November 2017 Portraits

[chassis]

8x10 xray, Gundlach Radar (aka poor man's Heliar)

2017-11-26-0001www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Wonderful portrait.

[Ari]

Well done, Howard!

[bloodhoundbob]

8x10 xray, Gundlach Radar (aka poor man's Heliar)

2017-11-26-0001www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Outstanding, as always, Sergei.

[ericantonio]

8x10 xray, Gundlach Radar (aka poor man's Heliar)

2017-11-26-0001www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

wow, amazing shot

[Mark Sawyer]

A lovely portrait, Sergei!

[SergeiR]

Thanks, folks. It’s been some quiet time for me, with job changes and all , but I am back!

[Rich14]

8x10 xray, Gundlach Radar (aka poor man's Heliar)

2017-11-26-0001www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Sergei,

As others have commented, this is a fine portrait. It is well-composed, well-posed and well-lit.

However the "style" of reproduction which you and many on this forum seem to prefer simply perplexes me. I am not at all a fan of this method of reducing even specular highlights to mid-tone values, seemingly in the quest of preserving every last illuminated pixel at the expense of all mid-tone contrast, sparkle and life and at the expense of representing highlights in the ratio they are seen by our eye with respect to other tone values.

I was not taught to reproduce photographs in this pseudo-moody, "preserve-every-last-possible-measurement of 'dynamic range' at-the-expense-of-image-life" style.

With apologies, since you did not ask for critique, I see a scene such as this reproduced as:



I find it hard to believe the original scene looked as your post represented. I don't think the eye sees that way at all. Pearls have specular highlights. There is no detail there. The shiny satin has specular highlights, there is no detail there either. Midtones contain all the detail and life in image. They are very lacking in your original.

Its your image and you have every right to present it as you wish. I just don't understand this type of photography.

My opinion. No offense meant.

Rich

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

Fair comment,Rich.

[Keith Fleming]

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

[Mick Fagan]

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.