John Bragg
Well-known
Version #1 looks best to me (better shadow detail), but that is subjective and very personal. Although I dont shoot digital, it has more of a well balanced film look to it. I am not keen on the colour version though, but again personal view as I dont shoot colour. All in all a lovely relaxed study of a characterful face. Congratulations on a lovely photo.
kuuan
loves old lenses
oh, this is great
Posing and lighting certainly are the essentials for portrait photography. Your's looks perfect, thank you for that.
My photo is a 'snap', a gift by this man, there was absolutely no choice of pose or lighting.
He stopped at the roadside restaurant to sell lottery tickets. I liked his old Honda Cub bike and, sitting with friends, beer and dinner, took a photo of it
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
he had noticed that, pulled up and asked me to 'take his'. It was a moment, 3 fast, almost identical takes, and he was gone again.
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
for the 'portrait, I thought, it was very lucky how that only light source, in the dark night, spread over his face.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
First is "made with plastic". Wax museum effect applied 
Second is fine and alive!
Second is fine and alive!
kuuan
loves old lenses
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Don't know if this is any improvement:
Spanik
Well-known
Last one for me, just make sure all of his hair is on it.
If I had to choose one of the b&w ones I'd go for the 13% mixed one. It has his forehead toned down just enough to make it not stand out while at the same time not going for the 100%black-100%white that is so often found these days. At least there is a nice range of grey in it., even some in the background.
If I had to choose one of the b&w ones I'd go for the 13% mixed one. It has his forehead toned down just enough to make it not stand out while at the same time not going for the 100%black-100%white that is so often found these days. At least there is a nice range of grey in it., even some in the background.
35photo
Well-known
I knew based on what I saw that this was shot as a higher ISO... When I shoot stuff with higher ISO and crazy lighting conditions I'll usually just do a B&W conversation they always look better.. If you like the color version yeah its still too blue.. Here is my tweaked version.. added more yellow and red.. I tend to like things on the warmer side..
Attachments
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
I like Vince's version with his colour rebalance.
I still think it's quite a remarkable photo in the circumstances - such a high ISO!
Can't imagine that most photogs wouldn't be pleased with what you have.
I still think it's quite a remarkable photo in the circumstances - such a high ISO!
Can't imagine that most photogs wouldn't be pleased with what you have.
kuuan
loves old lenses
Don't know if this is any improvement:
yes Vince and Marco, your's have best colors, thank you very much for your efforts!
this is my last attempt:
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
I think your's is better. I shall try again and in case I can't do it may ask for advice.
and yes Marco, my thought had been the same, colors had been so very off to start with that originally I only had been considering B&W conversion, and generally I also rather prefer warm over cold.
I noticed that both of you had chosen my cropped version as base. Was that 'by accident', or may I assume that you preferred the crop over the original frame?
kuuan
loves old lenses
First is "made with plastic". Wax museum effect applied
and earlier this and similar opinions
very interesting Ko.Fe. and so now I have it!
Besides learning that editing makes a big difference and some editing skills I now understand the obvious, there isn't anything 'best' but different tastes and preferences.
kuuan
loves old lenses
I had assumed that the first one shown, which was my second attempt at editing as the contrasty came first, might be preferred, specially by film shooters, for the better shadow detail. But I am at loss again what I prefer. May try out more and / or come back later, as Jesse had suggested, to see what I like best after a while.
thank you very much for your kind words John and Jesse. The man impressed me, I have a fond memory and I am pleased by how the photo came out
kuuan
loves old lenses
Bill your post shared very important and valid points about portrait photography and as such was much appreciated. As I pointed out in my reply, where your post still remains quoted, these teachings would not have helped me for my photo but imo that isn't reason to take them down. thank's anyway, cheers
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Andreas, first of all, good work! You took a casual opportunity for a lowlight scooter + owner snap and saw (and show) the Buddhahood he offers, and then he was gone. This was a gift to you, and you pass the gift along to us. Thank you.
About the technical treatment, I'm inclined to agree with John--let it sit a while. This is a gaze for eternity. The best suggestions here will be just as good in a month. The pond will clarify and you will be less likely to disturb what is clear about it.
You used the phrase "loving expression" in describing him, and the lovingkindness he emanates deserves not to be sentimentalized and not to be stylized. (Sentimentalize: whatever effect an artist uses to impose on us his feelings about the subject. Stylize: whatever effect an artist uses to show us he's The Artist and the subject is merely a form for displaying technical skill.)
The one detail of his features I haven't seen mentioned, and which deserves prominent consideration in the ultimate development, is his partial blindness. One eye appears normal---the pupil is dilated in low light; the other is dim, milky, blueish. Their difference is clearer in color, though I imagine I'm not the only one who saw it in your first BW image in the thread. Such a detail in a portrait of such a benign, long-lived gaze--that is worth getting right, without exaggeration or masking.
About the technical treatment, I'm inclined to agree with John--let it sit a while. This is a gaze for eternity. The best suggestions here will be just as good in a month. The pond will clarify and you will be less likely to disturb what is clear about it.
You used the phrase "loving expression" in describing him, and the lovingkindness he emanates deserves not to be sentimentalized and not to be stylized. (Sentimentalize: whatever effect an artist uses to impose on us his feelings about the subject. Stylize: whatever effect an artist uses to show us he's The Artist and the subject is merely a form for displaying technical skill.)
