Very nice lighting! I love it! You got the Rembrant lighting working in this one! Only thing I would have done differently was to lighten the right side(his left) of the face just a tad. Not much, just a tiny, tiny bit so you don't lose the Rembrant effect.
GaryB
GaryB “The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” - Ansel Adams
"If you've found a magic that does something for you, honey, stick to it. Never change it." - Mae West, to Edith Head.
"Every guy has to have one weakness - and it might as well be a good one." - Shell Scott: Dance With the Dead by Richard S. Prather
Very nice lighting! I love it! You got the Rembrant lighting working in this one! Only thing I would have done differently was to lighten the right side(his left) of the face just a tad. Not much, just a tiny, tiny bit so you don't lose the Rembrant effect.
GaryB
Thanks for your input Gary, I'll give that a try and see how it looks.
That's a beautiful shot, Randy. The processing is incredible! Self portrait?
Thanks Lee,
This was shot with a 580EXII in my new Kacey Beauty Reflector via ST-E2. Yes, this is a SP, and the shot was taken in front of an antique mirror. Actually, this is my reflection in the mirror.
This was shot with a 580EXII in my new Kacey Beauty Reflector via ST-E2. Yes, this is a SP, and the shot was taken in front of an antique mirror. Actually, this is my reflection in the mirror.
Thanks for the comments.
Any tips on the post processing to reach this effect? I love it.
Thanks for showing this, Randy. I have to say, seeing both, that I see the first as a photograph and the second as a Photoshop-o-graf - it is seriously disconnected from the reality of what you saw and your camera captured.
This is closer... though it's still a bit suspect. But to me at least, it is closer to capturing reality, or the reality that was in the mind's eye
Thanks for showing this, Randy. I have to say, seeing both, that I see the first as a photograph and the second as a Photoshop-o-graf - it is seriously disconnected from the reality of what you saw and your camera captured.
This is closer... though it's still a bit suspect. But to me at least, it is closer to capturing reality, or the reality that was in the mind's eye
And FYI - there is absolutely no question that your final version is far more dramatic and arresting as mine - it's just that it's fantasy, not reality.
This man seems to be emotionally far away from the reality of the camera in front of him. The thoughtfulness, pain and resolve in his expression is what makes it a good portrait whether in color, black and white or photoshopped.
For me, the emotional impact of the picture is as real as his skin texture and that reality is strongest in rewells' version.
Visual fantasy or emotional reality???
Just my thoughts on a Sunday morning.
Virginia
_______________________________________________ "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
And FYI - there is absolutely no question that your final version is far more dramatic and arresting as mine - it's just that it's fantasy, not reality.
"... it is seriously disconnected from the reality of what you saw and your camera captured"
~~~ If nobody did this, then there wouldn't be any art in the world, would there? ~~~ rw
Well,
BD, I'd certainly have to agree that my originally posted image was not "a snapshot of reality". I was kind of hoping that would be obvious from the initial image.
I am not a photojournalist, nor was I trying to portray "reality". I am fairly decent at doing that when that's my goal for an image.
This image: As you stated ~ more dramatic ~ that's the goal of this image of mine.
It's unusual for one to ask for a before & after from a photog on a board, but I posted it just to see where you were going with it. Wound-up right where I thought it would.
Question: With no disrespect;
Are your expectations here to think that all images posted should be "within the box" if you will? Only as real of a representation as is possible by the photographer. Like we all are shooting as photojournalist?
If that's the direction of this board, then that sort of puts me out in left field, (probably where I'm at anyway), for I'm not a photojournalist nor do I want my images to look that way.
It is true: I do appreciate C&C on my images, but I would hope that they are in-line with my vision for the particular image. Not a total remake to only one genre of photography.
Maybe there needs to be a "Photojournalist" section on dgrin
Thank you very much for your time and effort on my photograph.
PS: I suspect that now, no-one will comment on any of my images. Feeling that I just won't accept criticism. That's really not the point of this post, but probably the reality of it.
This man seems to be emotionally far away from the reality of the camera in front of him. The thoughtfulness, pain and resolve in his expression is what makes it a good portrait whether in color, black and white or photoshopped.
For me, the emotional impact of the picture is as real as his skin texture and that reality is strongest in rewells' version.
I realize that I was hijacking your thread in a sense and apologize.
Just want to say a few things though.
