Hmm, I like the image and it doesn't matter to me whether it represents reality or not, as long as you don't claim it to be photojournalism, which you clearly didn't. No need to shoehorn every photograph of a human being into on narrow and restrictive category.
BD is obviously a great photographer and I really enjoyed the subway images posted in the other thread. I am puzzled about the bias toward black and white, however; I love black and white, definitely, but I fail to see how it more accurately represents "reality"... I don't see in black and white, and I'm fairly confident no one else does either unless they have some extremely rare form of colorblindness. The real world is soaked in color.
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)?
Hmm, I like the image and it doesn't matter to me whether it represents reality or not, as long as you don't claim it to be photojournalism, which you clearly didn't. No need to shoehorn every photograph of a human being into on narrow and restrictive category.
BD is obviously a great photographer and I really enjoyed the subway images posted in the other thread. I am puzzled about the bias toward black and white, however; I love black and white, definitely, but I fail to see how it more accurately represents "reality"... I don't see in black and white, and I'm fairly confident no one else does either unless they have some extremely rare form of colorblindness. The real world is soaked in color.
~~~ 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.
----
Not disrespect intended at all, Randy - My espectation isn't that everyone approaches things as a "photojournalist." Despite what you thing, that's not my approach. And drama is fine; you are indeed good at what you do - you are in fact excellent at what you do.
Yes, my bias is toward achieving drama in the capture process, not the post processing end. And I do think that the search for drama in the post processing end can go too far. Tome the image we're discussing is a touch overdone, because it leaves him looking not just dramatic, but a touch unreal - i.e., the skin. BUT that said, if that's the look you want, and others appreciate it - and they obviously do:D - go for it.
----
Yes, I do come from the documentary, street photo, journalism tradition. It has provided me with my vision. The advice I provide will be based on that vision. However, your understandable reaction reminds me that there are some images I should comment on, and others I shouldn't.
HOWEVER - I do think asking for the pre-processed image makes a great deal of sense, and that is something I'll do from time to time - just as I ask to see unedited copy from writers who are asking me to look at their product.
Hmm, I like the image and it doesn't matter to me whether it represents reality or not, as long as you don't claim it to be photojournalism, which you clearly didn't. No need to shoehorn every photograph of a human being into on narrow and restrictive category.
BD is obviously a great photographer and I really enjoyed the subway images posted in the other thread. I am puzzled about the bias toward black and white, however; I love black and white, definitely, but I fail to see how it more accurately represents "reality"... I don't see in black and white, and I'm fairly confident no one else does either unless they have some extremely rare form of colorblindness. The real world is soaked in color.
----
Good point. My bias toward black and white is most definitely my bias. The world is indeed soaked in color. I shoot in color - as do we all if we're shooting digital. But having been brought up on the documentary tradition, and having - with rare exception - shot Tri-X, mostly at 800 - for some 40 years - I am personally biased toward black and white. I am more interested generally in tonality, light, and, of course, the subject, than I am in color. I do think that black and white does tend to show us a personality better than color, particularly in situations where the person is in colorful clothings or surroundings. That said, I admire the work of many photographers who work in color - and wil do so here.
Good point. My bias toward black and white is most definitely my bias. The world is indeed soaked in color. I shoot in color - as do we all if we're shooting digital. But having been brought up on the documentary tradition, and having - with rare exception - shot Tri-X, mostly at 800 - for some 40 years - I am personally biased toward black and white. I am more interested generally in tonality, light, and, of course, the subject, than I am in color. I do think that black and white does tend to show us a personality better than color, particularly in situations where the person is in colorful clothings or surroundings. That said, I admire the work of many photographers who work in color - and wil do so here.
Actually, this is not irrelevant to a point I made in the just-closed BW only challenge that has just ended.
