2. Beyond point number one is the ability of the same individual to expertly capture the art of the moment through photography.

Cheers!

grr…yes, me and jpgs are not on friendly speaking terms when in capture mode!

now THAT link looks interesting..saving for tomorrow…phew..2:30am! yikes!! i am a scan-a-holic..

k, thanks for your replies, Jan..take care..

kat

Ha! that happened to me once on a DVD shoot, was the last time w/jpgs.

Michael Reichman explains the shooting to the right best.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Hope it helps.

Cheers,
Jan

Yes, well, the color was widely discussed and on three of my monitors it’s very orange. Which reminded me of a time i was persuaded to shoot a black jazz singer performing in a club in JPG mode. I never shoot jpg but this guy was persuasive so i did it. It was for a job for the Canadian Embassy. WHAT a mistake! I could not recover natural color and even bought special software to help me, to no avail. So converted to B&W. Hence my thought that Vasillos was making lemonade out of a lemon (color wise). I am not sure about your comparison of digital info to film. i shoot both and with digital find my problem is with highlights and with film it’s the other way around; i lose detail in the shadows. But i am admittedly a relative newcomer to this sport. Anyway, just curious about your answer and it’s as i thought. In jpg, no way..raw maybe/probably/hopefully.

thanks, Jan! Good comment, by the way..very thoughtful, as usual :)

best:
kathleen

I don’t get any strange color casts on my monitor, it looks very much as I would expect this to if I came across her like this.

Regardless, one should always shoot in RAW if any post-processing is to be done. In this light (pardon the pun) the file would have more information with which to recover the highlights successfully and smoothly. Digital files have more (much much more) information in the highlights than film or what the eye registers. It is therefore very recommended to expose to the right on your histogram so that one captures more information than the eye tells you is there. In effect if you blow the highlights visually, you are likely still safe electronically and can recover 1-2 stops safely and with a good amount of detail–to the point of visually “bringing back” and image.

If shot in jpg there is less information to correct with, and I suspect it would worsen the color cast by making the transition less smooth and therefore add to the stunted feeling.

Just a question..with regard to “B”, Looking at this photo do you think maybe it was shot in JPG mode? It seems to me the color caste was an unexpected surprise. In raw it’s very easy to correct for such a warm color caste but in JPG, phew, not so. So, if Vasillos shoots in jpg mode do you think he’d have much chance of recovering highlights that have been blown out a “couple of stops” by exposing for the shadows? I have shot a lot of ballet in dark conditions. If i shot in JPG mode, it would have been a post-processing nightmare. Just wondering what you think..

kathie

My first reaction was that she was doing her nails, and it is hard to translate this impression into one of solace and solitude.

I agree with the comments regarding the noise.

I get a feeling that either the picture is composed but sloppy, or it is spontaneous. If spontaneous I can relate to why the composition would be alluring to the photographer, end of story. But if composed I find fault with various details.

A) the use of negative black space on each end is too much wasted space that adds little to the picture. Had the composition been vertical, the effect could very likely be stronger. That being said however, the image is not sharp, an so my floats across without settling on anything unless I intentionally will it to.

B) If composed, then it should have more sharpness and better use of ISO to eliminate the noise. I think this could have been achieved by composing for the shadows, which in turn would blow the highlights out a couple of stops, but then the highlights could be recovered in post-production simply by bringing exposure down two stops. This could help use a lower ISO, maintain the visual ratio of black to white and eliminate noise in the process.

C) If composed I would perhaps experiment with a vertical lay out to play to the heavy center weighting of the image, require less balancing of high and low keys (hence the need to compensate with high ISO).

D) If composed I would pay closer attention to the towel on the door that distracts from a clean line and frame. I would also try to align the horizon better.

E) If composed I would pay closer attention to her pose. It seems her right arm is coming out between her legs, and this would seem like an uncomfortable if not unnatural pose, that distracts from the natural feel the photographer seems to want to give. I would also angle the camera to give her silhouette more space.

If not composed I would discard everything I just wrote and take it as a pleasant snapshot.

i also like to think about photography not necessarily as what it is. i like to think about it more for what ‘approach’ was taken and what the ultimate ‘intent’ was. thinking this way circumvents all the stigmas of taxonomy. Approach and intent always seem to result in more captivating conversation, especially when compared to the alternative chat, a conversation about what classification a photograph falls into.

i also like the terms ‘constructed’ and ‘bear witness’ approaches to photography, those terms seem to circumvent all the stigmas associates with ’staged’ or ‘authentic/candid/uncontaminated’. i think i will use those terms in favour of anything else when talking about approaches for now on.

Yet: I think the paper on the furniture is the most important item after the lady herself. Like a “Dear John/Jean” letter….

Basically, you’re better off posting images on the Web with an embedded ICC profile in sRGB color space if you want any kind of even approximate consistency in how they are viewed. But it’s no guarantee.
You’re always up against this problem designing or posting color (Yeah, I’m a Yank) images on the Web. A few years back I designed a website for a local painter who works in the Impressionist tradition, and he was terribly concerned about how the color would look… we compared the images on six different computer and monitor systems and they all looked different… (it turns out his own monitor was the worst). We ended up settling for an acceptable (to him) compromise but it took a lot of tweaking.
This problem is compounded by the fact that so many people these days are viewing via laptops or LCD screens which are much harder to calibrate precisely than CRT’s were (at least the good ones)… and there’s also the question of ‘calibrated for what?’… I do a lot of printing myself, and my laptop screen is calibrated to match the output of my Epson printer as closely as possible rather than some software’s notion of ‘correct’ calibration. But if I pop a commercial DVD into my laptop, the color is all wrong and I have to switch over to a completely different monitor calibration profile that I have customized to make it look right.

An un-calibrated monitor is usually optimised for web viewing. I’m not really up on the tech stuff involved, except that I know my photos often look vastly different on calibrated or un-calibrated monitors. My monitors show me very accurately what a print will look like when printed on a profiled printer. Vasilios’ photo will print extremely yellow/red if printed as is. It looks great however on my un-calibrated laptop, a lovely sepia, with beautiful skin tones.
On the other hand, some files of my own stuff print beautifully, but look grim and flat on the web.

One possibe problem with this image could be the fact that it has no colour (Canadian/British spelling) profile imbedded. I’m not sure if that affects web viewing or not.

Any experts on colour spaces out there?

Gordon L. PS sorry for the tech type stuff, but it is important.

I looked at this photo on 3 monitors of varying quality and the result is just more or less intensely the same. Alas, a subtle sepia would be a big improvement.

John Gladdy,

I agree. It’s so weird, i didn’t see the noise on my good monitor and slid it over to my other monitor and now i do. i don’t mind noise, i do mind uncorrected noise. And by corrected i don’t mean eliminated and over-smoothed in PS. I mean treated so that it looks less electronic and more like, uh, er, well film. I guess we all (read me) can’t afford one of the new full sensor cameras and have to accept noise as an inevitable fact of life but there are techniques to make that raked over gravel more palatable. The noise and the lack of adjustment for white balance do nothing for the wonderful contemplative moment achieved by Vasillos. Just a little more care and technique would have made this photo a winner for me.

Patricia,

great to see you commenting again. Your thoughts always possess great integrity and bear serious consideration.

best:
kat~

Vasilios

I am not able to get to your website, so I don’t know hat kind of photographer you are and what is your wision.
But photo is very nice.

peace :)

Vasilios

I am not able to get to your website, so I don’t know what kind photographer are you. And what is your vision.
But this photo is very nice.