Very nice, Neil. Just a suggestion though, since she's a minor, I think it would make the image 'better' if you soften her skin a little bit. Again, just a suggestion.
Sitting quietly, doing nothing. Spring comes and the grass grows by itself.
Very nice, Neil. Just a suggestion though, since she's a minor, I think it would make the image 'better' if you soften her skin a little bit. Again, just a suggestion.
Much appreciate your interest jiro!
I am a little puzzled by your suggestion to soften the skin, why you make a connection between that and age. I think it is obvious that my decision not to soften the skin-remove marks is a conscious one. I made that choice partly as a protest against the cosmetic lie, but also because I personally cannot connect with the person in the photo if they have a plastic glaze stuck to their face, and again personally I am attracted by skin texture and markings. Elivia is a real person, and I want her reality in the photo. That to me is more beautiful than an imposition of an artificial perfection.
I am talking portraits here, not fashion or glamour, or theatricals or pretending, where different aesthetics operate.
But please elaborate on your suggestion, I am genuinely interested to hear your point of view.
Thanks, Neil. I hope I did not offend you by my suggestion.
I understand your line of thought, as I go with it, too. I just notice that normally, by 'nature', young people (below 12 or 13) still exhibits this good skin texture. Not plasticky (that can easily be done using photoshop) but really with that smooth texture that we can usually see. That is the reason why I commented to introduce a tinny, winny, small amount of softness to the skin alone. When I look at the shaded area on her face, I tend to gaze my eyes more on those areas rather than being pinned directly to her eyes. I don't know, must be because of the characteristic of the skin and the type of post-processing done or what, but I noticed that whenever I look at her. I am only relying all of this based on how I tend to view your image, nothing else.
If you would go back to my original comment, I commented that I do like your post-processing. It is certainly unique. As you have said, you want to bring out all the naturalness of her on the image and that is very fine. I respect that. I only gave a small comment of my opinion on the image. That's all. Thanks.
Sitting quietly, doing nothing. Spring comes and the grass grows by itself.
Thanks, Neil. I hope I did not offend you by my suggestion.
I understand your line of thought, as I go with it, too. I just notice that normally, by 'nature', young people (below 12 or 13) still exhibits this good skin texture. Not plasticky (that can easily be done using photoshop) but really with that smooth texture that we can usually see. That is the reason why I commented to introduce a tinny, winny, small amount of softness to the skin alone. When I look at the shaded area on her face, I tend to gaze my eyes more on those areas rather than being pinned directly to her eyes. I don't know, must be because of the characteristic of the skin and the type of post-processing done or what, but I noticed that whenever I look at her. I am only relying all of this based on how I tend to view your image, nothing else.
If you would go back to my original comment, I commented that I do like your post-processing. It is certainly unique. As you have said, you want to bring out all the naturalness of her on the image and that is very fine. I respect that. I only gave a small comment of my opinion on the image. That's all. Thanks.
No problem jiro, I welcome your feedback and I take it seriously!
I am genuinely interested in how you see this portrait. I understand completely what you are saying, and in fact I would say the same about the skin marks demanding attention, taking attention. I think they should, because something is revealed of this person with them there out in the open which would be lost to us if they were covered. For me it indicates a connection she has with the grit of the world, the grittiness that is within her, that she is involved with grittier things than her own cosmetic score.
After you see those marks, and then you look in the eye, the effect of that eye, and so of the whole face, is different than if you had not been forced to see the skin marks! That's why I value them forcing themselves on our attention.:D
Neil, I think it's fair to say there's quite a bit between the plastic look (which I also despite regardless of whether it's portraits or fashion/beauty), and just evening things out a little to create a more balanced shot (rather than alter the reality of the person). I love her freckles, but there's a slight "orange peel" texture on the camera left side of her nose which might benefit from a bit of smoothing. Not a lot! Just a bit. I think it's so noticeable because of the bright highlight on her right cheek which by definition gives the illusion of perfectly smooth skin; the contrast between the two sides therefore draws more attention to the slightly un-smooth skin on her other cheek. Rather than seeming like a "study in texture" (as some unretouched shots are clearly intended), it is slightly unbalanced.
Also, it's clear that this is not a wholly unretouched "natural" street-style candid, but a *portrait*. You've dodged and burned her (beautiful and expressive) eyes, probably cropped in from the original shot, processed it in a sepia tone... therefore, expectations (like it or not) jump on the disjunct between the two sides of her face.
