Women in motion - Lightroom

Ted Szukalski

Many of my recent photographs were processed using the Adobe Lightroom software. Although I found it initially awkward to use I am a true convert now. This is a brilliant application. When combined with many presets that are available on the Internet it is also a true time saver. Single click post processing at its best.


This photograph of two business women was done using “Lith” preset. Its treatment of details in dark clothing is very good and no details are lost during the process. I would say I favour it now over traditional sepia conversions.



Ah, the photo. It's all about "contrast". It increases the longer you look at the image :wink

dogwood

Ted:

Nice capture. If you really want the motion, though, try a slower shutter speed and pan as you shoot. I'm sure you know that though! If you're worried about exposure, put the camera on shutter priority at about 1/40 or 1/30 second.

You could also add a little motion blur in PS, but it's easier/faster to nail it in camera.

But this is a nice street shot-- it's clear what your subject is and the background is fairly clean and you've captured their legs/feet in a natural step (not as easy as it sounds-- often feet end up in weird places in walking shots).

Glad to hear you're finding one-click post production options too. Anything to speed up post-work is useful!

Owen

Kind of a dull shot, no?
Without your caption/explanation of why you're posting it, I would never take a second look.

Ted Szukalski

Owen, not all photographs show everything "in your face".

Owen wrote:

Kind of a dull shot, no?
Without your caption/explanation of why you're posting it, I would never take a second look.

W00DY

Ted Szukalski wrote:

Owen, not all photographs show everything "in your face".

I am not sure what you mean here? I have been looking and looking at your image for more but still see two women walking? The only think I can think of is the no stopping sign in the background but the only reason I see that is becouse I am from Sydney so I now what the sign says.

Can you explain the "in your face" comment, is there something hidden in your image?

Bob N

Sorry, but I don't see any "pop" in the photo. What I mean is that the women are not separated from each other or the background in some instances. They look combined. The woman closes to the camera appears to have hands popping out of nowhere. Her right hand appears to be on the skirt of the other lady. The black in the outfit blends into the parts of the background suggesting the need for some backlighting?

In color this might be a really good photo that you might expect to see in a magazine. In black and white "lith" it looses something.

Ted Szukalski

Bob,

1. you need to calibrate your monitor. The outfits are similar but they do not blend.
2. Back lighting in street photography?
3. Colour versus Black and white is just a personal taste. Some photos I like in colour some in in b&w.

Bob N wrote:

Sorry, but I don't see any "pop" in the photo. What I mean is that the women are not separated from each other or the background in some instances. They look combined. The woman closes to the camera appears to have hands popping out of nowhere. Her right hand appears to be on the skirt of the other lady. The black in the outfit blends into the parts of the background suggesting the need for some backlighting?

In color this might be a really good photo that you might expect to see in a magazine. In black and white "lith" it looses something.

Ted Szukalski

W00DY, perhaps you are looking to hard for something that isn't there. To me this is an image of contrasts: old(er) vs. young, in shape vs. you know - not so in shape, blond vs. brunette, absorbed vs. distracted. They even walk with opposite legs forward. And yet when you look at them first time they both appear as similar women they almost mirror each other.

W00DY wrote:

I am not sure what you mean here? I have been looking and looking at your image for more but still see two women walking? The only think I can think of is the no stopping sign in the background but the only reason I see that is becouse I am from Sydney so I now what the sign says.

Can you explain the "in your face" comment, is there something hidden in your image?

jthomas

Ted Szukalski wrote:

Many of my recent photographs were processed using the Adobe Lightroom software. Although I found it initially awkward to use I am not a true convert now.

You are not a true convert? So what do you not like about Lightroom?

Ted Szukalski

Serves me right for posting after midnight. I've corrected the original post - the "not" was not meant to be there.

I do however have one dislike - sharpening - it seems crude and primitive when compared to Photoshop options for the same activity.

jthomas wrote:

You are not a true convert? So what do you not like about Lightroom?

Mike02

Owen wrote:

Kind of a dull shot, no?
Without your caption/explanation of why you're posting it, I would never take a second look.

I agree... besides the pp, there's nothing that catches my eye .

Ted Szukalski

Mike, then expect few more dull shots from me as I have a plan to capture a number of city worker scenes simply to show a contemporary men and women in Sydney.

Mike02 wrote:

I agree... besides the pp, there's nothing that catches my eye .