Your Thoughts?

jandrewnelson

Henna Painting at Bele Chere Festival in Asheville, NC.



Thanks for your input

Jerry Nelson
www.Meesoon.Smugmug.com
aka www.JourneyAmerica.org

Chrissiebeez_NL

nice conversion, might work well in sepia/monotone as well

nit: im not crazy about the watch, it draws attention and takes away from the image IMO. dont know what to do about it though..

Ed911

First off, let me say that I like the photograph...nice capture...

I would play around with the exposure, contrast, and sharpening a little to see if I could give it some pop and bring out some of the detail...it is a little soft in the area of the man's hand. I would also remove of the lint. The little white spots are distracting and don't, in my opinion, add anything to the image.

I like the watch. It's just one more clue to the story being told by the image.

See my take below for what it's worth. Notice the tattoos on the man's arm and how much more vibrant they look. His hand also has much more detail. This is not a final adj...it just shows you how some minor adjustments can effect your image. Hope this helps...thanks for sharing.

bdcolen

Ed911 wrote:

First off, let me say that I like the photograph...nice capture...

I would play around with the exposure, contrast, and sharpening a little to see if I could give it some pop and bring out some of the detail...it is a little soft in the area of the man's hand. I would also remove of the lint. The little white spots are distracting and don't, in my opinion, add anything to the image.

I like the watch. It's just one more clue to the story being told by the image.

See my take below for what it's worth. Notice the tattoos on the man's arm and how much more vibrant they look. His hand also has much more detail. This is not a final adj...it just shows you how some minor adjustments can effect your image. Hope this helps...thanks for sharing.

Very nice image. I have to admit I prefer the original version - it does have exposure problems, and while I know why the point of focus was on the henna painting, which makes the prominent painter's hand soft - and a bit distracting - I think that it is now oversharpened, and the entire image is somewhat jarring and too contrasty.

As to the comments about the watch, and the lint on the string bracelet - I'm assuming this isn't a fashion shot, set up to convey some ideal of beauty for some purpose, but rather is a photo taken of real people doing real things. It is an attempt to document a real moment in the lives of real people, in a real place. The guy wore a watch, and a tattered string bracelet - those details don't detract from the image, the add to the image; they tell me something about the person, or they make me make guesses about him. They add to who he is in the photo.

I am fascinated by the disconnect in the forum between those of us who approach photography from a documentary, candid tradition, and those who approach it from a more formal, studio or studio-like perspective. The former group seeks to capture an instant in time in an aesthetically pleasing, or compelling, or very straightforward way - or all three combined, while the latter group wants to create images that are "perfect" according to a particular standard of beauty, art, or both. What gets me isn't that there are two such groups - why wouldn't, or shouldn't there be? - but rather that members of one group expect members of the other group to produce work that conforms to their standards. Saying that this photo would be "better" without the watch, or without the fuzz on the bracelet, would be like my looking at a studio portrait of an angelic, scrubbed child in her Sunday best, holding a big chocolate ice cream cone, and saying:
"Oh! If only you'd waited for the ice cream to be smeared on her cute little cheeks - then this photo would really be good!" (And it would! )

Frankly, I think we can all learn from each other - I know that I can learn a great deal from the 'formalists' when it comes to lighting, angles, posing, etc. And I would hope the formalists could learn things from the 'documentarians' about expecting the unexpected, seeing interesting aspects in the 'every day,' shooting unobtrusively, and working with the real elements, rather than expecting them to be removed.

jandrewnelson

Ed911 wrote:

First off, let me say that I like the photograph...nice capture...

I would play around with the exposure, contrast, and sharpening a little to see if I could give it some pop and bring out some of the detail...it is a little soft in the area of the man's hand. I would also remove of the lint. The little white spots are distracting and don't, in my opinion, add anything to the image.

I like the watch. It's just one more clue to the story being told by the image.

See my take below for what it's worth. Notice the tattoos on the man's arm and how much more vibrant they look. His hand also has much more detail. This is not a final adj...it just shows you how some minor adjustments can effect your image. Hope this helps...thanks for sharing.

Damn!!! Looks good. How did ya do that??

jandrewnelson

bdcolen wrote:

Very nice image. I have to admit I prefer the original version - it does have exposure problems, and while I know why the point of focus was on the henna painting, which makes the prominent painter's hand soft - and a bit distracting - I think that it is now oversharpened, and the entire image is somewhat jarring and too contrasty.

As to the comments about the watch, and the lint on the string bracelet - I'm assuming this isn't a fashion shot, set up to convey some ideal of beauty for some purpose, but rather is a photo taken of real people doing real things. It is an attempt to document a real moment in the lives of real people, in a real place. The guy wore a watch, and a tattered string bracelet - those details don't detract from the image, the add to the image; they tell me something about the person, or they make me make guesses about him. They add to who he is in the photo.