I adore BW, and as my skills improve (interesting sub-point right there!) find myself gravitating to it more and more because somehow it looks more *real* to me. This paradox got me thinking a lot this morning, and the only comparison I can think of is that of radio (drama) vs tv: the pictures are infinitely better on the radio. The same holds true (for me) in really good black and white - the colours in my head will ALWAYS be more vibrant, interesting, and picture-appropriate than any reality might have been.
Again, just musings. Randy, I hope you don't mind this tangent - your image seems to have become a jumping point for a much wider (and very interesting) discussion!
awkward framing IMHO. LHP is cut off, while negative space on the right doesn't do anything really
while your were able to achieve the result you wanted in PP, your lighting stopped short in this path. It was in fact possible to achieve almost exactly what you wanted with just that light by repositioning it in a way that none of light source is crossing the plane of your face. You may have also needed a light-soaking device on the opposite side (depening on the room size)
Funny, we were just covering that topic on Saturday
Not disrespect intended at all, Randy - My espectation isn't that everyone approaches things as a "photojournalist." Despite what you thing, that's not my approach. And drama is fine; you are indeed good at what you do - you are in fact excellent at what you do.
Yes, my bias is toward achieving drama in the capture process, not the post processing end. And I do think that the search for drama in the post processing end can go too far. Tome the image we're discussing is a touch overdone, because it leaves him looking not just dramatic, but a touch unreal - i.e., the skin. BUT that said, if that's the look you want, and others appreciate it - and they obviously do:D - go for it.
----
Yes, I do come from the documentary, street photo, journalism tradition. It has provided me with my vision. The advice I provide will be based on that vision. However, your understandable reaction reminds me that there are some images I should comment on, and others I shouldn't.
HOWEVER - I do think asking for the pre-processed image makes a great deal of sense, and that is something I'll do from time to time - just as I ask to see unedited copy from writers who are asking me to look at their product.
Best,
B. D.
BD,
I think that the "People" section might still be a little too broad as it presently stands. IMHO, if a "Photo-journalistic & Street Photography" section can be created, that would help to ensure that an image gets the proper C&C, or maybe better said, C&C that's geared toward the intentions of the posting photographer.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you will be a great resource here on dgrin. We, and particularly photogs that aspire in your genre of photography, will certainly gain from your experience and insight.
Thanks again for your input and taking the time and effort to comment
Actually, this is not irrelevant to a point I made in the just-closed BW only challenge that has just ended.
I adore BW, and as my skills improve (interesting sub-point right there!) find myself gravitating to it more and more because somehow it looks more *real* to me. This paradox got me thinking a lot this morning, and the only comparison I can think of is that of radio (drama) vs tv: the pictures are infinitely better on the radio. The same holds true (for me) in really good black and white - the colours in my head will ALWAYS be more vibrant, interesting, and picture-appropriate than any reality might have been.
Again, just musings. Randy, I hope you don't mind this tangent - your image seems to have become a jumping point for a much wider (and very interesting) discussion!
awkward framing IMHO. LHP is cut off, while negative space on the right doesn't do anything really
while your were able to achieve the result you wanted in PP, your lighting stopped short in this path. It was in fact possible to achieve almost exactly what you wanted with just that light by repositioning it in a way that none of light source is crossing the plane of your face. You may have also needed a light-soaking device on the opposite side (depening on the room size)
Funny, we were just covering that topic on Saturday
Hey Nik,
Thanks for the input and kind words.
(my reasoning for subject placement and crop)
You might have noticed that most of my images use the rule of thirds fairly close. That's where I'll place the area that I want the viewer to direct their attention to. In this image, that would be (my) right eye (camera left). I also rarely place my subject in the center of the image.
I respect that YMMV
As to the lighting:
I totally agree. I normally like to get as close in-camera as I can, then process as needed to finish the image to my liking or needs. In some cases though, either your lighting does not fit what you ultimately need, or your image goals change. That's when it's nice to still be able to reach your image goal, even if you then have to rely on post processing. It's really the best of both worlds.