First, I love your photo with your PP. The result is a very moving and powerful portrait.
Second, because your photo stands up in color, as a straight black and white, and as "developed" by you, it is a good one for exploring how we, as photographers, translate what we see to a finished image.
I don't think that bdcolen was saying what you did was bad - just pointing out that, in his view, your end product did not represent reality.
I happen to disagree with him but others will agree.
In any event, I hope we can take up the discussion in a separate thread, because the issues are worth thinking about.
Meanwhile, please keep posting!!
Virginia
_______________________________________________ "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
I realize that I was hijacking your thread in a sense and apologize.
Just want to say a few things though.
First, I love your photo with your PP. The result is a very moving and powerful portrait.
Second, because your photo stands up in color, as a straight black and white, and as "developed" by you, it is a good one for exploring how we, as photographers, translate what we see to a finished image.
I don't think that bdcolen was saying what you did was bad - just pointing out that, in his view, your end product did not represent reality.
I happen to disagree with him but others will agree.
In any event, I hope we can take up the discussion in a separate thread, because the issues are worth thinking about.
Meanwhile, please keep posting!!
Virginia
Hey Virginia,
You didn't hijack the thread. I think most discussions are beneficial.
I don't believe that BD was saying the image is bad either. He evidently is a well respected photojournalist, and I would venture to say that to be very good at such, you probably need tunnel vision in your given genre. Nothing wrong with that!
But, this is not a "photojournalist" section on dgrin. This is the "People" section. IMHO, one should not try to corral a (posting) photographers intent. That should be the sole discretion of the photographer. But to offer comments or suggestions that might help the photographer accomplish his/her goal, not to have the image fit a completely different genre than intended by the posting photog.
I've seen this many a time on this board. Someone steps outside-the-box of a "normal" photograph, and is immediately reeled back into it.
I'm not mad nor upset. I just don't understand this mentality.
I find the directions this thread is moving fascinating. FWIW, I saw this before you posted the before/after and didn't get around to commenting then, to say that I really REALLY like the shot; seeing teh before/after, I'm impressed with the PP work and, although it's true that the PP may in this case be what "makes" the image... it works.
And FYI - there is absolutely no question that your final version is far more dramatic and arresting as mine - it's just that it's fantasy, not reality.
Aren't we identifying the difference between documentary and drama? Both can depict "real life", but in different ways. And I think that both have a significant and important place.
Ultimately, I think knowing the intention behind the final photo and the context in which it is presented are vitally important: if it was intended to be an exact representation of the subject, a "moment in time" to be represented with photojournalistic accuracy, then the processed version fails dismally; as a very interesting "character study" portrait using a "model" instead of somebody going about their business, I think it works wonderfully well.
Maybe what we need is a Photojournalism subthread like we have a Go Figure thread because at the moment photojournalists don't have a place on dGrin unless it is under People.
I notice that really interesting work posted by people taking in a photojournalistic style doesn't bet many comments here and as someone who takes a lot of pictures in the genre, I've often puzzled about the right place to post it.
What do you think Richard? Can we maybe have a photojournalism sub=-forum?
Virginia
_______________________________________________ "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
I notice that really interesting work posted by people taking in a photojournalistic style doesn't bet many comments here and as someone who takes a lot of pictures in the genre, I've often puzzled about the right place to post it.
What do you think Richard? Can we maybe have a photojournalism sub=-forum?
Virginia
I have wrestled with this quite a bit, Virginia. I mostly do street shooting myself and often wonder which forum to post on--yeah, there are people but sometimes they are only incidental, just another element of composition. They aren't exactly cityscapes either, which to me are more about architecture. Other Cool Shots? Hmmm.... I agree that PJ generally gets less attention here (except when it's a political hot-button ) but I think that's because there aren't many Dgrinners who are into it. I suppose the question is, whether to wait till we have critical mass before creating a sub-forum, or will creating a sub-forum attract more street shooters?
This image has fine DNA. The original is an interesting portrait of an interesting face with dramatic lighting. Randy did some LR magic to it that took it to an unexpected and stunning place, though not a place in line with documentary tradition. B.D.'s comment was to ask whether another kind of processing could bring it into that tradition without giving up the drama that makes it an arresting shot. I think that Randy's answer is "no."
