My 1st Mentor in Photography ,,,,

D_C_NC

Not one thing done to this shot . Natuaral light , fill card held by Joe , My 1st Mentor who unfortunately is no longer on this planet with us. No cropping , No Photoshop except for reduction of the file.... I guess I have been a little heavy with my new found experiences with Photoshop , I have been told.... I am having fun ....

saurora

D_C_NC wrote:

Not one thing done to this shot . Natuaral light , fill card held by Joe , My 1st Mentor who unfortunately is no longer on this planet with us. No cropping , No Photoshop except for reduction of the file.... I guess I have been a little heavy with my new found experiences with Photoshop , I have been told.... I am having fun ....

He has a very compelling look in his eyes....I feel as though I should know him. Even though the shot is soft and his eyes are blurry, it makes me wonder about him. I gather Joe (who held the flash card) is also the subject as well? After reading your post about having been told you are a little "heavy" with your Photoshop, I read your prior posts. Sometimes people are a little blunt and either haven't bothered to read the tutorial on "How To Critique A Photo" or just forget the part about saying "something encouraging". Ah well, I'm glad you haven't totally thrown in the towel! So you're learning Photoshop after a 20-something year hiatus from photography! Bravo! I'm glad you're having fun and I will tell you that everyone on this forum has dabbled with those "artistic" actions at one time or another. You can expect a lot of criticism if you use them. However, there are many really great photographers who do use them, so it's entirely up to you!

So you posted this photo entirely without post-processing. You didn't ask for comments or help, but I will tell you what I would do if it were mine. I would do a slight boosting of contrast, or "pop" as it is referred to here. There is a good tutorial here for that. I also would use a little USM (unsharp mask) to sharpen. Is this a scan? I read that you are scanning some of your older work, so the lack of sharpness may just be due to that. Or perhaps it's from reducing the original. I imagine your original is sharp. I can tell by this image you posted earlier that you know what you are doing, even if it has been 20+ years! Keep the faith while learning CS3....it gets easier (but never easy!!! )

pyrtek

I also am not sure whether your post was an invitation to retouch this captivating
photograph, so if it wasn't I apologise and will remove the image if you wish.
In the meantime, here's my crack at it:

D_C_NC

pyrtek wrote:

I also am not sure whether your post was an invitation to retouch this captivating
photograph, so if it wasn't I apologise and will remove the image if you wish.
In the meantime, here's my crack at it:

That is great , I was just over reacting by not doing anything to my photo. This is a scan as are most of my stuff at the moment as I have only a DSC717 . Thanks for the help and comments. I will continue to accept all the help I can obtain , I promise.

D_C_NC

saurora wrote:

He has a very compelling look in his eyes....I feel as though I should know him. Even though the shot is soft and his eyes are blurry, it makes me wonder about him. I gather Joe (who held the flash card) is also the subject as well? After reading your post about having been told you are a little "heavy" with your Photoshop, I read your prior posts. Sometimes people are a little blunt and either haven't bothered to read the tutorial on "How To Critique A Photo" or just forget the part about saying "something encouraging". Ah well, I'm glad you haven't totally thrown in the towel! So you're learning Photoshop after a 20-something year hiatus from photography! Bravo! I'm glad you're having fun and I will tell you that everyone on this forum has dabbled with those "artistic" actions at one time or another. You can expect a lot of criticism if you use them. However, there are many really great photographers who do use them, so it's entirely up to you!

So you posted this photo entirely without post-processing. You didn't ask for comments or help, but I will tell you what I would do if it were mine. I would do a slight boosting of contrast, or "pop" as it is referred to here. There is a good tutorial here for that. I also would use a little USM (unsharp mask) to sharpen. Is this a scan? I read that you are scanning some of your older work, so the lack of sharpness may just be due to that. Or perhaps it's from reducing the original. I imagine your original is sharp. I can tell by this image you posted earlier that you know what you are doing, even if it has been 20+ years! Keep the faith while learning CS3....it gets easier (but never easy!!! )

Thank you for the comments. It is kind of like a kid in a candy store theory with me and photoshop. I did a bunch of darkroom work from B&W , Color negative to Cibachromes ( In Trays with a respirator on my face) Joe did not let me touch a camera in the studio until I had mastered B&W processing to his liking. Now in Photoshop , and I have Corel's Painter also, I am able to do so many things with out the smell of fixer . So I guess I liked the ability to make something different out of a straight shot . Yes I am scanning for the time as I am not in any hurry to get a camera yet . I want to learn the tools first then decide the appropriate method of capturing an image. I will keep practicing and will not give up .... Thanks again.... *** I will do the method in which you suggested on my friends portrait .

urbanaries

I've really enjoyed reading your posts about your history with film photography and your newfound interest in digital. I think the shot is great, it is a little out of focus but other than that, it looks like a film shot should. I do think it benefited from the pop tutorial, but the skin smoothing seems unnecessary on this rugged guy, IMO!

Keep sharing your work, and stories of your mentor, who sounds like he was an awesome guy to know.

pyrtek

urbanaries wrote:

I do think it benefited from the pop tutorial, but the skin smoothing seems unnecessary on this rugged guy, IMO!

It was necessary to get rid of the noise. Notice that none of his inherent lines
have been touched, though. Not much, at least.

urbanaries

pyrtek wrote:

It was necessary to get rid of the noise. Notice that none of his inherent lines
have been touched, though. Not much, at least.

Maybe, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one, but I much prefer the manly stubble, which is all but gone now.

Grain, or 'noise' you're referring to, isn't always a bad thing. Especially in film.

Mr. 2H2O

Enjoy your F717 - remember - at one time it was considered the greatest combination that a person could afford. I still shoot mine about half the time especially in low light - its a great preformer with a LOT of flexibility built in and very transportable.

- Mike

D_C_NC

Mr. 2H2O wrote:

Enjoy your F717 - remember - at one time it was considered the greatest combination that a person could afford. I still shoot mine about half the time especially in low light - its a great preformer with a LOT of flexibility built in and very transportable.

- Mike

I bought it used of of Ebay a little while ago and it does take a good image. I wanted to learn about Histograms and it had that up until a week ago and then Histogram went Kaput on me. I learned a little about the theory while it was operational.

D_C_NC

urbanaries wrote:

Maybe, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one, but I much prefer the manly stubble, which is all but gone now.

Grain, or 'noise' you're referring to, isn't always a bad thing. Especially in film.

I'm going to mess with the shot now and I will post what I can come up with as I see both point of views . Joe was a tough guy , never afraid to get his hands dirty but , had a real keen eye for composition. Joe had great stories as he grew up in NYC in the late 50's and early 60's when the place was a lot more mellow than when I was there. Of course now it is a much different place again. A city that keep reinventing itself.... Thanks for all the comments and help...

Mr. 2H2O

D_C_NC wrote:

I bought it used of of Ebay a little while ago and it does take a good image. I wanted to learn about Histograms and it had that up until a week ago and then Histogram went Kaput on me. I learned a little about the theory while it was operational.

What aspect ratio are you shooting with? The F717 has the histrogram when you shoot 4:3 but does not when you shoot 3:2. 3:2 is more like 35mm ratio and 4:3 is more like regular monitor ratio.

- Mike

D_C_NC

Mr. 2H2O wrote:

What aspect ratio are you shooting with? The F717 has the histrogram when you shoot 4:3 but does not when you shoot 3:2. 3:2 is more like 35mm ratio and 4:3 is more like regular monitor ratio.

- Mike

You are so smart, I have been shooting in the 3:2 ratio in TIFF . Thank you so much as I did not get a booklet on the camera as I bought it used. Thanks a bunch for the knowledge.