's why I would deem this photo a clear success.

I also like it because the photo is a bit enigmatic and she has this kind-of older-than-her-years "I've got a secret" look. WRT the characterization as "terrifying", my guess is that she probably was doing nothing more than playing ball or some other game in the flat, open field of the abandoned factory and no doubt has on occasion explored the factory. Kids love places like that --- just like photographers. ;-)

My guess is that this was a grab shot, not a setup, so I'm not only willing to forgive, but I'm not in the least bothered by details such as her skin texture, whites of her eyes, or the postulated PP lightening. WRT skin texture, my guess is that she probably has freckles and these weren't handled well by the NR or some other processing step. WRT the latter two points, I have a weakness for photographic images that have a wiff of a graphic art treatment and this certainly fits that category. Sure, if it was a set up shot, one could probably nail the above technical "flaws", but I would bet one would be hard pressed to get an expression like the one in this version. The truth be told, if it were my image, I probably would go further in the direction of a flat, simplified 2D graphics art / illustration kind of image, but that's just me.

Finally, w.r.t what she is holding, I brightened that area and magnified it (see attached), and it's obvious that we are seeing part of her shirt. However, to me, it looks like she may be using it to conceal some little kid secret -- again adding to the minor air of mystery.

Just my $0.02,

Tom M

Fred, your post of 8:33 pm EST yesterday in this thread stated that someone's non-photographic credentials are irrelevant to the discussion in this thread. In making that comment, you obviously decided to ignore the fact that the exchange between us up to that point was almost entirely about the conscious consideration of alternatives in the process of design, and that the information I gave was relevant to this.

Specifically, my mention that an academic accrediting agency embraced the notion of conscious consideration of alternatives in design seems to have been what triggered your displeasure. From your use of terms such as "gold stars", you obviously regarded this statement as bragging, and not simply taking it in the way I intended, ie, as external, highly-regarded validation for an approach to design that I, and many others advocate, but which clearly is not your preferred approach.


I have no problem with a discussion of whether successful and widely-employed methods of design in non-photographic areas carry over to photographic / artistic design (and we seemed to be off to a good start on that), but I have a big problem with you or anyone else even obliquely suggesting base motives as a means of persuasion in public discussion. This obviously is one of the classic techniques of sophistry. Almost exactly one month ago, I pointed out your use of red-herring sophistry in another thread. It is very disappointing to have to point out your use of a related technique this month.

If you would like, I'll be happy to continue this discussion by email, but I don't think we should derail this thread with it. Later today, I am leaving for the weekend and won't have good computer access, so, if I don't respond to email immediately, you know why.

Tom M

"I certainly wouldn't apply it to or expect it from others, however."
- - - You're right, I shouldn't either when it comes to photography. Every one has their own preferred way of working.

As a side comment, I will add that the approach I outlined above (ie, considering and enumerating alternatives) I also stated in the description of our senior design course in our application for accreditation of a new program, was lauded by the accreditation agency, and we won accreditation on our 1st shot for that new program.

Cheers,

Tom M

"It's not necessarily about distinct and isolated choices and an assessment of the ramifications of those choices."
- - - IMHO, while that may be true in the process of setting up and making the exposure, post processing is much more dependent on distinct, sequential choices and assessing their ramifications.

"It can be a combination of reason and intuitiveness and the intuitiveness can often guide the reasoning, not necessarily to an array of alternatives but to the congealing of a vision."
- - - I agree with you on this.
Tom M

"No photographer has to consider an array of alternatives."
- - Of course, no one has to consider an array of alternatives, but it is one of the most fundamental principles of many forms of design that if you don't explicitly consider alternatives and know precisely why you accept or reject each, you really haven't thought the design through. In fact, this is precisely one of the criteria on which we grade students' design papers. That being said, my expertise is not in art, but in engineering and scientific design (eg, design of experiments). Woe be a student in my department that can't immediately answer the question posed by any faculty member, "what else did you consider for this part of your project?". In fact, I just sat through several hours of presentations today where that question was asked at least a couple of times per presentation (by other faculty members).

Like you, we don't ask them to realize a set of alternative designs, just enumerate a few and explain why they were rejected.

Tom M

Yes, I know, Fred. That's *precisely* why I did it and stated, "Presumably this is because she didn't favor the simplified, more stylized sky,...".