My answer is a little different. I love Randy's treatment of this shot. B.D.'s doesn't have the drama, but it doesn't cross some line in B.D.'s mind. I think that line is pretty hard to understand. I've come up it a few times and sometimes it made sense to me and sometimes not so much. In this case I think we're pretty close. It would work for an album cover. It wouldn't work for an illustration of a New Yorker profile.
B.D.'s job is to be the keeper of the documentary tradition and to be a grouch when people use color or telephoto lenses or change a picture too much in photoshop. It's a fine thing to have around. We can take this for what it's worth. Blow him off if you like, but chew on his thoughts. (I plan to blow off his comments about the bullhorn in this post.)
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Randy. Although I am not and have no desire to be a photojournalist or street shooter, I agree that Dgrin needs a forum for those who are pursuing those media.
When I saw your image, I immediately saw it as a study of a working man in a coal mine, oilfield or old warehouse, and certainly I saw it as a fine art photograph. I honestly believe that the image in your original post could hang in a fine art photography gallery, and would probably sell. The original looks like a snapshot, of course, and you did what's done in the movie industry: You started with a "properly" lit image and then processed it to fit the mood you wanted. (Watch the making of special features on any DVD, and you'll see that the lighting in the outtakes is vastly different from what you saw in the movie.)
Some may disagree, but to me photojournalism (I'm speaking newspaper photojournalism here, which is generally different from magazine.) is pretty much capturing an image to illustrate a story. Composition can then, if necessary, be done in the darkroom or, in the modern era, on the computer. And, yes, it takes tremendous skill to know exactly how and when to capture the image. What you did was more than just take a "snap" of yourself and manipulate it to show more than what was actually there; you composed it, set up your lighting and then processed it to show the emotion you wanted to convey. The point is, you started creating the image even before you picked up your camera. This is much like creating art on canvas or paper: Unless you're painting a realistic portrait or making a technical drawing, you start with an idea in your head and then carry it out to your full intent. Photojournalism pretty much starts at picking up the camera and ends with pressing the shutter release: For reasons of telling the truth, there's not a lot of room for anything more than that. Street shooting, though, leaves a bit more room for creativity.
There's plenty of room for realism in photography - I do a lot of that myself. But, there's just as much room for creativity, which is what Dgrin (and other photography forums) are also about. Unfortunately, too many times I have seen a photo someone has obviously created to be fine art photography be shot down as being "not technically correct" because it's not of "perfect" (to whom?) contrast, composition, color, density, focus, etc., etc. . . . and then disregarded as an inferior photograph by the reviewer. I recently saw a photo (in another forum) that was meant to look like a litho. It got critiqued as having "too much contrast, it needs more detail in the shadows." A litho is pure black and while. I know, because I sometimes had to make them for a photo lab I worked in years ago.
I like technically perfect images. Love them, even. They're very pleasing and comfortable: Easy on the eyes, so to speak. But, I also like images that create a little bit of tension. I like images that make the viewer think there's something wrong with it, but they can't quite put their finger on just what is wrong. Your images often give me that feeling, and I like that. It's your style that I look at, and style is what separates one photographer (or any artist, for that matter) from all the others. It's called "Individuality." I saw your style in the original photo, and I don't critique style; I critique glaring flaws that, if changed, will help to improve the image.
I see no reason to improve your image.
Richard. How about creating a new, dual forum for "Street Shooting and Photojournalism" and streamlining the People forum to showcase portraits and fashion (and, of course, the Go Figure subforum)?
"If you've found a magic that does something for you, honey, stick to it. Never change it." - Mae West, to Edith Head.
"Every guy has to have one weakness - and it might as well be a good one." - Shell Scott: Dance With the Dead by Richard S. Prather
I find the directions this thread is moving fascinating. FWIW, I saw this before you posted the before/after and didn't get around to commenting then, to say that I really REALLY like the shot; seeing teh before/after, I'm impressed with the PP work and, although it's true that the PP may in this case be what "makes" the image... it works.
Aren't we identifying the difference between documentary and drama? Both can depict "real life", but in different ways. And I think that both have a significant and important place.
Ultimately, I think knowing the intention behind the final photo and the context in which it is presented are vitally important: if it was intended to be an exact representation of the subject, a "moment in time" to be represented with photojournalistic accuracy, then the processed version fails dismally; as a very interesting "character study" portrait using a "model" instead of somebody going about their business, I think it works wonderfully well.