The one detail of his features I haven't seen mentioned, and which deserves prominent consideration in the ultimate development, is his partial blindness. One eye appears normal---the pupil is dilated in low light; the other is dim, milky, blueish. Their difference is clearer in color, though I imagine I'm not the only one who saw it in your first BW image in the thread. Such a detail in a portrait of such a benign, long-lived gaze--that is worth getting right, without exaggeration or masking.
lynnb
Veteran
I agree with Robert about his eyes. I attempted an interpretation in LR/CS6 but I must admit to liking Keith's subtle rendering as well.
mdarnton
Well-known
When I see threads like this, I always wonder what I'd see if I were looking at each person's rendition on his own monitor! Most of the versions here look too contrasty to me, with too much black in the face but I also see that in general people don't mind empty shadows as much as I do.
For looking at pix on the web, I downloaded a Chrome add-on called Image Histogram that offers a right-click menu item to give a histogram for any webpage image, and often I'll turn that on if I see something I like or don't like, to see what's going on. Here, there's quite a bit of bunching up near black in most renditions that the original color version doesn't have--so much that I think the facial tonality ends up being exaggerated in a way that looks too dirty for my taste.
I only work in PS, so I'm not much help here, but with portraits I always end up separating highlights and shadows and working on them separately, bringing facial bright areas down and enhancing their contrast a bit, and pulling shadows up. That pulls things away from the ends of the histogram and puts them more in the middle, which is actually the way our eyes see things--look around you and see how many shadows there are that are so deep you can't see into them, and how many faces are so bright you are blinded by their whiteness being right next, on the grey scale, to the pure white of the sun--that just doesn't happen.
In Windows PS, Ctrl-Alt-Shift-~ selects highlights above mid-point, and Ctrl-Alt-I inverts that selection for working on the histogram's lower half, if I'm remembering that right. I do that in layers so I can keep messing around until it looks right. After I think I have it right, I'll throw it up on the web and check how it looks on every computer I have access to, but usually my Android phone gives the best, most average version, which I've confirmed by looking at various greyscales on the web, so I give that the most weight.
On my phone, the first example in Kuuan's post #13 is my favorite version so far.
For looking at pix on the web, I downloaded a Chrome add-on called Image Histogram that offers a right-click menu item to give a histogram for any webpage image, and often I'll turn that on if I see something I like or don't like, to see what's going on. Here, there's quite a bit of bunching up near black in most renditions that the original color version doesn't have--so much that I think the facial tonality ends up being exaggerated in a way that looks too dirty for my taste.
I only work in PS, so I'm not much help here, but with portraits I always end up separating highlights and shadows and working on them separately, bringing facial bright areas down and enhancing their contrast a bit, and pulling shadows up. That pulls things away from the ends of the histogram and puts them more in the middle, which is actually the way our eyes see things--look around you and see how many shadows there are that are so deep you can't see into them, and how many faces are so bright you are blinded by their whiteness being right next, on the grey scale, to the pure white of the sun--that just doesn't happen.
In Windows PS, Ctrl-Alt-Shift-~ selects highlights above mid-point, and Ctrl-Alt-I inverts that selection for working on the histogram's lower half, if I'm remembering that right. I do that in layers so I can keep messing around until it looks right. After I think I have it right, I'll throw it up on the web and check how it looks on every computer I have access to, but usually my Android phone gives the best, most average version, which I've confirmed by looking at various greyscales on the web, so I give that the most weight.
On my phone, the first example in Kuuan's post #13 is my favorite version so far.
Richard G
Veteran
Number 1. And even better, Keith's.
35photo
Well-known
No offence, but your is monitor calibrated? Certainly everyone can have different calibrations and should be in the ballpark.. What you describe sounds way off..
lynnb
Veteran
I was thinking of Yousuf Karsh...
35photo
Well-known
Not a problem, I choose the cropped version because that was the last one that I saw.. I'm not sure which one I prefer in terms of composition. I'm inclined to lean toward the original, but the cropped version is more personal. The thing I don't like about the cropped version is it feels more like a senior portrait if you will in terms of crop.. Do make any other versions with different compositions? Letting it sit for awhile and then come back to it as someone else mentioned that's a good idea and I would echo that thought...
yes Vince and Marco, your's have best colors, thank you very much for your efforts!
this is my last attempt:
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
I think your's is better. I shall try again and in case I can't do it may ask for advice.
and yes Marco, my thought had been the same, colors had been so very off to start with that originally I only had been considering B&W conversion, and generally I also rather prefer warm over cold.
I noticed that both of you had chosen my cropped version as base. Was that 'by accident', or may I assume that you preferred the crop over the original frame?
kuuan
loves old lenses
Robert I am very grateful for your wise comment and advice.How very well you read this face. Thank you for acknowledging the photo for what it is and to describe it eloquently. His blind eye, to get this detail right, a wonderful suggestion.
coming back in a month must be very sound advice of the experienced. Thank you to John again, I shall take this serious.
Don't sentimentalize nor stylize, I shall remember that. Trying to show the beauty of the outwardly plain or common, which might get overlooked, has been my biggest driving force. I want to show that directly, 'plainly', not 'enhanced', but shall be more careful again not to sentimentalize. Not to stylize is tricky, even if trying to be a channel only ultimately someone's photography most of all portraits himself.
usually I develop, fast.. and upload the same day I take a photo and leave it at that. That has not made me learn much of editing.
Now that my request has been honored by so many answers, thoughts, suggestions, advice, even re-works, thank you all! - I feel obliged in the best way possible: I must take the challenge, follow this through until I get it right!
my latest go
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr