Quick snap of wife - Mono? Crop?

[Radtech1]

It is hard to take a shot of my wife, because after about a half a second of looking at the camera her smile looks plastic and forced. I caught this while she still had a natural and inviting smile.

Rad

Original:

[Radtech1]

Then I liked the Mono, then I liked the Mono Cropped best.

[lancebroad]

Try not cutting her feet off the bottom, so removing some of the top frame and then using her feet to fill the bottom next time you shoot. :)

[Robert_Lay]

The lighting is not doing you any favors. As best I can tell, the light seems to be direct sunlight, not very high in the sky and coming from behind the camera. Such lighting produces too much contrast. In this case some portions of her face are quite overexposed (the chin and both cheekbones), adn ditto for her hands.

In these circumstances, it is very difficult to add to or modify the lighting to your advantage, but next time I would look harder for some open shade.

[gonzogolf]

of your posted options, I like the crop best.

[stsva]

of your posted options, I like the crop best.

+1 for the crop.

[dannygt]

I'd do a 1X1 crop with her being in the middle!

[Radtech1]

The lighting is not doing you any favors. As best I can tell, the light seems to be direct sunlight...Such lighting produces too much contrast.
Bob,

Sunlight?

At Neuschwangau!?! In SEPTEMBER!?! I think not. That was the same day I got THIS! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=756165)

But you are right about the contrast. I had used an overlay of a NIK filter called "Structure", which increases micro-local contrast. Think of using USM for contrast. I can see now I over did it, if it gave the appearance of sunlight.

Here is the shot much closer to OOC, with a flatter contrast profile. Does that look any better?

Rad

[Radtech1]

And the Monos

[Radtech1]

I'd do a 1X1 crop with her being in the middle!


THAT is a good idea. Will take a look. If so, I already have a square frame....

[Robert_Lay]

Bob,

Sunlight?

At Neuschwangau!?! In SEPTEMBER!?! I think not. That was the same day I got THIS! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=756165)

But you are right about the contrast. I had used an overlay of a NIK filter called "Structure", which increases micro-local contrast. Think of using USM for contrast. I can see now I over did it, if it gave the appearance of sunlight.

Here is the shot much closer to OOC, with a flatter contrast profile. Does that look any better?

Rad

Yes, I think it is a little better in this rendition - I can see a little more detail in the highlights here.

I so envy you being anywhere near Neuschwanstein castle. I have been there about 3 times over the past 39 years and never tire of it (my first visit was in 1970). If I could spend a whole day there it would be at that pedestrian bridge from which you get a good view of the castle from about the same elevation. I think that is where you had to be standing for your shot of the castle.

[Radtech1]

Yes, I think it is a little better in this rendition - I can see a little more detail in the highlights here.

I so envy you being anywhere near Neuschwanstein castle. I have been there about 3 times over the past 39 years and never tire of it (my first visit was in 1970). If I could spend a whole day there it would be at that pedestrian bridge from which you get a good view of the castle from about the same elevation. I think that is where you had to be standing for your shot of the castle.

Thanks for the comments, Bob. Any opinion on the lack of feet? That happened as a result of keeping the eyes on a 1/3 line, and I really wasn't paying attention to my inferior border.

The Castle shot, actually, was taken from one of the roads that cut though the farmland north of the Castle. In the shot, notice the cloud in the upper left of the frame - that cloud is in the came chasm that the footbridge crosses. When you see the iconic "From the Footbridge" shot, you will notice farms and pastures checkerboarding the the background behind the Castle. It is from there that mine was shot.

And read my last post in that thread about revisiting the Castle years later.

Rad

[Robert_Lay]

Thanks for the comments, Bob. Any opinion on the lack of feet? That happened as a result of keeping the eyes on a 1/3 line, and I really wasn't paying attention to my inferior border.

The Castle shot, actually, was taken from one of the roads that cut though the farmland north of the Castle. In the shot, notice the cloud in the upper left of the frame - that cloud is in the came chasm that the footbridge crosses. When you see the iconic "From the Footbridge" shot, you will notice farms and pastures checkerboarding the the background behind the Castle. It is from there that mine was shot.

And read my last post in that thread about revisiting the Castle years later.

Rad
About the feet. I guess the reason the feet being cut off didn't bother me is that the feet aren't what is providing support.

Tnx for the directions on the castle - I think I know now from where you took the shot.

[RDKirk]

The lighting is actually pretty good. You've got a butterfly effect going--that's fine.

The cropping at the bottom causes a problem because of the bit of calf showing. You need to crop just above the hem of the slacks.

The window sill above her head is causing a severe distraction problem that hurts more in the black and white. In the color, her bright scarf pulls attention back to the area of her face.

The crop works better, and a much tighter crop would be stronger, especially if you crop out that window sill. Watch you backgrounds closely. Don't just try to blur them out with wide apertures--that's like a house painter just slapping on more paint instead of properly preparing his surface. Pay close attention to them and make the background work with the subject.