Just musings.
/ramble
Divamum,
Thanks for your input and your kind words. I especially agree with you on the statement that I bold-ed and underlined above.
I have wrestled with this quite a bit, Virginia. I mostly do street shooting myself and often wonder which forum to post on--yeah, there are people but sometimes they are only incidental, just another element of composition. They aren't exactly cityscapes either, which to me are more about architecture. Other Cool Shots? Hmmm.... I agree that PJ generally gets less attention here (except when it's a political hot-button ) but I think that's because there aren't many Dgrinners who are into it. I suppose the question is, whether to wait till we have critical mass before creating a sub-forum, or will creating a sub-forum attract more street shooters?
We now have an AIR that is very geared toward photojournalism & street photography. Sounds like a good fit to me
This image has fine DNA. The original is an interesting portrait of an interesting face with dramatic lighting. Randy did some LR magic to it that took it to an unexpected and stunning place, though not a place in line with documentary tradition. B.D.'s comment was to ask whether another kind of processing could bring it into that tradition without giving up the drama that makes it an arresting shot. I think that Randy's answer is "no."
My answer is a little different. I love Randy's treatment of this shot. B.D.'s doesn't have the drama, but it doesn't cross some line in B.D.'s mind. I think that line is pretty hard to understand. I've come up it a few times and sometimes it made sense to me and sometimes not so much. In this case I think we're pretty close. It would work for an album cover. It wouldn't work for an illustration of a New Yorker profile.
B.D.'s job is to be the keeper of the documentary tradition and to be a grouch when people use color or telephoto lenses or change a picture too much in photoshop. It's a fine thing to have around. We can take this for what it's worth. Blow him off if you like, but chew on his thoughts. (I plan to blow off his comments about the bullhorn in this post.)
Just noticed. This is a self portrait, right?
Rutt,
I am pleased that you liked my image & post processing, but that's not necessary for a comment or critique. I'm perfectly OK if someone doesn't like my image, and I actually would like to hear those comments also as long as they are in-line with the images intent.
As to your comment about BD being the keeper of documentary tradition, I could make the argument that changing a digital image to B&W is manipulating the reality in which the camera captured the image. How about Levels, Curves, Burn/Dodge, et-al...? A "Photoshop-o-graf" to the purist... I think BD would be a fantastic fit in a "Photo-journalist" section.
What I don't think is a good fit, is to have someone with so much experience in one genre of photography, and being an AIR, expecting images posted in the "People" section to adhere to photo-journalistic guidelines. I believe this is going to cause issues.
If there were a photo-journalistic section and I posted this image there, well, I would expect the full disclosure that BD gave.
...When I saw your image, I immediately saw it as a study of a working man in a coal mine, oilfield or old warehouse, and certainly I saw it as a fine art photograph...
...But, I also like images that create a little bit of tension. I like images that make the viewer think there's something wrong with it, but they can't quite put their finger on just what is wrong. Your images often give me that feeling, and I like that. It's your style that I look at, and style is what separates one photographer (or any artist, for that matter) from all the others. It's called "Individuality." I saw your style in the original photo, and I don't critique style; I critique glaring flaws that, if changed, will help to improve the image.
I see no reason to improve your image.
Lee,
That is exactly the look I had in my head for this image. I'm pleased that the mental image you received from viewing my image is the basic/same one that I intended.
I like, and often try to create, images that request the mind/eye more than a quick, once-over then gone, review.
Like everybody else that uses a camera, sometimes I'm successful, sometimes not.
I certainly appreciate your thought-out comments, and yes, your kind words also
Comments
GaryB
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” - Ansel Adams
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
__________________
My SmugMug Gallery
My Facebook
"If you've found a magic that does something for you, honey, stick to it. Never change it." - Mae West, to Edith Head.
"Every guy has to have one weakness - and it might as well be a good one." - Shell Scott: Dance With the Dead by Richard S. Prather
Thanks D'Buggs
Thanks for your input Gary, I'll give that a try and see how it looks.
Thanks Lee,
This was shot with a 580EXII in my new Kacey Beauty Reflector via ST-E2. Yes, this is a SP, and the shot was taken in front of an antique mirror. Actually, this is my reflection in the mirror.
Thanks for the comments.
Any tips on the post processing to reach this effect? I love it.
Processing was done within LR2
Hope that helps...
