# stop . . . turban time!



## Redmonk (Jan 15, 2008)




----------



## Lorielle99 (Jan 15, 2008)

lovely quality. and i love the freckles.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jan 15, 2008)

Beautiful....assuming that's a girl

very nice shot.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Jan 15, 2008)

Wow.  Nice detail.


----------



## The Phototron (Jan 16, 2008)

Nice, I just wish that the hood isn't so wrinkled.


----------



## kevinblahh (Jan 16, 2008)

good detail


----------



## Lyncca (Jan 16, 2008)

Wow, I love everything about this.


----------



## danir (Jan 16, 2008)

Very good.

Dani


----------



## rob91 (Jan 16, 2008)

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


----------



## Amnesic (Jan 16, 2008)

It seems like its a joke with the title and all.  The shot looks very professional though so if the op did take it then its a great shot.


----------



## Redmonk (Jan 17, 2008)

joke?

i dont know if you think i didnt take it, but i did


----------



## CLC (Jan 17, 2008)

Good vision you had there. Two things I would change about this image.

1- Boost the mid so it looks less digital. But be very careful there because the image is dark to start with.

2- You have a composition problem. This image should be square and not rectangle. I would keep the width and make the height the same by cropping from the bottom up. This will eliminate the distracting components in the lower part of the image, put the subject (the eyes) in the middle of the image which the square format will accentuate,  and it will live the vertical division off centered to a satisfying proportion. 

I would do it and it post it here to compare if you would agree to it.

All the best,


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

CLC said:


> Good vision you had there. Two things I would change about this image.
> 
> 1- Boost the mid so it looks less digital. But be very careful there because the image is dark to start with.
> 
> ...


 
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"


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

I like the photo by the way!!!


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 17, 2008)

I'm no expert, but I don't think that would be considered a turban.  More likely what we westerns might call a Hijab...(veil or scarf).


----------



## CLC (Jan 17, 2008)

ScottS said:


> 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 (Jan 17, 2008)

CLC said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

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 (Jan 17, 2008)

rob91 said:


> 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 (Jan 17, 2008)

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 (Jan 17, 2008)

CLC said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Jan 17, 2008)

CLC said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

i thought we were all here to help each other?


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

CLC said:


> 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*.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## CLC (Jan 17, 2008)

Jeepnut28 said:


> i thought we were all here to help each other?



Isn't that what i'm doing?

Here's what I would do.


----------



## CLC (Jan 17, 2008)

and here's the golden section divisions


----------



## ScottS (Jan 17, 2008)

CLC said:


> 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 (Jan 17, 2008)

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


----------



## CLC (Jan 17, 2008)

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 (Jan 17, 2008)

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


----------



## Alpha (Jan 18, 2008)

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 (Jan 18, 2008)

ScottS said:


> 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.


----------



## CLC (Jan 18, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> 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."



I agree that you disagree. Like i said 2 times before (please read posts), it is just so he gets the idea. Kind of hard, see nearly impossible, to work from the desaturated image above with an histogram that is blown out in the blacks and completely flat in the white. So for the 3rd time all i did is boost the mid (between the black and the whites in the histogram), from the original desaturated image which give equal weight to all 3 channels.
The purpose of my edit was to show him optimal image composition according to the golden section, and like you said, more tone variation.

It is an old wives' tale that you are supposed to stay "the hell out of detail less zone". Solid Black and solid white or full on shadows and highlights are acceptable if you can justify it. Stating otherwise is being narrow minded and limiting creativity. Photography is an art, and as an artist, it is entirely up to me to use or not use solid white or black as long as I can justify it. Zone 0 = solid maximum black 000 in rgb, zone 9 = solid white 255 255 255 in rgb. both part of the zone system to be USE by the artist, including the inventor of the zone, the great Ansel Adams.

Now, like i said before, in order for me to prep that image for a show or a porfolio, I would have to work with the original color image in order to figure out exactly what to do. I don't even know what color is the turban. Lets assume it is red, i would then have a lot options for the BW conversion just by adding a colored filter with more or less transparency in order to get a rendering in BW of the turban that would go from white to black. Surely you know that. It's one of the first thing i learned when first starting in Photography 23 years ago.

All the best,


----------



## Cappahayden (Jan 18, 2008)

I thought, and everything I've seen in regards to the "golden section" in relation to photography places the main subject, (the eyes) on one of the four lines, not in between them. Otherwise you wouldn't really need to employ the "golden rule" you could just put the main point of interest smack dab in the middle??? Eyes in my opinion should *just about* always be in the top third of any portrait. Like I said JMO.


----------



## Amnesic (Jan 18, 2008)

What about like this?


----------

