Light Shines on Marble Head

[Walkingmanblues]

I took this in Salzburg last summer, and it's proven to be one of those photographs that I keep coming back to. To begin, I like it. There, I said it. At minimum I find it worth the effort. But I do have a concern:

• The light was very flat--overcast, gray, indeed it had already started to sprinkle a bit when I took this--and I found it difficult to separate the head from the background without making it look like a composite.
• Given that circumstance, all of my PP efforts have been addressing that problem.

So, what I'm looking for is the following: Take a look at the edits of the photograph below and identify which of the two is working best, if at all, and why.

If neither is working for you, then how might you suggest I proceed to improve it (Short of another exposure)?

Appreciate anything else you might have to add or address as well. I confess that at this point I can no longer be objective; I've simply looked it at for too long.

Thanks. WMB

v1


v2

[joedlh]

Interesting statue. I can see why you were drawn to it.

I find the absence of a shadow a rather strong cue that it's a composite. The horizontal lines of the building interfere with those in the statue. I'm not sure that any kind of minimal post processing on the background is going to help you out there. The statue looks translucent because of the matching tones in the background.

If it were me, I wouldn't put much work into this unless I was trying to perfect it as a doc shot. Pictures of other people's art are seldom more compelling than the original.

[Walkingmanblues]

Thanks for taking a look, Joe. The abscence of shadow is the result of the conditions. And I agree with you that pictures of other people's art are no more compelling than the original, but the problem for me is that I find this particular bit of art so compelling.

PS: Just for clarification, you understand this is NOT a composite, yes? I might not have made that clear in the OP.

[Flo]

Tha thead is super sweet. I like the first, just fine. Second looks like you added glam glow to it, a little soft?

[Walkingmanblues]

Isn't it something? The second edit has a Gaussian Blur added to the background to, well, you know, do the separation thing and help diffuse the strong horizontals in the background. I'm thinking I like the first better as well....but those lines. I'm thinking I might try cloning them out. But Joe may have a point. Is more effort really going to be meaningful?

Thanks for the feedback, Flo.

[GorgeShooter]

Tough choice. I prefer the blurry BG on the 2nd one but the sharpness of the subject on the 1st. If you're using Lightroom, use the adjustment brush and paint negative clarity in the BG on the 1st one.

[C Scott IV]

I like number 1.

[Walkingmanblues]

Originally Posted by GorgeShooter

Tough choice. I prefer the blurry BG on the 2nd one but the sharpness of the subject on the 1st. If you're using Lightroom, use the adjustment brush and paint negative clarity in the BG on the 1st one.

Thanks for the feedback, Gorge, and the advice. Not sure why the subject would look softer on the 2nd edit though, as the Gaussian Blur was applied to the BG only. I am using LR2.0, but other than white balance and exposure, I did the rest in PS4. Have to try the adjustment brush in LR.

[waassaabee]

Very cool!! But I lean toward the second version where the statue seem to pop a bit more.

[Christopher Steven b]

Hm, it kind of bugs me (in an aesthetic sense, of course !) that the image seems so much like a composite, especially around the base of the statue. It just looks pasted on. Blurring the background actually contributes to this perception, I think, so if forced to choose, I'd go with 1. But, yeah, I think more directional light to define the statue might have made for a better image.

[Walkingmanblues]

Originally Posted by waassaabee

Very cool!! But I lean toward the second version where the statue seem to pop a bit more.

Thanks for the input, Waassaabee. I think it's pretty cool too. The sculpture anyway

Originally Posted by Christopher Steven b

Hm, it kind of bugs me (in an aesthetic sense, of course !) that the image seems so much like a composite, especially around the base of the statue. It just looks pasted on....

Chris, that's it right there. Thus the post. The principle difficulty of the situation was the light as noted in the OP, but compounding this circumstance was that the sculpture is in the courtyard of the building, surounded on three sides. In effect, that means it was essentially an "open shade" situation. It doesn't get much direct light period, but with the light the way it was....The product of all this is the very soft, virtually vertical shadows on the wall behind the sculpture. And if you look closely, you can see a very soft ring of shadow under the sculpture itself.

I think I'm going to try to burn in the shadow such as it is a see if that doesn't help. If that doesn't work, then what the hell, eh? We all have to settle for what we've got sometimes, rather than what we want. Selah.

Anything else you might suggest here would be much appreciated.

[FlyingPhotog]

Freaky Cool...

Gotta love nature's own giant softbox!

[Walkingmanblues]

Originally Posted by FlyingPhotog

Freaky Cool...

Gotta love nature's own giant softbox!

That's it. Hadn't looked at it that way, but that is precisely the effect that circumstances produced!

[Qbx]

I like #1. When I first saw it I thought double-exposure. The horizontal lines in the statue and in the background seemed to merge in my mind. I like that effect. Very cool shot.

[Walkingmanblues]

Thanks, Qbx. Think I'm going to go with v1 myself.