Thanks! I'll have to try it out.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
This man seems to be emotionally far away from the reality of the camera in front of him. The thoughtfulness, pain and resolve in his expression is what makes it a good portrait whether in color, black and white or photoshopped.
For me, the emotional impact of the picture is as real as his skin texture and that reality is strongest in rewells' version.
Visual fantasy or emotional reality???
Just my thoughts on a Sunday morning.
Virginia
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
~~~ If nobody did this, then there wouldn't be any art in the world, would there? ~~~ rw
Well,
BD, I'd certainly have to agree that my originally posted image was not "a snapshot of reality". I was kind of hoping that would be obvious from the initial image.
I am not a photojournalist, nor was I trying to portray "reality". I am fairly decent at doing that when that's my goal for an image.
This image: As you stated ~ more dramatic ~ that's the goal of this image of mine.
It's unusual for one to ask for a before & after from a photog on a board, but I posted it just to see where you were going with it. Wound-up right where I thought it would.
Question: With no disrespect;
Are your expectations here to think that all images posted should be "within the box" if you will? Only as real of a representation as is possible by the photographer. Like we all are shooting as photojournalist?
If that's the direction of this board, then that sort of puts me out in left field, (probably where I'm at anyway), for I'm not a photojournalist nor do I want my images to look that way.
It is true: I do appreciate C&C on my images, but I would hope that they are in-line with my vision for the particular image. Not a total remake to only one genre of photography.
Maybe there needs to be a "Photojournalist" section on dgrin
Thank you very much for your time and effort on my photograph.
PS: I suspect that now, no-one will comment on any of my images. Feeling that I just won't accept criticism. That's really not the point of this post, but probably the reality of it.
Virginia,
Thanks for weighing-in with your candid remarks.
I realize that I was hijacking your thread in a sense and apologize.
Just want to say a few things though.
First, I love your photo with your PP. The result is a very moving and powerful portrait.
Second, because your photo stands up in color, as a straight black and white, and as "developed" by you, it is a good one for exploring how we, as photographers, translate what we see to a finished image.
I don't think that bdcolen was saying what you did was bad - just pointing out that, in his view, your end product did not represent reality.
I happen to disagree with him but others will agree.
In any event, I hope we can take up the discussion in a separate thread, because the issues are worth thinking about.
Meanwhile, please keep posting!!
Virginia
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
i like the drama and thanks for sharing your settings.
-jay
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
Kinky Friedman
Hey Virginia,
You didn't hijack the thread. I think most discussions are beneficial.
I don't believe that BD was saying the image is bad either. He evidently is a well respected photojournalist, and I would venture to say that to be very good at such, you probably need tunnel vision in your given genre. Nothing wrong with that!
But, this is not a "photojournalist" section on dgrin. This is the "People" section. IMHO, one should not try to corral a (posting) photographers intent. That should be the sole discretion of the photographer. But to offer comments or suggestions that might help the photographer accomplish his/her goal, not to have the image fit a completely different genre than intended by the posting photog.
I've seen this many a time on this board. Someone steps outside-the-box of a "normal" photograph, and is immediately reeled back into it.
I'm not mad nor upset. I just don't understand this mentality.
I'm quite sure it's my issue
Suffice to say, I live "outside the box".
Thanks again for your input
Jay,
I hope that the settings give you another avenue for some of your images.
Thanks for your input.
I notice that really interesting work posted by people taking in a photojournalistic style doesn't bet many comments here and as someone who takes a lot of pictures in the genre, I've often puzzled about the right place to post it.
What do you think Richard? Can we maybe have a photojournalism sub=-forum?
Virginia
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
My answer is a little different. I love Randy's treatment of this shot. B.D.'s doesn't have the drama, but it doesn't cross some line in B.D.'s mind. I think that line is pretty hard to understand. I've come up it a few times and sometimes it made sense to me and sometimes not so much. In this case I think we're pretty close. It would work for an album cover. It wouldn't work for an illustration of a New Yorker profile.
B.D.'s job is to be the keeper of the documentary tradition and to be a grouch when people use color or telephoto lenses or change a picture too much in photoshop. It's a fine thing to have around. We can take this for what it's worth. Blow him off if you like, but chew on his thoughts. (I plan to blow off his comments about the bullhorn in this post.)
Just noticed. This is a self portrait, right?
