January 2014 Portraits

[Ari]

Bryan, the scan is misleading in that it's not apparent that the film was underexposed.
What gives it away are the black areas without detail, which were never picked up on film (due to underexposure).

And yes, I am looking for a softer light source, but I only have two light sources in the house worth using, and they both necessitate the sitter being perpendicular to the light, otherwise I get a very messy background.

Ramiro, I don't necessarily want a darker background on film; I prefer it to be light, so I have more room to lighten/darken it.
Perhaps a bounce/fill would be better for the face, though, as you both suggest; I'm trying to keep things less busy, as shooting space is tight and it is also our kitchen.
Thanks for your thoughts!

[StoneNYC]

In the interest of discussion, I'm posting a before/after.

The photo on the left is a straight scan, the way the negative looks before any manipulation.
The centre photo is my second (current) effort, and the photo on the right is the previous effort, with the "halo" effect.

To make things look a little tidier, I was much more careful in applying the borders of the areas to be dodged; there was very little overlap, resulting in much less "halo" effect.
Different areas were burned or dodged: eyes, face, head, right arm, throat, wall, and the small area behind her left side.
The face was given extra exposure, then highlights were brought way down to avoid a loss of detail.

I think I can live with this version much more easily than the previous attempt, and it was worth the extra effort.
So thanks for keeping me on my toes.

I agree with another poster, I prefer the straight scan, it's a wonderful image, the others give her this sort of possessed look, her eyes are too bright in the second or third one, it's eerie, it's still not bad looking, but if given the choice, I think you did just fine out of the camera... But that's me.

[jcoldslabs]

I really like the overall look of Ari's images, at least as presented here on the forum, even when the dodging or vignetting has been clearly visible. I always figure that is the look he is after and he is using digital means to achieve it. That's not to say that we shouldn't offer our feedback and suggestions to one another. Personally, I've learned a lot from what other people have had to say about my work. In the end, though, the tools should serve the vision, not the other way around.

But seriously, dude. Get a bounce card.

Jonathan

[Ari]

I agree with another poster, I prefer the straight scan, it's a wonderful image, the others give her this sort of possessed look, her eyes are too bright in the second or third one, it's eerie, it's still not bad looking, but if given the choice, I think you did just fine out of the camera... But that's me.

I know that's just your opinion, but there's no right or wrong.
What you say might be true if I was after a likeness of the subject, i.e. something more literal.
I try and make something more of a portrait, based on a feeling or an impression; I like having a bit of an abstraction, idealized, whatever.
Mixed results often ensue.

I really like the overall look of Ari's images, at least as presented here on the forum, even when the dodging or vignetting has been clearly visible. I always figure that is the look he is after and he is using digital means to achieve it. That's not to say that we shouldn't offer our feedback and suggestions to one another. Personally, I've learned a lot from what other people have had to say about my work. In the end, though, the tools should serve the vision, not the other way around.

But seriously, dude. Get a bounce card.

Jonathan

Thanks, Jonathan; I do have a reflector disc left over from my studio, I'll drag it out of retirement next time.

[ostrygad]

Testing out some new Delta 100 in DDX development times with my daughter (with braces). Used my 100 year old RB Graflex with Dallmeter Dalmac lens at f4. Light Rooom adjustments.


Untitled_Panorama1-2-Edit-Edit by pientamichael, on Flickr

nice

[Cor]

Here are 2 portraits of my twins, I have not been pouring plates for more than a year now, so my technique is rusty as well as the chemistry is not up to optimal. Anyway: 2 tintypes, whole plate shot with a wooden no-name Japanese folder, lens is a epidiascope lens from Liesengang, 400mm f4, exposure around 8 seconds, 3 energy saving fluorescent lights.
Scanning is always a bit of a problem for me.
For my next try I'll wait for some sun in the back yard.

Enjoy,

Cor

Afke



Jelte

[StoneNYC]

Here are 2 portraits of my twins, I have not been pouring plates for more than a year now, so my technique is rusty as well as the chemistry is not up to optimal. Anyway: 2 tintypes, whole plate shot with a wooden no-name Japanese folder, lens is a epidiascope lens from Liesengang, 400mm f4, exposure around 8 seconds, 3 energy saving fluorescent lights.
Scanning is always a bit of a problem for me.
For my next try I'll wait for some sun in the back yard.

Enjoy,

Cor

Afke



Jelte

Hmm yes under exposed but beautiful children, I think only the chemistry suffered and not your technique.

[BradS]

Left - straight scan
Middle - new version
Right - previous version

Bryan, thanks for pointing out these things; it lead to a better version of a photo.
I like these discussions, too; I even thought of starting a new thread for "before/after" photos with as many details as the photographer is willing to provide.

FWIW, I like both the left and the middle and am a bit amazes at the difference you've achieved in lightroom. I think your idea for a new thread is excellent too. Thanks for posting. You are indeed, very fortune to have such a beautiful and cooperative spouse.

[Ramiro Elena]

After the discussion and while doing the dishes it occurred to me that it would be cool to re-interpret somebody's image. In this case Ari's. I wanted to grab my girl and try to shoot as close as possible to Ari's image. Same light, pose, format, etc...
I had this crazy idea in my mind that it would have been cool to be shooting with Ari and collaborate in the making of that particular photo. Of course being hundreds of miles away would make that impossible.
The idea: A thread, where one would post an image and whoever wanted to add, suggest, collaborate could do so by redoing the same image with whatever means and as close as possible to the original.

[StoneNYC]

After the discussion and while doing the dishes it occurred to me that it would be cool to re-interpret somebody's image. In this case Ari's. I wanted to grab my girl and try to shoot as close as possible to Ari's image. Same light, pose, format, etc...
I had this crazy idea in my mind that it would have been cool to be shooting with Ari and collaborate in the making of that particular photo. Of course being hundreds of miles away would make that impossible.
The idea: A thread, where one would post an image and whoever wanted to add, suggest, collaborate could do so by redoing the same image with whatever means and as close as possible to the original.

This is similar to a standard exercise in poetry where you go back and forth feeding off the others "imagery"