November 2017 Portraits

[SergeiR]

Thanks , Rich. As others mentioned - perception of tones is somewhat dependent on how you look at the image, from monitor to things as simple as forum theme ( dark or light) however I will admit - while I like Dean Collins approach to lighting in some cases - in others I am more of painterly guy - I don’t believe that skin should always contain specular highlights in full. Her natural skintone turned out very interesting with X-ray - I processed few sheets and it has very ortho old school feeling, right from the development . I might adjust some zones for final print but i like feel as it is. That said - I appreciate time and comments. Thank you

[Jim Galli]

A worthy discussion. In the brightened version the shape of the face becomes "odd". It works perfectly in the original. Sergei's images reminded me of a book and a show at the Los Angeles Museum of Art years ago. Roy De Carava combined his images with Langston Hughes prose to produce The Sweet Flypaper of Life: Roy Decarava, Langston Hughes

A hard book to find now and seeing the originals, I stared at each for many minutes. They are done dark. Every detail is there, you just have to force your eye to go looking. Sergei's style is similar. Even harder now than in 1954. We have computers shouting at us to spread the range from black black to white white.

[Rich14]

I prefer the original image. The dress, hat, flowers and accessories all speak to me of an earlier time when household lighting was much dimmer. Alternatively, it speaks to me of sunset light illuminating the subject. In my view, the version with brighter lighting is too "modern" for this subject. The original is more nostalgic to me.

That is a personal opinion, of course. And also at play in my comments is the very recent death of a woman I loved. But I also respect Sergei's original intent.

Keith

Too "modern?" I suggest you look at the paintings of the Dutch masters. While none painted in a "monochrome" style their lighting looked nothing like Sergei's original. Their lighting was brilliant and their oil paintings appear as bright as backlit "chromes."

Rich

[Rich14]

Rich, I can see where you are coming from, but I believe it is not too dark in the places you mention when viewed properly.

If you right click the image to "view image", then press the f11 key, you will then see the image on a completely blackened monitor. When viewed like this, it shines, literally.

When one views it in this manner, I would think you may possibly agree, Sergei has presented us with one of the better portraits seen on this forum.

Mick.

Mick, I don't know what browser you're using, mine (Safari) has no such F11 response. But viewing the image as you suggest does not improve it for me at all.
There is no mid-tone separation to speak of in the darker image. And it throws out half the possible tonal range. Highlights stop at about 190/256 and mid-tones are all well below 160.

[Rich14]

A worthy discussion. In the brightened version the shape of the face becomes "odd".

To "brighten" the image, I had only the posted screen file to use, which already had truncated half the image data. Spreading that limited data into a larger space, naturally does not lend highest quality. If the original image data had been available the brighter image would have had much smoother tonal gradation.

[BBW]

I have the same problem of how much to darken a print or lighten it. I have to guess (or just ask) where a print is to be displayed. In a well lit area, I print a bit darker, and vice versa. The OP original print when viewed on my monitor in my darkened cubical, looks really good but not so much in a well light work space.

[Reinhold Schable]

Rich, you have expressed a common grumble I have about the preponderance of murky, lifeless reproductions being posted.
I've always wondered wether the OP's monitor was skewed or mine was at fault, presenting me with "mud pies" instead.

Many times have I done just as you have, taking a screen shot and correcting the histogram by pulling the highs and lows in so as to bring the tonal ranges within reality and express the full tonal range of the image.

Reinhold

[Rich14]

I think its a combination of an Internet/digital camera obsession thing with "proving" that all the dynamic range that a camera or scanner can capture is represented in the image, to the great detriment of other image attributes. In that genre, it is anathema to ever have any highlight blow out or any shadow actually be represented by a value of zero, no matter how that negatively affects the image esthetics.

Or a poor attempt at Low Key. Pulling the "exposure" control back does not make an image low key. In a low key image there is a preponderance of dark values, but there is also, usually a full range of tones, even including specular highlights (not always, but their presence does not change the fact that the image is otherwise full of lower values). In a low key image, dark subjects are correctly represented, but not at the expense of lowering lighter values.

[SergeiR]

Thanks for chiming in, Jim . And for book name - going to do some hunting now

[rariola77]

thanks randy eric andrew.

4x5 tintype
pastel chalk
meridian 45a
darlot petzval i cant seem to figure out how the lens elements are supposed to be arranged but it came out soft focusy.