C&C wanted.

lizzard_nyc

OK---I love it.

Let me have it.

TonyCooper

That's husband again, right? Chatting up the brunette?

I like the expressions you've captured on the two people. But I have to admit that I'm not big on surroundings that don't add to the image. I know I'm in the minority in the forum on this because I see a lot of that here.

I tend to go for images that include enough surround to show what is going on but don't have major distractions. That's just my preference.

I also like that graininess your pictures have. I even tried to emulate it by adding noise and the high pass filter, but I can't get it as good as you do.

lizzard_nyc

Hi Tony,
That is definately not my husband--trouble-maker .

Thanks about the shot and the treatment.

I can see why the clutter bothers you. I will repost a cropped version a little later.

lizzard_nyc

Do you ever convince yourself that one of your shots is brilliant--only to wake up the next day and think "what the hell was I thinking?"

I wasn't going to post these next set of shots, especially since the original in this post didn't get much response. But here goes--I talked myself into their brilliance last night and woke up today wondering hmmmmmmmm?

I want C&C--do they work for you or not--give it to me straight. Yes I'm trying different processing.

Shots taken at a Hibernian Hall to celebrate St. Patrick's Day--low light conditions w my 25mm f2.8.

2



3.



4.



5.





6 .



7. A recrop for Tony

Justiceiro

#6 I like. For the grainy atmospheric shots I generally prefer black and white.

Although these do seem "filmy", and that's cool.

rutt

6 and 7.

As to processing, here is my advice, which might not be exactly what you wanted to hear.

Learn to process for realism. This is harder than, say, learning to make high contrast B&W's and it might not even be where you want to go eventually. It's also a long haul. I have more than 5 years invested. There are people around dgrin with more like 15 years invested. Every year shows. The prepress pros with 10+ years almost always can improve on what I can do. I can almost always improve on what people who haven't worked on it can do.

Get Photoshop and read Dan Margulis. This isn't for everybody, but it's the one true way to deep understanding of post processing. Short of this, you'll always leave something on the table.

If this isn't fun for you, then fine. B.D. for example begrudges every extra second spent in post and still gets great results.

But tot get back to my original point, learn to process for realism first and then go for the effects. It's like learning to draw before starting to paint abstract oil paintings.

bdcolen

lizzard_nyc wrote:

Hi Tony,
That is definately not my husband--trouble-maker .

Thanks about the shot and the treatment.

I can see why the clutter bothers you. I will repost a cropped version a little later.

Do not crop - the "clutter" is part of the story. And an excellent story it is LIZ2.jpg

And you've got some very good images in that batch - like the one above.

As to Rutt's comment...

True, process for realism - though we don't all agree on what realism is.

lizzard_nyc

Justiceiro wrote:

#6 I like. For the grainy atmospheric shots I generally prefer black and white.

Although these do seem "filmy", and that's cool.

Thank you Justiceiro.
I think I may have done the "filmy" thing because the shots reminded me of old movies. Glad you like them. I'm a sucker for B&W grainy for the atmospheric shots too, but I was just experimenting.

lizzard_nyc

rutt wrote:

6 and 7.

As to processing, here is my advice, which might not be exactly what you wanted to hear.

Learn to process for realism. This is harder than, say, learning to make high contrast B&W's and it might not even be where you want to go eventually. It's also a long haul. I have more than 5 years invested. There are people around dgrin with more like 15 years invested. Every year shows. The prepress pros with 10+ years almost always can improve on what I can do. I can almost always improve on what people who haven't worked on it can do.

Get Photoshop and read Dan Margulis. This isn't for everybody, but it's the one true way to deep understanding of post processing. Short of this, you'll always leave something on the table.

If this isn't fun for you, then fine. B.D. for example begrudges every extra second spent in post and still gets great results.

But tot get back to my original point, learn to process for realism first and then go for the effects. It's like learning to draw before starting to paint abstract oil paintings.

Hi Rutt,
Thank you for the detailed reply.
I am not sure what you mean about "processing for realism".
Are you saying that maybe some of the processing is "gimmicky"--because it's a thought I had myself. Having said that, I still like them, so what to do?

In the meantime, as my processing skills develop and I decide which way to go LR/ photoshop etc. This is what I have, and have little choice about it, so you will continue to see some shots which will make you cringe, this doesn't mean I don't value your opinion, so keep posting back.

Keep in mind I only have 8 months of taking shots and about 5 months processing--so I still have a very long way to go, I am learning more everyday, even if my shots are just processed with "Picnik".