When I saw your image, I immediately saw it as a study of a working man in a coal mine, oilfield or old warehouse, and certainly I saw it as a fine art photograph. I honestly believe that the image in your original post could hang in a fine art photography gallery, and would probably sell. The original looks like a snapshot, of course, and you did what's done in the movie industry: You started with a "properly" lit image and then processed it to fit the mood you wanted. (Watch the making of special features on any DVD, and you'll see that the lighting in the outtakes is vastly different from what you saw in the movie.)
Some may disagree, but to me photojournalism (I'm speaking newspaper photojournalism here, which is generally different from magazine.) is pretty much capturing an image to illustrate a story. Composition can then, if necessary, be done in the darkroom or, in the modern era, on the computer. And, yes, it takes tremendous skill to know exactly how and when to capture the image. What you did was more than just take a "snap" of yourself and manipulate it to show more than what was actually there; you composed it, set up your lighting and then processed it to show the emotion you wanted to convey. The point is, you started creating the image even before you picked up your camera. This is much like creating art on canvas or paper: Unless you're painting a realistic portrait or making a technical drawing, you start with an idea in your head and then carry it out to your full intent. Photojournalism pretty much starts at picking up the camera and ends with pressing the shutter release: For reasons of telling the truth, there's not a lot of room for anything more than that. Street shooting, though, leaves a bit more room for creativity.
There's plenty of room for realism in photography - I do a lot of that myself. But, there's just as much room for creativity, which is what Dgrin (and other photography forums) are also about. Unfortunately, too many times I have seen a photo someone has obviously created to be fine art photography be shot down as being "not technically correct" because it's not of "perfect" (to whom?) contrast, composition, color, density, focus, etc., etc. . . . and then disregarded as an inferior photograph by the reviewer. I recently saw a photo (in another forum) that was meant to look like a litho. It got critiqued as having "too much contrast, it needs more detail in the shadows." A litho is pure black and while. I know, because I sometimes had to make them for a photo lab I worked in years ago.
I like technically perfect images. Love them, even. They're very pleasing and comfortable: Easy on the eyes, so to speak. But, I also like images that create a little bit of tension. I like images that make the viewer think there's something wrong with it, but they can't quite put their finger on just what is wrong. Your images often give me that feeling, and I like that. It's your style that I look at, and style is what separates one photographer (or any artist, for that matter) from all the others. It's called "Individuality." I saw your style in the original photo, and I don't critique style; I critique glaring flaws that, if changed, will help to improve the image.
I see no reason to improve your image.
Richard. How about creating a new, dual forum for "Street Shooting and Photojournalism" and streamlining the People forum to showcase portraits and fashion (and, of course, the Go Figure subforum)?
__________________
My SmugMug Gallery
My Facebook
"If you've found a magic that does something for you, honey, stick to it. Never change it." - Mae West, to Edith Head.
"Every guy has to have one weakness - and it might as well be a good one." - Shell Scott: Dance With the Dead by Richard S. Prather
We now have an AIR that is very geared toward photojournalism & street photography. Sounds like a good fit to me
Rutt,
I am pleased that you liked my image & post processing, but that's not necessary for a comment or critique. I'm perfectly OK if someone doesn't like my image, and I actually would like to hear those comments also as long as they are in-line with the images intent.
As to your comment about BD being the keeper of documentary tradition, I could make the argument that changing a digital image to B&W is manipulating the reality in which the camera captured the image. How about Levels, Curves, Burn/Dodge, et-al...? A "Photoshop-o-graf" to the purist... I think BD would be a fantastic fit in a "Photo-journalist" section.
What I don't think is a good fit, is to have someone with so much experience in one genre of photography, and being an AIR, expecting images posted in the "People" section to adhere to photo-journalistic guidelines. I believe this is going to cause issues.
If there were a photo-journalistic section and I posted this image there, well, I would expect the full disclosure that BD gave.
And yes, this is a self-portrait.
Thank you so much for your insight and input.
Lee,
That is exactly the look I had in my head for this image. I'm pleased that the mental image you received from viewing my image is the basic/same one that I intended.
I like, and often try to create, images that request the mind/eye more than a quick, once-over then gone, review.
Like everybody else that uses a camera, sometimes I'm successful, sometimes not.
I certainly appreciate your thought-out comments, and yes, your kind words also