not sure a reshoot is necessary, I think it's the B&W conversion.
my bed...
- Thread starter jeanie
- Start date
- Status
It depends whether you're after quality or convenience. But as a general rule, if you're talking about edgy grainy Black and White Photography, then the traditional method is the way to go.
This is my 2 cents.
Firstly, overall the photograph looks it's underexposed. It maybe the BW conversion, I wouldn't know, however the flatness of the highlights (cheeks/face) and the seemingly forced shadows from the arm onwards indicates the limit of curve settings. In traditional B/W photography, this would be akin in printing at a higher contrast filter in order to extract the shadows.
Secondly: application of noise seems to be blotchy, but that's inherent in the algorithm of the grain replication filter. I couldn't really help you in that as I'm not an expert in digital manipulation.
Thirdly:The hike in contrast doesn't seem to be any help. As a general rule, even for high contrast image, the transition from highlights to shadows must be 'smooth', not just harsh blacks and detailess white.
Suggestion:
Reshoot the image to proper exposure, preferably RAW, and adjust exposure to get the image you want. I would do a combination of having 1 layer adjust for highlights and 1 for shadows and just combining both on top. Akin to traditional BW technique called 'Split grading'.
Check images by histogram. Preferably it should be in a Bell shape rather than the peak being on the left (too underexposed) or the right (too over exposed).
Thirdly, IF you really want the effect you want, nothing beats a good roll of TMZ 3200
Like I said..quality or convenience!
This is an image I submitted for a journal project sometime ago printed on high contrast. Note that however, I still manage to retain the tones on skin and facial features. Not perfect, but good enough for my end product.
As for composition wise, I believe it's pretty good. The photographs has alot of potential if not for the technical liabilities!
how do you define IMPACT in a B&W photo?elaborate please.
as in you see already you will get 'wow-ed'?:dunno:
but i tried to portray a moody feel, hopefully the person viewing it can feeeeeeeeeel her feelings.
how does impact comes into the picture?:dunno:
dead horse = me?:dunno: :cry:
i think for an image to converse with the audience it has to have a key element within the image. Usually this key is found within the eyes of the subject "The eye is the key to the soul" it tells stories. Very often if the image is a non portrait such as this http://www.worldpressphoto.nl/index...ery&task=view&id=610&Itemid=137&bandwidth=low
you'll have to try and understand what the essence is within this photo that makes it unique and stand out. Not all images work on its own. Some requires "back up help" to make it work. this back up could be a series of images, the way the images is frame and presented or the composition....etc. The example above has a back up of a "frame" which surrounds that of the main subject.
There are many ways to interpret an image like how art is interpreted. Understanding the meaning of the essence of the image is hard and more often then not made complexed by its simplicity. As for your image. it lacks in many areas. no main focus point. no conversing point. Actually there is not much to work on and understand from the image besides a lady lying in "a percieved" bed.
Hope my little noob sharing helps. =) Cheers.
It depends whether you're after quality or convenience. But as a general rule, if you're talking about edgy grainy Black and White Photography, then the traditional method is the way to go.
This is my 2 cents.
Firstly, overall the photograph looks it's underexposed. It maybe the BW conversion, I wouldn't know, however the flatness of the highlights (cheeks/face) and the seemingly forced shadows from the arm onwards indicates the limit of curve settings. In traditional B/W photography, this would be akin in printing at a higher contrast filter in order to extract the shadows.
Secondly: application of noise seems to be blotchy, but that's inherent in the algorithm of the grain replication filter. I couldn't really help you in that as I'm not an expert in digital manipulation.
Thirdly:The hike in contrast doesn't seem to be any help. As a general rule, even for high contrast image, the transition from highlights to shadows must be 'smooth', not just harsh blacks and detailess white.
Suggestion:
Reshoot the image to proper exposure, preferably RAW, and adjust exposure to get the image you want. I would do a combination of having 1 layer adjust for highlights and 1 for shadows and just combining both on top. Akin to traditional BW technique called 'Split grading'.
Check images by histogram. Preferably it should be in a Bell shape rather than the peak being on the left (too underexposed) or the right (too over exposed).
Thirdly, IF you really want the effect you want, nothing beats a good roll of TMZ 3200
Like I said..quality or convenience!
This is an image I submitted for a journal project sometime ago printed on high contrast. Note that however, I still manage to retain the tones on skin and facial features. Not perfect, but good enough for my end product.
As for composition wise, I believe it's pretty good. The photographs has alot of potential if not for the technical liabilities!
i'm slowly beginning to see the light.
photography is soooooo subjective.
i was told bad composition and to you my composition is pretty good.:dunno:
as a newbie trying to understand critics, i can get quite confused....really.
but i do get your points about the B&W.will try to improve next time.
but now, sort of discouraged.:cry:
really put my heart and soul into every shoot.but it seems i cant get 'basics' right.
No, dead horse = the same comments over and over again about the pic.