You might have noticed that most of my images use the rule of thirds fairly close. That's where I'll place the area that I want the viewer to direct their attention to. In this image, that would be (my) right eye (camera left). I also rarely place my subject in the center of the image.
Without going into a whole pointless discussion of when and whether the rule of thirds should be applied, I simply say that there typically are three thirds and IMHO you used a wrong one here.
"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 like what you've done here Randy. For my tastes tho (and it's just me) I think lightening it up a bit would provide a bit more impact as the lighter side of the image loses it's dramaticism. A little more dodging with lower opacity brush would probably do it. It's fun to see this type of radical processing. Very cool.
I like what you've done here Randy. For my tastes tho (and it's just me) I think lightening it up a bit would provide a bit more impact as the lighter side of the image loses it's dramaticism. A little more dodging with lower opacity brush would probably do it. It's fun to see this type of radical processing. Very cool.
Hey Dave,
You could be right. I did play with that some, and when lightening up the left side (camera right) a little to show some detail, it immediately lost a lot of the dramatic look. It just kind of went into a "low key" image. I couldn't quite find the middle ground there, it was either low key, or dramatic.
I suspect that if I really spent some time with it, and with careful dodging to specific areas on that side, the image possibly could be improved upon. I found that the "spot" lighting on the left eye (camera right), made a pretty big impact to the feel of the overall image. When other details on that side were made even slightly visible, to me, it completely lost that impact.
Edited to add this NOTE: All the above pertains to LR2. I am much better, and with better tools, in CS2. I've been exploring LR2 capabilities. I've got a lot to learn.
Since I have already posted a before & after of this image, and detailed the look/feel that I was trying to accomplish, please feel free to make those adjustments you mentioned and post it if you have the time or inclination.
Yes, I agree, these are fun to do. I guess there are infinite ways to process an image & you finally have to just stop at some point as close to your goal as you think you can get. Although, that stopping point might not always be at the right place
When shooting my sports images, they have to look "normal" for sales & that's OK. But for fun, I like more "out-of-the-box" images.
I see "normal" each and every day. Some days, I like a break from that
As always, I appreciate you taking the time to look and weighing in on my images
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.
I'd like to clarify a few things if I may - about me, not about Randy's work.
First, while I have done photojournalism, I do not think of myself as a photojournalist. In fact, early in my life, after several summer jobs as a newspaper shooter, I decided that I did not want to spend my life as a photojournalist, because at that time - mid-to-late-60s, photojournalism was quite limiting and I decided I would ultimately be bored. (I ended up as a writer and editor instead, and had much, much more latitude than I would have had doing traditional photojournalism.) Today, that might be different, as many newspapers and magazines are using the web to allow photographers to spread their wings and do really creative and important work.
I think of myself first of all as a photographer, and second of all as a photographer of "real life." I am very much steeped in the documentary tradition, and most of my photo heroes are either dead or will be sooner than I'd like to think. I include street photography, and a lot of portraiture in that genre, and believe that the basic principles and concepts of documentary photography can be applied to wide range of photographic genres, including family photography, wedding photography, and corporate and editorial photography.
I find the suggesting that converting images to black and white somehow violates my goal of capturing reality sort of silly. Digital cameras and technology give us the advantage of shooting with multiple film stocks at once, and from frame to frame. Your first frame may be shot with Kodachrome 64, and your next with Kodak Recording film - black and white - rated at 6400 iso. Making those sorts of changes in post processing is no more unreal than is shooting with different kinds of film.
As to the remark about post processing: I do in Photoshop what I would do in a film dark room; I burn, I dodge, I adjust contrast - as I would with paper grades and filters. I work very carefully to avoid creating an alternative reality. Yes, when I am shooting for a client, I will sometimes clone out an annoying intrusion into an image, but that's because it's what I'm being paid to do - and I do it rarely. Otherwise, the telephone wire stays where it was.
