First attempt with 70-200 f/2.8. Did I do OK?

This is the very first image I've taken "in the wild" with this lens. And the first conversion of a digital image to B&W (where I've half liked it anyway). C&C anybody?

I prefer the first image, but would rather see it in color. The clothes of the woman sitting on the bench appear to have lots of color and the conversion does not do it justice. Otherwise, composition, sharpness, and exposure all seem good in the first. In the second the lady on the right is in direct sunlight which blows out her clothes.

looks like you tried to burn in the highlights but have over done it,nice shot though and
conversion looks fine.
Rob.

Thanks for the comments. Nope...no burning in of highlights..wouldn't know how. All I did was a "Levels" (mild) and desaturation, then a brightness and contrast adjustment.

Thanks Mike,
I'll repost it tonight (at work at the moment) in color, but when I took it, there was overwhelming GREEN everywhere, and I thought B&W might be the answer.
Paul
_______________
Mike

Dear Meaty0,

My first reaction was, "where do you get all that foliage this time of year?". Then I remembered that it's the first weeks of Autumn down there.

I have the same problem with both pictures, and it may have something to do with the conversion to B&W - we can only be certain if we get to see the color original.

Both shots have the look of a harshly lighted scene (high dynamic range) that has also been processed to raise the contrast in the middle at the expense of detail in the highlights and shadows.

Remember, that one of the fundamenta laws of post processing is conservation of detail. If you expand the contrast in the mid range, you are going to lose detail in the ends of the scale. In other words, the shadows go even deeper and the highlights become blown out. Meanwhile, the expansion of mid-tones often results in banding or posterization.

Let me point out the prime examples of each of these phenomena.

In the first picture, focus on three points -
1) the back of the middle lady
2) the tree trunk
3) the straw hat on the right hand lady.

The tree trunk is so black that there is no detail. The straw hat has completely blown highlights (bone white with no detail). The middle lady's back is a monotonous gray with no noticeable variation in tone over her entire back.

When one looks at the histogram, it is clear from the "picket fence" appearance that the middle range has been expanded, and it is equally clear from all the pixels piled up at each end that the missing detail has been pushed out of the picture at both ends of the scale. Allow me to elaborate on the principle of conservation of detail. Not only is detail pushed out of the picture at the two ends, but there is no trade off in the form of increased detail being added in the middle range. In other words, it is a lose-lose situation. Detail gets lost by being pushed out at the two ends, but instead of gettin some back in the middle range, the detail that was there gets spread over a greater range of values. That "extrapolation" of data is not "adding" information or detail, it is simple creating information artificially to fill the gaps. The result is called "banding or posterization" and sometimes is mild enough to be called "mottled".

Some of the problem must be laid at the doorstep of the JPG compression, but I would guess that most of the damage was done prior to that during post processing.

On the positive side, both images are quite interesting and the composition is good. It could be improved upon by moving a bit to the left in order to put the mass of the tree trunk further to the left while moving the ladies and the bench to the right.

Very interesting subjects!

Thanks Bob,

As I said, I'll post the original with no PP other than RAW conversion using ACR and JPEG resizing for the forum tonight (hmm..might do an auto levels).

The tree trunk had more detail showing before I posted it, so some loss there in the compression somehow. From what I remember of the original, the lady's hat (on the right) was overexposed in the original too. Perhaps some unfamiliarity with this lens and camera I guess. As for composition: I was leaning up against a wall to my left to steady myself and couldn't move further left, but I take your point and noted that myself.

Your help on B&W conversion is much appreciated and just proves that "simple" B&W aren't that "simple" after all. It's an art in itself.

Paul
P.S. You're dead right too about "harshly lighted" scene. The light in Brisbane on a clear day is harsh (sunburn in 15 minutes). And this scene was strongly lit.

EDIT: Here's the original..Unfortunatel​y, I only saved the TIFF not the RAW so there's been a little PP..just levels I think.

Hi Meatyo, I don't have anything technical to say but it is a cute pic. sharp and clear. Makes you wonder what were the lady's talking about.Reminds me of my grandma and great aunt. I like blk&wht. But I'm sure the ladys were VERY COLORFUL.
Good Job.
BG
P.S. That is a beautiful tree,what is it?

Thanks BG. It's Delonix Regia (Poinciana). In Summer, it gets absolutely covered with bright scarlet flowers. They are truly magnificent.