stop . . . turban time!

[CLC]

Ever hear of mergers? They are like the most basic part of photography.... and i think a square crop would just lead to bad mergers.... Unless you are talking about just a crop arround the eyes?
And I have never heard of an image looking "Digital"

I stand by what I said. Of course you have the right not to agree. I took the image above and did it. The result is out standing. As soon as you crop the image as I mention above, you will find that it is most beautifully proportioned according to the golden section. Obviously the photographer did not do it on purpose but it happened. I would be more than happy to post the result here if the owner of image agrees to it.

Now, as for "too digital". Yes. The difference is tonal. It is obviously a desaturated image, as opposed to a real BW conversion. I do not need to explain the difference for it is obvious that you are very knowledgeable about photography.

Sorry if I offended anyone, I just think that this image has so much more potential than the way it is right now. But it is not my image. The owner decides what it should be. But it won't hurt him to at least try what I proposed. And see what he likes best.

All the best

 

[ScottS]

I stand by what I said. Of course you have the right not to agree. I took the image above and did it. The result is out standing. As soon as you crop the image as I mention above, you will find that it is most beautifully proportioned according to the golden section. Obviously the photographer did not do it on purpose but it happened. I would be more than happy to post the result here if the owner of image agrees to it.

Now, as for "too digital". Yes. The difference is tonal. It is obviously a desaturated image, as opposed to a real BW conversion. I do not need to explain the difference for it is obvious that you are very knowledgeable about photography.

Sorry if I offended anyone, I just think that this image has so much more potential than the way it is right now. But it is not my image. The owner decides what it should be. But it won't hurt him to at least try what I proposed. And see what he likes best.

All the best

Im curious to hear what a real B&W conversion is. I know i use the desaturated tool for all of my images ( its the only way i know to get the color out ) But then i go and do some channel mixing and such....

What would you suggest?

 

[ScottS]

lol, am I the only one who thinks this is a joke?

Rob, I thought all of your pictures at first were a joke...lol

 

[CLC]

The channel mixing is one step above "Desaturate". I'm not here to give a seminar on BW photography, but so you'll know, the problem with Desaturate is that it gives equal weight to all three channels (red, green, and blue), thus rendering the image "too digital".

In starting into BW photography the first thing that one should do is learn and apply the Zone System. The second thing is realize that color is BW.

For more I charge by the hour.

All the best

 

[ScottS]

The channel mixing is one step above "Desaturate". I'm not here to give a seminar on BW photography, but so you'll know, the problem with Desaturate is that it gives equal weight to all three channels (red, green, and blue), thus rendering the image "too digital".

In starting into BW photography the first thing that one should do is learn and apply the Zone System. The second thing is realize that color is BW.

For more I charge by the hour.

All the best

Ok well i said it wrong... I use the channel mixer, and use the monochrome selection. Then you can play with the RBG channels and make it look good. But I agree with the fact the the "desaturate" tool does just what you say.

 

[Jeepnut28]

The channel mixing is one step above "Desaturate". I'm not here to give a seminar on BW photography, but so you'll know, the problem with Desaturate is that it gives equal weight to all three channels (red, green, and blue), thus rendering the image "too digital".

In starting into BW photography the first thing that one should do is learn and apply the Zone System. The second thing is realize that color is BW.

For more I charge by the hour.

All the best

i thought we were all here to help each other?

 

[ScottS]

The channel mixing is one step above "Desaturate". I'm not here to give a seminar on BW photography, but so you'll know, the problem with Desaturate is that it gives equal weight to all three channels (red, green, and blue), thus rendering the image "too digital".

In starting into BW photography the first thing that one should do is learn and apply the Zone System. The second thing is realize that color is BW.

For more I charge by the hour.

All the best

What? Isn't that like saying frosting is cake?

 

[CLC]

i thought we were all here to help each other?

Isn't that what i'm doing?

Here's what I would do.

 

[CLC]

and here's the golden section divisions

 

[ScottS]

Isn't that what i'm doing?

Here's what I would do.

Hmm... .Well, there are a few problems, ( the crop doesn't look as bad as i thought it would ) mainly the fact that the whites of the eyes got totally blown out, and she ( i she is a she ) looks like she has acne and a dirty face instead of freckles...

 

[Jeepnut28]

looks like a flash bulb hit her square between the eyes.....the first conversion is better, but your crop is better.

 

[CLC]

Like i told the owner of the image, it should be done very carefully. I did this fast, and not really worked on the true BW. All i did is boost the mid from his original Desaturated image. If I were to actually work on that image to get it portfolio ready, it would take me longer, and i would have to work with the original color image. This is just so he has an idea of what this image could be. It is a great picture. Notice how it falls perfectly into the golden proportion, in a mona lisa kind of way. Composition is everything in photography, at least to me, and this square image is beautifully composed.

Now, imagine this, blown to 20x20, mounted, framed, and hanged. :hail:

 

[ScottS]

One could also claim the rule of thirds on the original photo.

 

[Alpha]

I agree with the square crop.

I disagree with the edit. For starters it's not a Zone edit. Some of the forehead is squarely in zone 9 (check the PS densitometer...it reads 0% black). You're supposed to stay the hell out of detail-less zones if you can help it. More importantly, by zone convention, I believe the edit is actually backward. While I agree that more tone variation in the skin is important, the vast majority of the image is the "turban," which is in shadow, but is flat. The histogram confirms that its gray values are all lumped together in a narrow range. The processing ought to emphasize greater tone range especially in the "turban."

 

[CLC]

One could also claim the rule of thirds on the original photo.

The "rule" of third is not a rule at all. It is an approximation of the golden section. There is no substitute for the real thing, unless of course, approximation is what you are looking for.