The Revenge of the Bat

[tsaraleksi]

A few shots from the English translation of Die Fledermaus

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/6735/mg7686editjp0.jpg

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/525/0c7adedbe1b90afcd429c8arh0.jpg

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7584/mg7613edittt4.jpg

I don't get to shoot to much of this stuff, I'd love any comments. Thanks :)

[DwightMcCann]

Not bad. It would be nice if you paid attention to cutting parts of people off: #1 you cut off part of woman's sleeve and half the guy. #2 You cut off the woman's left side. #3 You cut off elbow and feather which you may have gotten at least one of shooting in portrait orientation. Well, you wanted comments so there ya' go!

[Curtis N]

Yeah the crops may be a little awkward, but I'm cutting plenty of slack on that. Sometimes in theatre there are parts of people in the background that you need to crop out. You take what you can get.

You got some nice expressions, which is what will make or break a theatre shot. Great catch on the action in #1, too. I'm thinking that if I knew the show, I would probably know exactly what scene that was from.

[CanonXTuser]

a little too much blown highlights, especially in no. 3.

it looks like you've got plenty of light so you should underexpose some.

[tsaraleksi]

a little too much blown highlights, especially in no. 3.

it looks like you've got plenty of light so you should underexpose some.

Better her chest be slightly blown and her face properly exposed, than her chest properly exposed and her face dark.

[René Damkot]

Nope. There's masking and adjustment layers for that...

[tsaraleksi]

Nope. There's masking and adjustment layers for that...

Not in journalism there isn't. We can crop, cut out, do slight levels adjustment, but things like layer mask are totally out by most standards anyway. Besides, when it prints it's not going to be a problem anyway-- it's only slightly overexposed, and only in the red channel.

[René Damkot]

Not in journalism there isn't. We can crop, cut out, do slight levels adjustment, but things like layer mask are totally out by most standards anyway.

Didn't you do dodging and burning in the darkroom? I'd say that's the same...
I wouldn't consider that 'altering' of an image.
Then again, I'm no PJ ;)

[tsaraleksi]

Didn't you do dodging and burning in the darkroom? I'd say that's the same...
I wouldn't consider that 'altering' of an image.
Then again, I'm no PJ ;)

Yeah, it's kind of a gray area, I'm trying to feel it out myself-- particularly what are universal rules vs. rules for individual organizations, etc etc etc.

[kmb]

Dunno if it's culture depnedent or something like that, but I've shot concert photos for a large Finnish newspaper (for its "feature" pages - not news), and I have got permission to for example use clone tool to remove distractions from the background...

[macro_mike]

nice captures. the guys have nailed what i was gonna say.

on the editing side of things - why arent you allowed to make minor alterations in PJ? is it to do with authenticity, because I have seen newspapers flip images of people to make them flow in the article better, as a result it ruins the authenticity more than using a mask.

my thoughts are: if it makes it better its fair game, obviously there is a line where its blatently stupid and wrong to do - common sense keeps us on the correct side usually!

Mike

[CanonXTuser]

Better her chest be slightly blown and her face properly exposed, than her chest properly exposed and her face dark.

so why didn't you properly expose her face then :P

you really think her face is properly exposed and dark in #3 especially?

her face sure looks blown out also. not as severe as her chest and blouse but look at the large blown spots under here eyes, along the nose, forehead, and chin. now there is usually one or two spots that aren't slightly blown. but you have quite a number of them. and the rest of her skin is porcelain pink - very light.

i guess we have an honest disagreement on what an accurate exposure is, if you consider your examples here as accurate, especially #3.

#1 and #2 are actually pretty good. I still would have underexposed about a 1/4 or 1/3 of a stop but even as is the exposure is very balanced across the pic. #2 looks like it is high in vibrance to good effect.

p.s. maybe you're talking about the hair. the hair in no. 3 does look very nice, with some nice golden and wheat tones.

p.s. i don't believe correcting, balancing exposure is a gray area. it's the first time i've heard anybody claim that [your resistance to Rene's suggestion]. could you kindly advise the basis for your understanding that you wouldn't be allowed to use a masking technique to balance exposures? like i said, this is something new to me and probably others, so it would be great to hear where you learned this from.