Two More Runner-ups for Contest Submissions. CnC Please.

[Max Demian]

CnC greatly appreciated. What would you change?

1.-
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3386461666_2326e96c76_o.jpg

2.-
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3419/3386461766_4f7f7b86fe_o.jpg


Oh... and just in case you were wondering what contest I'm talking about and/or want to see other submission candidates by me:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=641487

[mai_lin]

#1. I'm very drawn to this picture but the dappled light on his face and hand are really annoying... and you can't see much of his face (do the rim of his hat creating a shadow)

#2. Very colorful - I'd like it even more if we could see more of it - like what is the big green thing?



Jen D.

[Robert_Lay]

I like #2.

#1 has blown out highlights throughout almost all of the whites.

Biasing the brightness downwards to keep it below max. white may give the illusion of correct tonality in the highlights, but it is a fraud. The detail is gone and it's noticeable.

Conversely, the blacks are rich and have good detail into the darkest regions.

[Max Demian]

#1. I'm very drawn to this picture but the dappled light on his face and hand are really annoying... and you can't see much of his face (do the rim of his hat creating a shadow)

#2. Very colorful - I'd like it even more if we could see more of it - like what is the big green thing?



Jen D.

Thanks a lot for commenting Jen. #1- I can see what you mean about the dappled light on his skin, I might try burning those highlights a little to soften it up. #2- Sadly this is not a crop. This image is 100% as-shot composition so no luck with widening the view a little. I know it was more of a rethorical question, but for the sake of curiosity, that big green thing is the metallic top of a rudimentary wooden boat called "Trajinera" in the Mexican Venice called Xochimilco. I know this is a lot of info to absorb so when I get home from work I might be able to upload a lanscape photo of the place for you to see what I'm talking about.

Thx again. ;)

[Max Demian]

I like #2.

#1 has blown out highlights throughout almost all of the whites.

Biasing the brightness downwards to keep it below max. white may give the illusion of correct tonality in the highlights, but it is a fraud. The detail is gone and it's noticeable.

Conversely, the blacks are rich and have good detail into the darkest regions.

Hey Bob, thx for feedback.

#1 I agree with your observations, I tried to pull out a Lo-key process portrait on a sunny day in broad sunlight so I ended up screwing up the already scarce details on his white shirt. I'll try to perform a selective curves and levels adjustment and see if it works better.

All: What do you guys think of the tonality of this #1 portrait? I wanted it to look like a silver plaque process. Should I just leave it plain b&w?

[Max Demian]

Hay guise...

The good, the bad.... especially the bad, let it come! Would seriously appreciate more honest critique. I'm here to learn.

[Robert_Lay]

I think your biggest problem in applying any process to the #1 image will be the background - interferes too much with the hat.

[Max Demian]

I think your biggest problem in applying any process to the #1 image will be the background - interferes too much with the hat.

I agree, it was unfortunate that I had a big white surface right behind his head at the exact same height of his hat's wing. I also would've liked to take this photo with a faster lens, namely the EF 50mm f/1.8 prime in order to separate the subject from the background even more, but it's still on my wish list and will remain there for at least 2 more weeks. This was taken with the kit 18-55 EFS lens.

What do you think of the tonality? A keeper?

[Robert_Lay]

It's a keeper, but I cannot attribute that to the range of tonality.

Generally, when describing an image as having a "good range of tonality", we mean that there is a reasonably well distributed local contrast throughout the entire scope of brightness - in other words, a reasonably even distribution in the histogram. Unfortunately, this image has most of the pixels clumped into two piles - a broad range that covers the range of values 0 - 100 (the shadows), and a narrower range centered around value 200.

[HappySnapper90]

I would say #1 has far too much contrast. His face is too dark and his hat is too bright. #2 could use a little less contrast as well and less saturation. It also has an odd viewing angle that makes it awkward for me to look at.

[Max Demian]

I would say #1 has far too much contrast. His face is too dark and his hat is too bright. #2 could use a little less contrast as well and less saturation. It also has an odd viewing angle that makes it awkward for me to look at.

Thanks for the reply Happysnapper. In #2 it was my creative decision to take this photo in a Zenital angle. I have previously received feedback involving trying different and unfamiliar angles to achieve interesting photographs so this is one attempt at it. I do have several other captures from the same subject in a more conventional POV but I decided to go with this one.

Re. your comments about contrast and saturation, I agree in #1 but #2's saturation and contrast to me seem spot-on. I've tried calibrating and re-calibrating my Macbook's LCD time and time again, but I don't seem to achieve the adequate color management profile.

I'll try and post different versions of both later on today to see if I gan get it right this time around.

:D

[Max Demian]

Hey all,

I reworked #1 and found out I had all these beautiful pixels full of information on the parts that were previously clipping either on the highlights or the shadows.

To be honest I think it works a lot better. I also dropped the toning and left it plain b&w. Let me know what you think.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3473/3400767476_8f99ee4a5f_b.jpg

[Robert_Lay]

Next time, don't play with us by hiding all the detail - Hi!

That's a great shot!

And you ought to see the difference between the first and last histograms.

The next trick to learn will be the selection of all the face and hands and then raise the contrast of just those areas. In other words, mix some higher contrast in the skin tones with what you have now in the highlights.