"People" quite neatly describes what I shoot. Obviously, there are many ways to shoot people, and in the future I will refrain from commenting on examples of those ways that are obviously outside my range of expertise and interest. Meanwhile, I hope to learn from all of you, because everyone here has something to teach, and I have a great deal to learn.
Comments
I posted this image on our Strobist website with the normal required strobist info. ISO, f/, shutter, Kacey Beauty Reflector.
Our organizer's comment: "Me thinks you got a bad unit"
Get it...Beauty Reflector...
Hmmm, guess you had to be there
BD is obviously a great photographer and I really enjoyed the subway images posted in the other thread. I am puzzled about the bias toward black and white, however; I love black and white, definitely, but I fail to see how it more accurately represents "reality"... I don't see in black and white, and I'm fairly confident no one else does either unless they have some extremely rare form of colorblindness. The real world is soaked in color.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
That makes sense to me, Lee. Stay tuned.
Tim,
I appreciate your comments and thoughts.
----
Not disrespect intended at all, Randy - My espectation isn't that everyone approaches things as a "photojournalist." Despite what you thing, that's not my approach. And drama is fine; you are indeed good at what you do - you are in fact excellent at what you do.
Yes, my bias is toward achieving drama in the capture process, not the post processing end. And I do think that the search for drama in the post processing end can go too far. Tome the image we're discussing is a touch overdone, because it leaves him looking not just dramatic, but a touch unreal - i.e., the skin. BUT that said, if that's the look you want, and others appreciate it - and they obviously do:D - go for it.
----
Yes, I do come from the documentary, street photo, journalism tradition. It has provided me with my vision. The advice I provide will be based on that vision. However, your understandable reaction reminds me that there are some images I should comment on, and others I shouldn't.
HOWEVER - I do think asking for the pre-processed image makes a great deal of sense, and that is something I'll do from time to time - just as I ask to see unedited copy from writers who are asking me to look at their product.
Best,
B. D.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
----
Good point. My bias toward black and white is most definitely my bias. The world is indeed soaked in color. I shoot in color - as do we all if we're shooting digital. But having been brought up on the documentary tradition, and having - with rare exception - shot Tri-X, mostly at 800 - for some 40 years - I am personally biased toward black and white. I am more interested generally in tonality, light, and, of course, the subject, than I am in color. I do think that black and white does tend to show us a personality better than color, particularly in situations where the person is in colorful clothings or surroundings. That said, I admire the work of many photographers who work in color - and wil do so here.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Actually, this is not irrelevant to a point I made in the just-closed BW only challenge that has just ended.
I adore BW, and as my skills improve (interesting sub-point right there!) find myself gravitating to it more and more because somehow it looks more *real* to me. This paradox got me thinking a lot this morning, and the only comparison I can think of is that of radio (drama) vs tv: the pictures are infinitely better on the radio. The same holds true (for me) in really good black and white - the colours in my head will ALWAYS be more vibrant, interesting, and picture-appropriate than any reality might have been.
Again, just musings. Randy, I hope you don't mind this tangent - your image seems to have become a jumping point for a much wider (and very interesting) discussion!
Funny, we were just covering that topic on Saturday
BD,
I think that the "People" section might still be a little too broad as it presently stands. IMHO, if a "Photo-journalistic & Street Photography" section can be created, that would help to ensure that an image gets the proper C&C, or maybe better said, C&C that's geared toward the intentions of the posting photographer.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you will be a great resource here on dgrin. We, and particularly photogs that aspire in your genre of photography, will certainly gain from your experience and insight.
Thanks again for your input and taking the time and effort to comment
Divamum,
It's all good
Hey Nik,
Thanks for the input and kind words.
(my reasoning for subject placement and crop)
You might have noticed that most of my images use the rule of thirds fairly close. That's where I'll place the area that I want the viewer to direct their attention to. In this image, that would be (my) right eye (camera left). I also rarely place my subject in the center of the image.