There's nothing really wrong with your pic except for 2 things:
1. Over-use of grain
2. Contrast. If I take a look at your 2 initial pics, the first one is lacking contrast, the second one has too much. Something in-between would work great, and have more "mood". Remember, very high contrast is great for very angry/violent scenes, something that is meant to look aggressive. For a quieter, more intimate mood, you want to be very careful with the contrast, though definitely don't use too little.
Edit: gooseberry had a good "balanced" example of your pic on page 1.
But always remember, photography, like all art, is subjective. What I or others may feel looks like rubbish may look fantastic to other people...
thanks chris very much for the link to the pic.
i love the pic, but i do have alot of comments about it too.
slight oof is one.:bsmilie:
i think i get the gist of what you're trying to tell me.
but,
actually i dont intend to portray the portrait as 'ART'.
is it possible for a portrait to be as simple as just to portray a mood?a feeling and that's ALL to it?
must it really dwell into the realms of 'ART'?
i really do not know the definition of art.cos IIRC, my art since sec school fail all the way one.:bsmilie:
Some requires "back up help" to make it work. this back up could be a series of images, the way the images is frame and presented or the composition....etc. The example above has a back up of a "frame" which surrounds that of the main subject.
you mean everytime i try to shoot portraits i must keep these rules as a guide?
i understand if i should send a pic to a competition or so, then maybe i should use what you guys say as a guide.
but but but...
if really i ONLY want to portray a mood, does all these guides actually come into the picture?
i'm not trying to rebuke what you're trying to convey to me.just thinking hard only.
thanks for the detailed explanation.
lobinhoot
Senior Member
i'm slowly beginning to see the light.
photography is soooooo subjective.
i was told bad composition and to you my composition is pretty good.:dunno:
as a newbie trying to understand critics, i can get quite confused....really.
but i do get your points about the B&W.will try to improve next time.
but now, sort of discouraged.:cry:
really put my heart and soul into every shoot.but it seems i cant get 'basics' right.
Dudette! Relak! Anything art WILL be subjective. Its your own personal preference. When you get famous enuff, your works will be the "benchmark". Only then, maybe pple will follow wat you do. =) Remember my words, "There r no bad photographers, just bad photographs". It may seems like I'm consoling myself. Still, if it works. Why not? =D
Yup, agreed with lobinhoot there. Its way too subjective and of course everyone will have a certain preference. I can see what are you trying to get at with this photo just that some elements may or may not have worked, so why not chill and continue experimenting and shooting?
Just reshoot this - for a low key piece of work it is lit wrong - if you are a fan on low key go look at examples to understand the style. If your basics are not enough to understand the technicalities - get training - its a pity to pay so much for high end gear when you do not have the knowledge to work it. Ok it is a recurring thing in your posts - the need for training else why does it seem that are some many things that need to be explained to u - there is no real way you will ahhh learn that much from freebie infor here and else where. Learning comes with a price tag provided you find the right teacher for your current level
Shooting digital gives little room for excuses in personal work to get it wrong after there is a lcd on the camera and given your expense budget you would have a laptop and can shoot teethered (which mean even less excuses since you get to see the shot in large size).
As said earlier - dead horse issue on this picture.
Shooting digital gives little room for excuses in personal work to get it wrong after there is a lcd on the camera and given your expense budget you would have a laptop and can shoot teethered (which mean even less excuses since you get to see the shot in large size).
As said earlier - dead horse issue on this picture.
ellerythankyouforyourcommentsonthepic.ihavealreadyseenalotoflowkeyworks.mybasicsaresufficientformetounderstandthetechnicalitiestoldtomebythehelpfulmembershere.havehighendgeardoesntmeanineedtospendtogettrainingtofullyutilisethetools.ifonedriveaferrari,douthinkitsnecessarytolearndrivingfromf1driverstofullyutilisethecar?assaidphotographyisjustahobbytome,dontintendtogofulltimeintoit,neitherdoiintendtotakecourses.iwilljustshoot&shoot&shootnlearnfromthepeoplehere.therearemanymanyhelpfulmemberhereincs.whathasthispicgottodowithlcdscreensincethemistakewascreatedbyconvertingtobnwincs2?yesihavealaptopbutitsmypreferencenototuploadandcheckeverygoddamnpictoseeittoperfection.
ireallydontseewhatuaretryingtotellmeinthispost.uabsolutelyprovidednoguidanceotherthantellingmetoreshootjustbecausesomeoneelsementioneditshouldbeareshoot.btwlightingisnotwrong.itiscorrectintheoriginalcolorpic.justthathteppisnotuptostandardyet.
hhahahahhahahahhahaaaa:bsmilie:
Good one back :thumbsup:
SPACE bar spoilt... :bsmilie:
jOhO
Senior Member
no larrrrrr, it's a saying... rashkae pretty much summed it up...
- Status
Similar threads
