drydock Loc: mackay, queensland australia

Thanks MMC. I must say however, I prefer the more contrasty look of my feeble attempt. The face, on your version, has lost a lot of the wrinkles that give it so much character, Also the details on her shirt collar are lost due to the vignetting-- just my opinion, of course. Thanks for taking the time to show me your version. I used lightroom on my picture.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

The question is does it tell the story you want it to?

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

I bet theres a lot fo stories behind those eyes. Next time remind her of the good times and try to capture that old smile. You both will enjoy the photo a lot more.

xphotog1 Loc: Lubbock, TX

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The crop is just fine, no question about that. I think the vignetting is just about right for this subject. It brings your viewer's attention onto your mother's gorgeous face.

Keep up the good work.
Al

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Personally, I like an aggressive crop like you chose. I see no need for the vignetting actually because there's no background clutter or benefit to doing so. While B&W is an artsy alternative, your mother isn't black and white. I prefer the color version but I would tone down the color saturation a bit because she's too vivid for her age - not realistic. I've made a version with reduced saturation, slightly increased brightness, and slightly increased contrast.

My adjusted version


Original you posted

drydock Loc: mackay, queensland australia

Thanks, I prefer your version. It does look more natural.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

I'm not so sure that B&W is your only way to a satisfactory version of this picture. But, regardless, I don't think anyone has improved on your B & W version. I agree with marcomarks in general. But, to be more specific the following.

Regarding the vignetting, I don't see that it has added or hurt the final result in particular. You applied it to emphasize the face and distractions in the background. The areas in question for de-emphasis are the hair in the upper left, the clothing on the bottom, The right edge background, and the upper right background. I do not feel that the hair is all that troublesome, but a slight darkening does bring out the face as you designed. I'd like a little more hair showing in that corner. I don't feel the clothing is troublesome at all. Perhaps a little darkening there does not hurt. The right edge background does offer a bit of competition, so a little darkening there helps. As background it is already out of focus which also helps. The upper right is fairly light and does offer some competition with the face, so some darkening there helps, I feel.

The choice on vignetting is one principally of style, on one hand using it to emphasize the face spotlight fashion, or on the other to present a hang it all out look, which as you indicate was not your intention. I like the subtle way you employed it so as not to have it intrude into the composition as a distraction on its own. For me the bottom line to your question is the vignetting as you used it contributed to the effect you wanted to get.

As far as the cropping is concerned, I can not imagine that there is anything cropped out that was important to the picture. What is essential to it remains. Beyond that the only question that comes to my mind is composition. I feel ok with what you have as is. Cropping can be a matter of compromise, and perhaps including a little more on the right and bottom to maintain the proportions, while creating a little more space on that side in order to make room for the subject to be "looking" into might be considered. But, this inclusion would reduce the proportion devoted to the face and introduce more background to deal with. Only experiment would offer any help with that question.

Looking at the original color version I found it to be on the harsh side. I think good stuff is still there. Try lowering the contrast a lot. Here is a look at this treatment plus selecting areas of the face for Gaussian blur, The forehead, the lower portion excluding the lips, the darker parts of the left side, the darker part along the side of the nose, and always being sure to exclude parts where detail is expected like the glasses frame, the eyes, and the already mentioned lips. The point here is to soften some of the surface aspects of aging, where they show most and let the viewer better concentrate on the subject's deeper characteristics of expression and fundamental features.

Looking at what marcomarks did produced much the same effect as reducing contrast. Actually I went that route first myself and some other stuff as well. But, I think that simpler corrections are all that is necessary.

-------

Ninety one and looks to be not in the least dulled by all that time. Wonderful. A great face deeply expressing the experience of the years gone by. I often look at such faces trying to envision the fresh youthful countenance from the distant past lying underneath, the young girl or the young man, tender and expectant; bright and hopeful.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I agree with you mostly except I consider an effect like vignetting to be for an artistic enhancement but I gather that the author wasn't really doing it for artistic reasons when adding it. He was masking and hiding clutter around the edge, which isn't really a creative artistic use. Personally, I may have blurred the background a bit more and let the subject, hair, and clothing stand on their own. The clothing on her shoulder, for example, isn't clutter but actually reveals something about the character of his mother at this age. He and others can later look back at that clothing and remember another factor about her they may not be thinking about currently.

Second, if one were trying to bring youthfulness to a face, such as a formal portrait where the subject wants to look and feel younger than they are when they see the end result, I would also use something like Gaussian blur or other form of softening the skin, pores, and wrinkles.

In this application though, I see this photo as documenting his mother realistically, including her weathered look from hard work and life experience and what she truly looks like - one of the reasons I didn't like the idea of B&W. Instead of blurring her life's experiences away which makes the shot a forgery, I might emphasize (with very carefully used sharpening), or would at least retain, the affect that the harshness of life has had upon her.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

I appreciate your remarks and agree that your suggestions directed at the facial treatment are certainly valid to the purpose, that you stated.

Additionally, I very much appreciate the questions you raised, as theyit caused me to enjoyably dig more into my own thinking regardless of whether it was successfully productive at this time or not. At least it pressed my brain against my thick skull, an exercise, that is not entirely useless, if it makes growth in the former possible.

My purpose was not to remove years, but to soften the surface enough that a viewer, who might have his gaze stop there, could go on. Some tender minds are a little shocked at signs pointing to their own mortality. The subject's age is inherent in her facial structure regardless of the surface. I don't think youth springs up from such a light touching of the surface detail. But maybe it does for more discerning eyes than mine. Part of the choice lies for the audience selected. One may choose which reality to emphasize, not unlike for the purpose we wear clothes.

Pores and similar can either be emphasized or diminished by lighting on its own. I left the surface alone on the parts more strongly lighted. What I am talking about here is like lighting choices, only an option to be decided depending on purpose. The line between fraud and enhancement in post processing certainly exists, and we are discussing just where it is to be drawn. I suspect that somewhere in the middle there is a zone in which it is drawn according to something less than objective criteria.

Yes, the clothes need to be there in this picture, and they generally are. Vignetting, that shades rather than hides, can be used without being intrusive much like using lighting to model features without necessarily putting them into total darkness. I think the main place where the vignetting might be too much here is in the hair, which is not exactly, that critical in that location to this portrait. Could it be lightened elsewhere? Perhaps. And, could added blurring be substituted in the background on the right? At least to the purpose of diminishing the emphasis there, but it is already blurred. I think it was the light competition with the face that the photographer was as concerned with as with distraction.

Certain of Picasso's presentations attempted to express the idea of a subject's many facets in a single picture, or at least the idea that in one object there are many views of which he portrayed particularized examples. In the other direction there are as many ways to visualize in a series of pictures many different aspects of a single object. We may tend to have a bias towards the one style closest to the one we expect from our experience, which we may call realistic, or honest. Were this picture we have here done in x-ray wave lengths rather than visible light, which almost totally exclude the surface appearances, would it be unrealistic? I don't think so. It would only be a realistic portrayal outside of our most frequently experienced view of people.

Besides all the ways of manipulating light either in camera or in processing, there are those that we do in our heads or under the direction thereby - - - in house so to speak or by artifice. The results of that we tend to regard as artistic (perhaps depending on whether it meets our personal likes or dislikes).

Sometimes I ask myself whether I would have gone over some rather decent pictures, like I do, to pick out points for changing, if they were not presented sort of on a table (Hog category?) begging criticism. Would I otherwise just let it sit and accept it like it is appreciating it for the qualities presented according to my innate response? True some pictures have characteristics, that may seem to beg the question, and others, whether they are as noisy or not, very well are answered regardless of the amount of asking. Some of us tend to have more sensitive hearing for such questions than others. Those of us that do may have more directional hearing, as well as being dissimilarly directed. Even one head can hold many ways of seeing.

drydock Loc: mackay, queensland australia

I would like to than you all, especially Macromarks and Bobber, for the insightful remarks and time that you have spent analysing and modifying the picture. This underlines the great strength of this forum with people willing to share their knowledge freely. The end result has been a sympathetic realistic improved rendering of my original image.
Portraiture is, I feel, more challenging than landscapes and I am inspired to continue pushing myself to produce better images.

Thank you once again!!

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I also agree with your remarks. A key to post editing techniques on a portrait, in my view, is the expected audience. General viewer- make it "pop" to capture the eyes of strangers and connect with their emotions although the result is somewhat exaggerated in sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc. The subject themselves - enhance youthfulness, bring out natural beauty, and/or mask age slightly but not noticeably so they are pleased when seeing themselves in the photographic "mirror that doesn't lie." Close relatives - document reality with the most accurate exposure and color possible until the photo is to be printed for others and sentimentality clouds one's judgement.

Of course these lines of distinction are frequently crossed as close relatives make portraits "pop" or arbitrarily fix facial defects that everybody knows existed, and bored portrait photographers just document the moment without pleasing enhancement.

By the way, that's the most mellow and non-aggressive discussion I've ever seen on UHH. Actually enjoyable to participate!

From your word count, careful wording, and fine explanatory detail I assume you have either been a writer or still are, because you prefer substance over quips, clarity over ego protective over-complication, and pleasantries over rudeness. You seem to be one who would hand write a letter for the postal service to deliver to an old friend or relative rather than sending off a quick e-mail filled with IMHO, LOL, and other such abbreviations.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Forcing myself up hill to a little honesty, no, I am not in the writing business in any way. The guess about hand written letters is also short of my mark. My hand writing and spelling are serious issues, so I appreciate the advantages of e-mail and spell check. I confess disappointment, that too much of the correspondence I get consists primarily of forwards. Ever since I learned to read, and by that means, and also listening to others, I learned that words do poorly in competition with pictures (1000:1). My enjoyment in working out with words might be a rough equivalent of photoshopping them into patterns that I find pleasing. It is every bit as interesting and enjoyable. So, in a way making words work for me is sort of a hobby (hobby = too much available time). About as often as someone indicates that my efforts have a wider appreciation than myself, I am rewarded also with a very simple response, "Huh?" I think mollymolly was the most recent here on the Hog. And re-reading sometimes makes me agree.

As far as approaching matters here on the forum, I only have to look at myself to see faults of all sorts and realize, that reacting on any of that aspect that I might suspect in our fellow Hoggers, does not make many constructive points, except for satisfying some critical feelings I might harbor. I think that words poured out from critical feelings are apt to carry a cutting edge, that reaches beyond any lesson contained to cause collateral damage. I have seen it declared, that if advice is painful enough, then the lesson is bound to stick. This can be true. I suspect, that it is not often so in our situation.

Where there is a need to massively instruct critical information into students, who are as likely to be unprepared, indifferent, or even reluctant learners, as avid for instruction, such as in some military situations, then at least some pain can be necessary. But, even in that situation other approaches are ignored at risk to maximum effectiveness. Here on the Hog perhaps unprepared, but not indifferent or recalcitrant. So, I don't think anyone needs to be beaten into submission to photographic truth.

I see no problem with conveying technical facts, even bluntly put. Accompanying them with other words less than flattering to the person asking a question is not only unnecessary, but counter productive. I have seen such defended as being "honest". Well, that was not the complaint. Such a defense is disingenuous pretending that honesty is the crux, when that was not even in question.

For the same causes, that there are a variety of purposes for photographs to be taken, there are also is as great a variety in the people and reasons for their wanting to do take them. We can expect some hard core and some more casual attitudes to visit here. I don't care for envisioning some person looking at his camera remembering it more for associated pain and embarrassment, than the pleasure it might bring. Not everyone is a hard core dedicated budding photographer determined to overcome all obstacles, and take the bitter with the sweet. I like to assume that any advise given is for someone ready to learn, because the fact they have come here with a question demonstrates that willingness. I don't feel any need to embarrass them or cause them to pick up a stick for self flagellation. "Ah, Ha!" is far superior to "Oh, heavens my stupidity is not only exposed, but also condemned, and I am a fool in all eyes." I don't recommend treating some adult, like we shouldn't treat a child. New comers to photography can find all the technological challenge they desire, and often enough unexpectedly more than they dreamed. What they hoped to be a simple answer to a puzzling problem with their picture taking on the order of "Oh, an easy fix, just do thus or so.", but instead find that thus and so carries a ton of unexpected baggage in terminology, light physics, and computer technology for which they are very unprepared.

When we put ourselves on the line out in public, as we do here with either words or pictures, it is at a risk of receiving public criticism- - - and I don't mean criticism as a "Huh" responding to a convoluted sentence, or "You apparently forgot to set the white balance." It is the sort of thing that calls into question the poster's intelligence, health, habits, maturity, and presence on the planet. If one is tempted to wonder about matters, as is the case occasionally, it is well to remember, that for situations of general discourse, a civil dialogue accomplishes far more with the willing, and makes less disturbance among the unwilling, which leaves more time to take pictures.

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

I think he is right but longwinded. We could have been taken photos.

Buzz Lightyear

Especially when using vignette with portraits, the dark blur should not be so close to the subject. Give sufficient room between the shadow of the vignette and your subject so that the distinction between subject and vignette is clear. Because you cropped the picuture so your mother's face fills most of the frame, a vignette doesn't work well for this kind of photo (but that just my prefence/opion).

I also think B&W is a better effect for this picture, and I like your attempt that leaves her lines and wrinkles clearly visible. Those are marks of "distinction", IMO!

chelst Loc: Windsor, Ontario

This is my suggestion.
I made it a little sharper. In particular around eyes and glasses.
Also I slightly aded light to her face.
I used PS
Very good picture.