Chimp (Zoo shot)

[jlo24141]

I fell pretty good about this one, so any CC on the image would be appreciated! I'd like to know if I have missed anything.

 

[cgipson1]

Looks to me like it needs some additional tonal range, and contrast. And why horizontal? All that dead space adds little to the shot..

 

[timor]

^^^ Charlie is right. On both accounts. Plus I don't like too much pictures of zoo animals, they never look happy and mostly they are in wrong settings. Chimpanzee is a jungle animal not a grassland.

 

[bsr126]

Why is the picture in Black and white.

 

[TATTRAT]

Why is the picture in Black and white.

Because OP was asking in another thread how his B&W conversions were doing.

I think charlie hit it spot on, and prefer his edit on this.

 

[nola.ron]

Edit is much better. Agreed on original dead space and the subject being flat.

 

[jlo24141]

I like the tonal range and contrast in the edit- what did you do there?
but- I'm gonna have to disagree with everyone on the crop.

 

[cgipson1]

I like the tonal range and contrast in the edit- what did you do there?
but- I'm gonna have to disagree with everyone on the crop.

Really? Care to explain why you think the dead space adds to the shot? Especially when it is just grass? Please feel free to give a detailed explanation... I cam curious as to why so many beginners seem to find this format attractive (I suspect it is a Facebook thing... reinforcing it over and over))

 

[jlo24141]

I simply find it more appealing... Why is horizontal orientation a raw nerve on this site?

 

[cgipson1]

I simply find it more appealing... Why is horizontal orientation a raw nerve on this site?

Simply find it more appealing? No qualitative data or objective reason? Can you explain why you find it more appealing?

One of the most common reasons not to shoot this way , is that normally when photographing a subject... the subject is the most important part of the image. When one adds dead space (that contributes nothing to the subject or the image) it detracts from the subject. Unless the background adds to the shot, why de-emphasize the subject with unneeded ugly background?

I saw this type of shot get popular back in the MWAC explosion, where you had massive numbers of untrained, barely adequate "AUTO Pros" shooting babies and infants like this, and posting them all over the internet (facebook). And since beginners are just that... BEGINNERS.. they emulate what they see, whether it has merit or not.

Some good Pro's / artists have used this format successfully, but they use it in a meaningful manner: where the background compliments the subject / or provides context for the image.

 

[jlo24141]

^That's good CC. I will take that into consideration in the future.

But- what did you do to the tones and contrast? Do you look at a histogram when you make these changes or do you have another method?

 

[cgipson1]

^That's good CC. I will take that into consideration in the future.

But- what did you do to the tones and contrast? Do you look at a histogram when you make these changes or do you have another method?

I just increased brightness a bit, and added contrast... nothing major. There isn't a formula, if that is what you are asking. I just set it to what I like (which has been developing and changing over the past 37 years or so)! Sorry I can't be more helpful...

 

[Designer]

Why is horizontal orientation a raw nerve on this site?

Horizontal format is not a raw nerve, but when it is inappropriately used it fairly screams at us.

I've seen plenty of excellent portraits in horizontal format, but in each case it is appropriately applied.

 

[jlo24141]

I just increased brightness a bit, and added contrast... nothing major. There isn't a formula, if that is what you are asking. I just set it to what I like (which has been developing and changing over the past 37 years or so)! Sorry I can't be more helpful...

Nope, that was helpful enough