Thanks Rutt.

lizzard_nyc

bdcolen wrote:

Do not crop - the "clutter" is part of the story. And an excellent story it is LIZ2.jpg

And you've got some very good images in that batch - like the one above.

As to Rutt's comment...

True, process for realism - though we don't all agree on what realism is.

Hello B.D.
Funny that this is a shot you like. This is one of the ones I had real doubts about--the softness etc. but still very much liked it, so I'm glad it works for you (I liked how ugly the shot is with both subjects exhaling smoke and the ugly bare bulb yellow light). I like your conversion better than mine. I also have a b&w one at home, but it was done in the high contrast style and it just didn't work for me.

I'm glad I posted the rest of the shots.

rutt

bdcolen wrote:

True, process for realism - though we don't all agree on what realism is.

I guess I'm saying that you should learn to make them look classically correct. Learn to hold shadow and highlight detail, sharpen, apportion contrast to the most important elements, for color, learn to get neutrals neutral AND flesh, water, sky, all believable by the numbers.

Once you can do that, you can do anything. Just like Picasso could make classical realistic drawings and paintings. They could make whatever they wanted, but chose to make what they did.

You don't have to do all this, but it's good to know where the road is.

lizzard_nyc

rutt wrote:

I guess I'm saying that you should learn to make them look classically correct. Learn to hold shadow and highlight detail, sharpen, apportion contrast to the most important elements, for color, learn to get neutrals neutral AND flesh, water, sky, all believable by the numbers.

Once you can do that, you can do anything. Just like Picasso could make classical realistic drawings and paintings. They could make whatever they wanted, but chose to make what they did.

You don't have to do all this, but it's good to know where the road is.

Thank you Rutt. I will take your suggestions to heart.

TonyCooper

I like your black and whites much better than the color renditions. That's not to say that I prefer black and white
to color, but that your black and whites have a look that I like.

Regarding BD's comment about not cropping out the clutter, and my suggestion to crop out what doesn't add...
it's all about personal preference. I don't think there's a right and wrong to it. Given conflicting advice, my
inclination is to try it both ways and then go with what I like.

I do wish BD had differentiated "clutter" from "what doesn't add". To me, there's a difference. In the color shot
of the two people third from the bottom, the reading material on the right "doesn't add", but it's not clutter.
I'd crop the right side, to get that green thing out, but that presents a problem since you'd be cropping right
down the middle of her cleavage.

I mention this because - in my opinion, - the presence of the green thing conflicts. The two people are looking
to the left, and at what the man is reading, but the viewer's eye is also drawn to the right to figure out what that is.
Let the viewer's eye go straight to what is important and not be drawn away.

I do like BD's crop of the other image. He's taken out what I agree doesn't add.

lizzard_nyc

TonyCooper wrote:

I like your black and whites much better than the color renditions. That's not to say that I prefer black and white
to color, but that your black and whites have a look that I like.

Regarding BD's comment about not cropping out the clutter, and my suggestion to crop out what doesn't add...
it's all about personal preference. I don't think there's a right and wrong to it. Given conflicting advice, my
inclination is to try it both ways and then go with what I like.

I do wish BD had differentiated "clutter" from "what doesn't add". To me, there's a difference. In the color shot
of the two people third from the bottom, the reading material on the right "doesn't add", but it's not clutter.
I'd crop the right side, to get that green thing out, but that presents a problem since you'd be cropping right
down the middle of her cleavage.

I mention this because - in my opinion, - the presence of the green thing conflicts. The two people are looking
to the left, and at what the man is reading, but the viewer's eye is also drawn to the right to figure out what that is.
Let the viewer's eye go straight to what is important and not be drawn away.

I do like BD's crop of the other image. He's taken out what I agree doesn't add.

Thanks Tony,
About liking my b&w:)

About the cropping--I notice I tend to leave clutter or extra empty space in
my shots--maybe they do take away from the subject of the shot, but sometimes I think they "feel" better. Do you get what I'm trying to say?
Sometimes I find myself cropping and I feel it throws the image off--make sense? Not always, but sometimes.

Oh and I don't think B.D. cropped that shot--I think when he converted to b&w, it darkened the shadows considerably and you don't see the "clutter".
Take a look see--maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks for the detailed reply Tony. I get what you are saying about "clutter" vs. "what doesn't add". In the original shot, I think the clutter adds to the shot--the empty beer bottles, the liquor in the cheap plastic cups etc. you get the feel that maybe it's a banquet hall, no? You can disagree of course:)

Patti

Another good series Liz. You've got the eye and great family & friends to capture. I've enjoyed everyone's comments about them too.