Captain

@vintagesnaps Please read my post #43 above "I'll revisit them again before printing". I really didn't want to get into defending my color/tone/hue choices at this point as I have a backlog of editing to do, but you seem intent on not letting it go, so I revisited image #1 of the set.

Not sure what you or others are viewing these on, (phone, tablet, calibrated monitor) or under what lighting conditions (Incandescent light, ambient light, etc) but as you know any of these factors can make a difference. For the record I use a calibrated monitor, in a light controlled room (led daylight cans), with no exterior windows. I use Nations as my lab, and soft proof images to their supplied color profiles prior to sending them. I don't use their color correction, and my return images are matching what I'm seeing on my screen. Finally web browsers and web servers can and do affect color, such that what you're looking at likely isn't the same as what I'm looking at in Ps.

Now as to my image. 18% Gray is defined in RGB as (128,128,128), there can be various shades, but until you get into the slate colors the red, green and blue are equal. Magenta is mixed by adding equal parts red and blue, and 0 parts green. Medium Purple is RGB (147,112,219). Caucasian skin is a duke's mixture of just about everything ranging from shades of gray to almost red, there is no definitive mixture because we are all different. Add in some environmental elements like smoke, lights, and processing and things can look different, but I repeat these were never meant to be exact replicas of the subjects.

Sampling the color average of the shadow just under the left eye of image 1, I got (42,35,38) CMYK (62%,72%,58%,58%) which puts it in a slate category with browns and greens, while a sample of the left cheek highlight revealed (211,197,194) and CMYK of (8%,19%,13%,0%) which falls well in a midrange for Caucasian skin. Typically I'd like to see the Magenta at closer to 27% and the yellow at closer to 32%, however considering the desaturation used as part of the processing the numbers don't surprise me and in any case, it's a far cry from having magenta or purple tones. The tip of the nose samples at RGB (184,175,173) and CMYK (19%, 25%,20%,0%) which tells me I could drop the Cyan just a tad, and up the Yellow, but no purple, magenta or gray tint there either. I didn't sample anything other then skin, but it wouldn't surprise me if the background had reds, purples, even magenta. After all I was pumping gray smoke onto the set, with a black background and firing a red gelled strobe.

Each person perceives color in two different ways, what they actually see and a learned environmental response. People's actual perception of color varies drastically. We also have certain universal environmental responses (things we've learned from experiences), that can trick the mind to see something different. IE: you know blood is red so you see it as red, despite what your eyes might register. FYI Blood is not RED, it's a medium dark shade of Red with an RGB of (138,3,3). Throw in things like different monitors, and different viewing circumstances and it becomes an even greater variable.

Color/tint/toning has long been recognized as a creative element, many people, including Dan and Derrel, who you mentioned earlier, have used same in their images. There's been times I haven't always agreed with their choice, but I always gave them the benefit of recognizing they made an informed decision and as the artist they have that right. Unfortunately I'm not sure I've gotten the same consideration here. As I've said over and over I appreciate critique, negative especially, as it helps me grow. I try my best to remember negative comments and evaluate them for changes I need to make. Bottom line, I don't dispute what you may or may not see, I can only say by the numbers and by my eyes, on my monitor, I'm not seeing the need to make the changes you suggest. Continuing to belabor the issue at this point is unlikely to change my mind. However, as I said earlier, if and when I send these to print, I will soft proof to the labs profile, and if I believe adjustments are necessary I will make them at that time.
 
If we didn't see potential or how fantastic it could be, I don't know if we'd bother with feedback.
This, 100%.

Despite all of the continued defensiveness, I'm going to stand behind my original perception that while I understand the idea of personal artistic choice, the skin tone still gives me "corpse". I'm viewing on a calibrated iMac 4K Retina display in a dimly lit room with no light sources bouncing off of my display, and my prints always match my display. My CC isn't anything personal, just a perception that was asked for. Color has a lot to do with the language of an image, and the color in these do not feel right.
 