I respect that YMMV
As to the lighting:
I totally agree. I normally like to get as close in-camera as I can, then process as needed to finish the image to my liking or needs. In some cases though, either your lighting does not fit what you ultimately need, or your image goals change. That's when it's nice to still be able to reach your image goal, even if you then have to rely on post processing. It's really the best of both worlds.
I do appreciate your insight and input.
If I were to post a self portrait, I suspect that's the exact response I'd get, too . . . regardless of the equipment used.
(Note: That's not me in my avatar . . . It's Robert Benchley. You can look him up on Wikipedia later.
__________________
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
My Photos - Powered by SmugMug!
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
Hey Dave,
You could be right. I did play with that some, and when lightening up the left side (camera right) a little to show some detail, it immediately lost a lot of the dramatic look. It just kind of went into a "low key" image. I couldn't quite find the middle ground there, it was either low key, or dramatic.
I suspect that if I really spent some time with it, and with careful dodging to specific areas on that side, the image possibly could be improved upon. I found that the "spot" lighting on the left eye (camera right), made a pretty big impact to the feel of the overall image. When other details on that side were made even slightly visible, to me, it completely lost that impact.
Edited to add this NOTE: All the above pertains to LR2. I am much better, and with better tools, in CS2. I've been exploring LR2 capabilities. I've got a lot to learn.
Since I have already posted a before & after of this image, and detailed the look/feel that I was trying to accomplish, please feel free to make those adjustments you mentioned and post it if you have the time or inclination.
Yes, I agree, these are fun to do. I guess there are infinite ways to process an image & you finally have to just stop at some point as close to your goal as you think you can get. Although, that stopping point might not always be at the right place
When shooting my sports images, they have to look "normal" for sales & that's OK. But for fun, I like more "out-of-the-box" images.
I see "normal" each and every day. Some days, I like a break from that
As always, I appreciate you taking the time to look and weighing in on my images
I'd like to clarify a few things if I may - about me, not about Randy's work.
First, while I have done photojournalism, I do not think of myself as a photojournalist. In fact, early in my life, after several summer jobs as a newspaper shooter, I decided that I did not want to spend my life as a photojournalist, because at that time - mid-to-late-60s, photojournalism was quite limiting and I decided I would ultimately be bored. (I ended up as a writer and editor instead, and had much, much more latitude than I would have had doing traditional photojournalism.) Today, that might be different, as many newspapers and magazines are using the web to allow photographers to spread their wings and do really creative and important work.
I think of myself first of all as a photographer, and second of all as a photographer of "real life." I am very much steeped in the documentary tradition, and most of my photo heroes are either dead or will be sooner than I'd like to think. I include street photography, and a lot of portraiture in that genre, and believe that the basic principles and concepts of documentary photography can be applied to wide range of photographic genres, including family photography, wedding photography, and corporate and editorial photography.
I find the suggesting that converting images to black and white somehow violates my goal of capturing reality sort of silly. Digital cameras and technology give us the advantage of shooting with multiple film stocks at once, and from frame to frame. Your first frame may be shot with Kodachrome 64, and your next with Kodak Recording film - black and white - rated at 6400 iso. Making those sorts of changes in post processing is no more unreal than is shooting with different kinds of film.
As to the remark about post processing: I do in Photoshop what I would do in a film dark room; I burn, I dodge, I adjust contrast - as I would with paper grades and filters. I work very carefully to avoid creating an alternative reality. Yes, when I am shooting for a client, I will sometimes clone out an annoying intrusion into an image, but that's because it's what I'm being paid to do - and I do it rarely. Otherwise, the telephone wire stays where it was.
"People" quite neatly describes what I shoot. Obviously, there are many ways to shoot people, and in the future I will refrain from commenting on examples of those ways that are obviously outside my range of expertise and interest. Meanwhile, I hope to learn from all of you, because everyone here has something to teach, and I have a great deal to learn.
B. D.
"He not busy being born is dying."
Bob Dylan
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed