Black and white: Some of the black and white artists here generally go for a very dark tonal range. Then there's Graham Smith, who uses a fuller palette, with spectacular results.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Some of the black and white artists here generally go for a very dark tonal range. Then there's Graham Smith, who uses a fuller palette, with spectacular results. Here's one I worked with in that darker vein.

(Download)

Nightski

I like the side lighting on this, RMM. Great expression. The eyes look a little glossy, and it is quite grainy on download. Did you add the grain on purpose? And if so, what was your intention in doing so? I do like dark backgrounds like this in a portrait pic. You could even make it completely black. It would be interesting to see that..

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

I agree with Nightski about the grain, or is it noise?, it is very speckled when viewed at 100%. I also think the L/H side (camera left) would benefit from the shadow being lifted, this applies to the top of the head as well, perhaps use a reflector? The shadow is also too dark under his jaw line and it continues across his beard. I like the pose and his expression.

Graham

Nightski

Graham Smith wrote:

I agree with Nightski about the grain, or is it noise?, it is very speckled when viewed at 100%. I also think the L/H side (camera left) would benefit from the shadow being lifted, this applies to the top of the head as well, perhaps use a reflector? The shadow is also too dark under his jaw line and it continues across his beard. I like the pose and his expression.

Graham

But Graham, I have seen these really neat creative shots where every thing is in darkness except part of the persons face. I wonder if RMM was going there.

Here is a video depiction how to do this.

http://digital-photography-school.com/get-an-invisible-black-background-to-your-portraits-shooting-anywhere-video

Nightski

Make sure the kiddies aren't in the room when you google dark portraits. ooh la la!

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Nightski wrote:

I like the side lighting on this, RMM. Great expression. The eyes look a little glossy, and it is quite grainy on download. Did you add the grain on purpose? And if so, what was your intention in doing so? I do like dark backgrounds like this in a portrait pic. You could even make it completely black. It would be interesting to see that..

Yes, the grain was added on purpose. I created a duplicate layer, set it to darken mode, added noise and cut the opacity. The intention was to produce that metallic, noisy look that some of the others (PalePictures comes to mind) have come up with. As you can see, the background on this had to go.

Graham Smith wrote:

I agree with Nightski about the grain, or is it noise?, it is very speckled when viewed at 100%. I also think the L/H side (camera left) would benefit from the shadow being lifted, this applies to the top of the head as well, perhaps use a reflector? The shadow is also too dark under his jaw line and it continues across his beard. I like the pose and his expression.

Graham

A copy of the original is attached. The camera was tethered to my laptop. I was working from a black and white version I had created previously with some tweaks to the individual color channels.I added a layer filled with black, added a layer mask, then did an oval selection and feathered it by 100 pixels and deleted it. I then used a soft brush to touch up the mask to reveal the areas I wanted. I also cut the opacity of the black layer to 67 percent.

Nightski

RMM wrote:

A copy of the original is attached. The camera was tethered to my laptop. I was working from a black and white version I had created previously with some tweaks to the individual color channels.I added a layer filled with black, added a layer mask, then did an oval selection and feathered it by 100 pixels and deleted it. I then used a soft brush to touch up the mask to reveal the areas I wanted. I also cut the opacity of the black layer to 67 percent.

RMM, did you watch the video on how to take a completely dark background photo in broad daylight? It was pretty cool.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Nightski wrote:

RMM, did you watch the video on how to take a completely dark background photo in broad daylight? It was pretty cool.

Yes, I did. Only thing I couldn't figure out was how the two images were combined. Was that done in camera? Not all cameras can handle double-exposures.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

RMM wrote:

Yes, I did. Only thing I couldn't figure out was how the two images were combined. Was that done in camera? Not all cameras can handle double-exposures.

He didn't use the first photo. He used it to set his camera up. Then in the second shot he turned on the flash and shot with the flash. The camera exposed for the flash but the background was dark because it was exposed for the flash not the lesser light of the background.

Nightski

Yes, and this may not work indoors if the flash bounces off a light colored wall. Outside where he did it the light just keeps going with nowhere to bounce.

Judy, does this give you some ideas for foliage pics outdoors?

RMM, I like what you are going for here. Keep experimenting. It's great fun! :-)

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Nightski wrote:

Yes, and this may not work indoors if the flash bounces off a light colored wall. Outside where he did it the light just keeps going with nowhere to bounce.

Judy, does this give you some ideas for foliage pics outdoors?

RMM, I like what you are going for here. Keep experimenting. It's great fun! :-)

I have done a few like this outside. Here are some from an old post. I took these outdoors with a speed light and diffuser on camera.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-71138-1.html

This works good too for sunsets where you want the sunset brilliant and you want another object or person in front of it. You expose for the sunset then use the flash.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Country's Mama wrote:

He didn't use the first photo. He used it to set his camera up. Then in the second shot he turned on the flash and shot with the flash. The camera exposed for the flash but the background was dark because it was exposed for the flash not the lesser light of the background.

OK, I'm slapping myself on the head. DUH!!!

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

RMM wrote:

OK, I'm slapping myself on the head. DUH!!!

Don't hit yourself too hard. He wasn't super clear and if I didn't already understand what he was doing i might have been confused also.

PeterM Loc: Scio, NY

The BW is generally an improvement in tone and texture vs the color. However, the portrait is a failure. The first key element to a portrait is the eyes. And the second key element is .... the eyes. In your shot, the pupils are rolled up into the eyelid and there is no sense of spark or life. No intensity or identity.

National Geographic photographers are masters of this type of spontaneous portraiture - study their work. Then take a lot of shots of friends and family - and pets. See the eyes as windows to the soul.

Digital gives you immediate feedback and that's good. Time lag on digital cameras is not so good. Forget the post-processing stuff until you can see the portrait in advance and take the shot. The rest is easy. - Peter

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I find the monochrome version more compelling than the color one. I think the highlights are not high enough and would have brought them up. I would have increased the goatee detail and the whites of the eyes.

Having a sharper original would have been nicer. I did not download the picture but when I grew up in the 60's, we wanted to get rid of grain. Study Karsch for this kind of portrait.