Last edited:
@DanOstergren Despite what you might think, there is no defensiveness on my part, as I've said I value all critique, but once given, repeating the same over and over, does no good for anyone, especially where creative differences are involved. There's been several of yours that I didn't care for in one way or another, but didn't make it a point to dis them repeatedly. I can accept you don't like my images, that's fine, it's your prerogative, move on, as I am doing the same.
 
@DanOstergren Despite what you might think, there is no defensiveness on my part, as I've said I value all critique, but once given, repeating the same over and over, does no good for anyone, especially where creative differences are involved. There's been several of yours that I didn't care for in one way or another, but didn't make it a point to dis them repeatedly. I can accept you don't like my images, that's fine, it's your prerogative, move on, as I am doing the same.
You are taking my critique as a "dis" and bringing up images of mine that you don't like as a response to my critique. If you could be objective you might see the value in the echoed criticism from multiple skilled and accomplished photographers who responded with the same sentiment. There wasn't a single time that I said I disliked your images, and I have never said this. To the contrary I pointed out in my original critique that I did like them, and then repeated the sentiment by quoting the same message from vintagesnaps saying that we see the potential for something fantastic in these shots and wouldn't be taking the time to give our opinions if we didn't. My exact quote in my original critique was: "They're good shots; well lit, composed and conceptualized.", but thanks for responding by bringing up how there are several shots of mine that you dislike after I complimented yours, simply so you could rationalize your defensiveness over receiving the CC that you asked for but clearly didn't want to hear.

So please, tell me more about how you're not being defensive or dismissive.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be no point in bringing anything to the attention of the OP... apparently the numbers check out and the fault lies in our personal color sense or our devices...
 
You are taking my critique as a "dis"

I think the word used on two different occasions was "corpse".

If you could be objective you might see the value in the echoed criticism from multiple skilled and accomplished photographers who responded with the same sentiment.

I didn't say I didn't see value in anyone's comments negative or positive, nor did I say they were invalid. I said I'm not seeing it on my end, but will evaluate them prior to printing.
 
I think the word used on two different occasions was "corpse".
And so? Where is the offense?

You want honest critique but you can't take it.

I didn't say I didn't see value in anyone's comments negative or positive, nor did I say they were invalid. I said I'm not seeing it on my end, but will evaluate them prior to printing.
Bringing up the fact that you don't like some of my images as a response to my critique clearly implies that you aren't being objective and that you aren't taking the feedback as valid.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be no point in bringing anything to the attention of the OP... apparently the numbers check out and the fault lies in our personal color sense or our devices...

As I've said prior I respect your opinions, hope you feel the same toward me. Your comments were duly noted, but as to further discussions on the subject I see it descending into a nonproductive online argument.
 
I agree, and there will be no further discussion from me. It is apparent that your mind is made up, and that you are pretty sure of your position. I can assure you there will be no more attempts on my part to dissuade you from your position.
 
Last edited:
Im way late to this party but I'll throw in my 2 pence.

I feel like these are a little on the "cool" end of the spectrum, which is usually my preference for portraits anyway, so no big deal there.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am viewing these on my phone from work but I'll take a look from home when I get off shift.

Pose wise I like #1 and #2.
I find the hand in the others, despite holding the axe, is more distracting than the ax more off screen in #2. I guess i just feel it looks cleaner.
#1 is definitely the winner of the bunch though.
 
Im way late to this party but I'll throw in my 2 pence.

I feel like these are a little on the "cool" end of the spectrum, which is usually my preference for portraits anyway, so no big deal there.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am viewing these on my phone from work but I'll take a look from home when I get off shift.

Pose wise I like #1 and #2.
I find the hand in the others, despite holding the axe, is more distracting than the ax more off screen in #2. I guess i just feel it looks cleaner.
#1 is definitely the winner of the bunch though.


Thanks man. I struggled with the axe and still don't have a clue which works better.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top