I hasten to add these are SERIOUSLY nits about what is a lovely, lovely shot by anybody's measure. This series is really excellent - is she as much of a personality character as shines through in the photos? Really a nice series
I think this shot is stunning, and while I get Diva's suggestion about the bridge of the nose, I for some strange reason feel the photo wouldn't draw me in as much without all the imperfections catching my eye making me observe even more in depth. I think the imperfections make it perfect :-)
If I were you this would be going in a frame stat :-)
I for some strange reason feel the photo wouldn't draw me in as much without all the imperfections catching my eye making me observe even more in depth.
That's an excellent point
I actually only made the comments I did in response to the first suggestion regarding skin smoothing, and the subsequent discussion - I think it's a very minor point in regard to this shot, and the photo works beautifully without any further alterations (as I'm sure it would with). It's a fabulous picture which has an almost Mona Lisa-like fascination in the way her intensity of expression draws you in.
Excellent capture Neil. I love your duotone treatment.
"Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals-picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
Neil, I think it's fair to say there's quite a bit between the plastic look (which I also despite regardless of whether it's portraits or fashion/beauty), and just evening things out a little to create a more balanced shot (rather than alter the reality of the person). I love her freckles, but there's a slight "orange peel" texture on the camera left side of her nose which might benefit from a bit of smoothing. Not a lot! Just a bit. I think it's so noticeable because of the bright highlight on her right cheek which by definition gives the illusion of perfectly smooth skin; the contrast between the two sides therefore draws more attention to the slightly un-smooth skin on her other cheek. Rather than seeming like a "study in texture" (as some unretouched shots are clearly intended), it is slightly unbalanced.
Also, it's clear that this is not a wholly unretouched "natural" street-style candid, but a *portrait*. You've dodged and burned her (beautiful and expressive) eyes, probably cropped in from the original shot, processed it in a sepia tone... therefore, expectations (like it or not) jump on the disjunct between the two sides of her face.
I hasten to add these are SERIOUSLY nits about what is a lovely, lovely shot by anybody's measure. This series is really excellent - is she as much of a personality character as shines through in the photos? Really a nice series
Dm you can be very persuasive!!:D You certainly made me look again with different eyes at this. That is valuable crit! Thanks
Putting what you say with jiro's comments, it's evolving this way for me, that there are a few things to reconcile, or balance, to use your description. Among them, first, the effect of the particular lighting situation and my subsequent interpretation of the image. This was shot outdoors in open shade on a very bright late afternoon (it's full summer here). This kind of light together with the typically graphic rendering from digital results in even skin pores being clearly defined. After processing, some of the tone gradients in the skin marks took on a slight 3D effect, which was not intended. I can see that now, and it makes sense to correct it. So this has shown me that the kind of light which is producing the image is going to leave its signature in the image, and bright daylight is very different to even the blastingest of strobes!
Second, as you point out, there is appropriate and inappropriate. As I have described, this image came with a few inbuilt challenges, which now I am better forewarned about and able to minimise in similar circumstances in the future. The highlights were pushed, and post processing can often push them even more. Yet I wanted the rawness of that look. So I am also faced with reconciling and balancing something which is good with something which is "too" good!
I think this shot is stunning, and while I get Diva's suggestion about the bridge of the nose, I for some strange reason feel the photo wouldn't draw me in as much without all the imperfections catching my eye making me observe even more in depth. I think the imperfections make it perfect :-)
If I were you this would be going in a frame stat :-)
I'm so pleased you like this shot TenThirteen, thanks for letting me know!
I'm especially grateful to get the benefit of a female-eye-point-of-view on an image of a girl made by a male! Very interesting!
Following the great discussion, here is a version where I have very conservatively adjusted the skin texture on the CL of the nose. There is a definite though not hitting difference, which maybe doesn't alter the feel which people like -
I possibly would have gone even a tiny bit further, although only a little bit. What's interesting is that tiny change made my eye move explore the rest of her face more. It is subtle and possibly nobody but other photographer's would notice (or care!), but it is a difference. Fascinating!
I possibly would have gone even a tiny bit further, although only a little bit. What's interesting is that tiny change made my eye move explore the rest of her face more. It is subtle and possibly nobody but other photographer's would notice (or care!), but it is a difference. Fascinating!
Comments
http://imagesbyjirobau.blogspot.com/
Has that Les Misérables feel.....
Much appreciate your interest jiro!
I am a little puzzled by your suggestion to soften the skin, why you make a connection between that and age. I think it is obvious that my decision not to soften the skin-remove marks is a conscious one. I made that choice partly as a protest against the cosmetic lie, but also because I personally cannot connect with the person in the photo if they have a plastic glaze stuck to their face, and again personally I am attracted by skin texture and markings. Elivia is a real person, and I want her reality in the photo. That to me is more beautiful than an imposition of an artificial perfection.