I am fascinated by the disconnect in the forum between those of us who approach photography from a documentary, candid tradition, and those who approach it from a more formal, studio or studio-like perspective. The former group seeks to capture an instant in time in an aesthetically pleasing, or compelling, or very straightforward way - or all three combined, while the latter group wants to create images that are "perfect" according to a particular standard of beauty, art, or both. What gets me isn't that there are two such groups - why wouldn't, or shouldn't there be? - but rather that members of one group expect members of the other group to produce work that conforms to their standards. Saying that this photo would be "better" without the watch, or without the fuzz on the bracelet, would be like my looking at a studio portrait of an angelic, scrubbed child in her Sunday best, holding a big chocolate ice cream cone, and saying:
"Oh! If only you'd waited for the ice cream to be smeared on her cute little cheeks - then this photo would really be good!" (And it would! )

Frankly, I think we can all learn from each other - I know that I can learn a great deal from the 'formalists' when it comes to lighting, angles, posing, etc. And I would hope the formalists could learn things from the 'documentarians' about expecting the unexpected, seeing interesting aspects in the 'every day,' shooting unobtrusively, and working with the real elements, rather than expecting them to be removed.

I agree with you. While I haven't submitted thousands of photos for review, I have submitted enough to know that folks critique from their own biases, desires and filters of thought. A couple weeks ago I submitted a photo of a truck. It was panned by a couple folks. Too dark...not enough detail...why didn't you take the wrapper off of the dashboard, etc etc etc. (See here)



All good and valid critiques. But I'm not an art photographer. I don't have a studio. I don't have fancy lights and backdrops and all the goodies. Matter of fact...I don't have a home. I'm homeless. But I do appreciate the ccritiques from everyone and I try to learn a little something from everyone that is generous enough to take tthe time to try to help me.

By the way, a guy here in town (Asheville, NC) saw the print of the truck as it was coming off the printer and he told me that if I'd mat it for him, he'd pay me $50.00. THAT's the kind of critique I like

Blessings
Jerry Nelson
www.meesoon.smugmug.com

Ed911

By the way, a guy here in town (Asheville, NC) saw the print of the truck as it was coming off the printer and he told me that if I'd mat it for him, he'd pay me $50.00. THAT's the kind of critique I like

Blessings
Jerry Nelson
www.meesoon.smugmug.com

My process...adjusted the exposure...like +.85...then, pulled back the gamma to .95. Next I selected the tattooist arm and and then feathered by 5 pixels and added contrast and sharpening. (didn't select the watch when adjusting the arm) About 10 minutes in CS3.

I did have the PSD, but the history doesn't document all that I did. So, some of the process is lost. But, nothing that you couldn't replicate with a little trial and error.

Hope this helps.

bdcolen

Three cheers for a dark vision

jandrewnelson wrote:

I agree with you. While I haven't submitted thousands of photos for review, I have submitted enough to know that folks critique from their own biases, desires and filters of thought. A couple weeks ago I submitted a photo of a truck. It was panned by a couple folks. Too dark...not enough detail...why didn't you take the wrapper off of the dashboard, etc etc etc. (See here)

All good and valid critiques. But I'm not an art photographer. I don't have a studio. I don't have fancy lights and backdrops and all the goodies. Matter of fact...I don't have a home. I'm homeless. But I do appreciate the ccritiques from everyone and I try to learn a little something from everyone that is generous enough to take tthe time to try to help me.

By the way, a guy here in town (Asheville, NC) saw the print of the truck as it was coming off the printer and he told me that if I'd mat it for him, he'd pay me $50.00. THAT's the kind of critique I like

Blessings
Jerry Nelson
www.meesoon.smugmug.com

That is definitely a great critique, Jerry! Go with your vision, which clearly is on the dark side. And let's not forget the great Eugene Smith, who 'invented' the modern picture story, and inspired generations of documentary photographers and photo journalists, never saw an image he couldn't burn in more. (Keep in mind that the following images are crappy jpgs pulled off the net - the originals are nothing short of breath taking, though some are burned down so far that 1., they look burned down, and 2., a newspaper or magazine photographer who did some of the things Smith did would be in big trouble if she did them today.

Photography by W. Eugene Smith

Photograph by W. Eugene Smith

[IMG][/img] Photograph by W. Eugene Smith

Photograph by W. Eugene Smith

Photograph by W. Eugene Smith

Photograph by W. Eugene Smith

And finally, Photograph by Jerry - with the windshield screened a bit Keep shooting, and keep your eye on the 'dark side,' but think about the value of the contrasting details in the lighter areas.rofl

rutt

Great shots here. Love the henna painting. Love Jerry's car. And, man, talk about bringing in a ringer! I hope nobody ever posts a bunch of Eugine Smith images on one of my threads! [Though I have done similar to others...]

A very conservative edit of the henna shot would be to use a curve to establish a light point (the henna is already as dark as it gets in places.) I used the lightest spot of skin just above the wrist on the right and then slightly steepened the curve through the quarter tones:



Pops a little more without ruining the intent of the original, no?

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

Great shots here. Love the henna painting. Love Jerry's car. And, man, talk about bringing in a ringer! I hope nobody ever posts a bunch of Eugine Smith images on one of my threads! [Though I have done similar to others...]

A very conservative edit of the henna shot would be to use a curve to establish a light point (the henna is already as dark as it gets in places.) I used the lightest spot of skin just above the wrist on the right and then slightly steepened the curve through the quarter tones:



Pops a little more without ruining the intent of the original, no?

1. I posted the WES photos in defense of Jerry's 'dark vision.'
2. I do think your adjustments improve the original without interfering with that intent.

Chrissiebeez_NL

improves! like it!