WRT the foreground "and any interest it initially had", does the increased emphasis on pure geometric patterning do anything for you?

Tom M

PS - Whoops, I meant to say: "...the increased emphasis on 2D geometric patterning in both the foreground and sky do anything for you?"

Since some cropping alternatives have already been considered, what about changes in tonality, color and degree of detail?

Looking at Rina H's portfolio here on photo.net, there's no doubt in my mind that she could have produced the attached variant (and an infinite number of others variants) just as easily as I did, yet she didn't do so. Presumably this is because she didn't favor the simplified, more stylized sky, a "cleaned up", higher contrast roof, reduction of the yellow cast in the foreground (so less color contrast with the blue sky), etc. What are the effects of these tweaks on you? Less "eye control", less drama / emotional resonance, more formality and less ambiguity, too garish and obvious, etc. or perhaps the opposite. Then again -- perhaps I'm wrong and she never considered such changes? What do you think?

Personally, I consider it very important for both myself and for reviewers of an image to consider concrete alternatives to every serious image that they consider. At least for me, doing so is one of the very best ways I can learn "what works", "what appeals to people", etc..

Tom M

Great link, Martin. Thanks. Presumably, the wind was blowing the opposite direction that day.

Tom M

Rashed, I agree with Stephen P. I'm pretty certain that the "unusual" transitions near the sheep that you see are due to the mask used to control the extent of the partially desaturated areas, not because this was a composite image.

Tom M

Hi John - Thanks for pursuing this issue. As you correctly point out, with the vibrance control set so high, even small changes in the white balance can introduce lots of color to areas that were initially desaturated (or nearly so). I knew there was no way anyone could accurately regenerate the scene as it was before partial desaturation, but to present a reasonable guess of how it might have looked to those folks who suggested that partial desaturation was not used, hopefully my use of the extreme vibrance setting and the slight (-7) tweak of the WB provided a reasonable and quick approximation of what it might have looked like had the photographer taken an opposite tack and went for a highly saturated look throughout the scene.

Tom M

John, that's simply not true.

Unless I'm having blackouts or my memory is completely failing me, I didn't use ANY method of colorization, eg, split toning, checking the "colorize" box in a hue/sat adjustment layer, paint with a color, separately adjust the three RGB curves, use a "photo filter", etc. OTOH, I did crank the dickens up on the vibrance, and some of the saturation sliders.

That being said, huge increases in saturation were required to bring some color back into the almost completely desaturated sky and road. To prevent obviously white objects from turning strange colors during this process (eg, to keep the white barn and the sheep more or less white), I did have to make relatively small adjustments of the two white balance sliders in ACR. I think I used the color balance eyedropper tool in ACR to do this.

I won't be back to my Photoshop computer till late tonight, but I will double check to make sure some I didn't inadvertently apply some colorization. If you would like, I'll make a preset from the ACR settings and will be happy to send it to you. I would add that I did some more noise reduction in PS after ACR, and I think some vignetting corrections in PS, but nothing that could possibly generate a blue color tone if it wasn't already there (ie, out of pure gray).

Cheers,

Tom M

Hi Stephen - I completely agree with you about the dilution effect that you mentioned. In fact, in my 1st post in this thread, I said, "...OTOH, the changes I am suggesting would almost certainly decrease the "instant drama" factor of the image, making it less eye-catching and more like a straight documentary image of the scene...".

The real reason I posted the tweaked version with vibrance set to +100 was to give some idea of what the scene might look like without selective desaturation, not as an alternative treatment (although it is along the lines of what I proposed in my 1st post in this thread).

Cheers,

Tom M

PS - Strictly speaking, I probably should have been more specific and said, "with a bit too much saturation and areas of local contrast added in post processing".

Tom M

Sorry, but I just can't agree with the occasional comments in this thread that there was minimal post processing involved (ie, no selective desaturation). Attached is what you get if you bring the image into ACR and then max out the vibrance slider (plus a few other minor tweaks). To me, my modified version is completely believable as a typical cloudy day shot with a bit too much saturation and contrast added in post processing, whereas I've never seen a real-world scene that looks like the one selected by the elves unless it had been partially desaturated.

Tom M