I am talking portraits here, not fashion or glamour, or theatricals or pretending, where different aesthetics operate.
But please elaborate on your suggestion, I am genuinely interested to hear your point of view.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I understand your line of thought, as I go with it, too. I just notice that normally, by 'nature', young people (below 12 or 13) still exhibits this good skin texture. Not plasticky (that can easily be done using photoshop) but really with that smooth texture that we can usually see. That is the reason why I commented to introduce a tinny, winny, small amount of softness to the skin alone. When I look at the shaded area on her face, I tend to gaze my eyes more on those areas rather than being pinned directly to her eyes. I don't know, must be because of the characteristic of the skin and the type of post-processing done or what, but I noticed that whenever I look at her. I am only relying all of this based on how I tend to view your image, nothing else.
If you would go back to my original comment, I commented that I do like your post-processing. It is certainly unique. As you have said, you want to bring out all the naturalness of her on the image and that is very fine. I respect that. I only gave a small comment of my opinion on the image. That's all. Thanks.
http://imagesbyjirobau.blogspot.com/
No problem jiro, I welcome your feedback and I take it seriously!
I am genuinely interested in how you see this portrait. I understand completely what you are saying, and in fact I would say the same about the skin marks demanding attention, taking attention. I think they should, because something is revealed of this person with them there out in the open which would be lost to us if they were covered. For me it indicates a connection she has with the grit of the world, the grittiness that is within her, that she is involved with grittier things than her own cosmetic score.
After you see those marks, and then you look in the eye, the effect of that eye, and so of the whole face, is different than if you had not been forced to see the skin marks! That's why I value them forcing themselves on our attention.:D
But I will not force my preferences on you!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://imagesbyjirobau.blogspot.com/
Also, it's clear that this is not a wholly unretouched "natural" street-style candid, but a *portrait*. You've dodged and burned her (beautiful and expressive) eyes, probably cropped in from the original shot, processed it in a sepia tone... therefore, expectations (like it or not) jump on the disjunct between the two sides of her face.
I hasten to add these are SERIOUSLY nits about what is a lovely, lovely shot by anybody's measure. This series is really excellent - is she as much of a personality character as shines through in the photos? Really a nice series
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
If I were you this would be going in a frame stat :-)
That's an excellent point
I actually only made the comments I did in response to the first suggestion regarding skin smoothing, and the subsequent discussion - I think it's a very minor point in regard to this shot, and the photo works beautifully without any further alterations (as I'm sure it would with). It's a fabulous picture which has an almost Mona Lisa-like fascination in the way her intensity of expression draws you in.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand
Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals- picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
Dm you can be very persuasive!!:D You certainly made me look again with different eyes at this. That is valuable crit! Thanks
Putting what you say with jiro's comments, it's evolving this way for me, that there are a few things to reconcile, or balance, to use your description. Among them, first, the effect of the particular lighting situation and my subsequent interpretation of the image. This was shot outdoors in open shade on a very bright late afternoon (it's full summer here). This kind of light together with the typically graphic rendering from digital results in even skin pores being clearly defined. After processing, some of the tone gradients in the skin marks took on a slight 3D effect, which was not intended. I can see that now, and it makes sense to correct it. So this has shown me that the kind of light which is producing the image is going to leave its signature in the image, and bright daylight is very different to even the blastingest of strobes!
Second, as you point out, there is appropriate and inappropriate. As I have described, this image came with a few inbuilt challenges, which now I am better forewarned about and able to minimise in similar circumstances in the future. The highlights were pushed, and post processing can often push them even more. Yet I wanted the rawness of that look. So I am also faced with reconciling and balancing something which is good with something which is "too" good!
Thanks again, dm, for your painstaking comments!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Rey, thanks for your comment! Yes, I can see that look in it now you mention it!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thanks for your kind words jpc!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I'm so pleased you like this shot TenThirteen, thanks for letting me know!
I'm especially grateful to get the benefit of a female-eye-point-of-view on an image of a girl made by a male! Very interesting!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Qarik, thanks for your kind comment!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thanks for your kind words briandelion! Yes, for me the treatment was a happy outcome which "discovered " the image for me!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
www.cameraone.biz
Very pleased you like it Darren. Thanks for your comment!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thanks for the encouragement Charles. Your feedback is much appreciated!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I like the first one.
www.photographyjones.com
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix