# Black and white portrait



## o hey tyler (May 20, 2013)

Played around with some 35mm black and white film for an impromtu photoshoot. Cropped slightly in LR. 







I apologize for the facebook quality. 

Any critiques are welcome.


----------



## runnah (May 20, 2013)

I like it. I am struck by the fact that the dark side of the face is facing the camera and the bright side is facing away. It's different.

It also has that nice feel to it that only film can add.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 20, 2013)

Thanks fellow Maine friend. Are you struck in a good or bad way regarding the light?


----------



## kathyt (May 20, 2013)

I really like it. The contrast is perfectly fitting for his expression. I think the way you lit this works very well.


----------



## kundalini (May 20, 2013)

runnah said:


> I like it. I am struck by the fact that the dark side of the face is facing the camera and the bright side is facing away. It's different.


Often refered to as Short Lighting. Particularly flattering for heavy set or round faced people due to its slimming effect.

Nicely done Tyler. :thumbsup:


----------



## o hey tyler (May 20, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I really like it. The contrast is perfectly fitting for his expression. I think the way you lit this works very well.



Thank you Kathy, I appreciate it! 



kundalini said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I like it. I am struck by the fact that the dark side of the face is facing the camera and the bright side is facing away. It's different.
> ...



Thanks to you as well Kundalini. He isn't particularly heavyset or round faced but I liked the way it worked.


----------



## runnah (May 20, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Thanks fellow Maine friend. Are you struck in a good or bad way regarding the light?



In a good way, it's different.


----------



## michael9000000 (May 20, 2013)

I'm a fan...  I think it's a very bold and striking image.


----------



## kundalini (May 20, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> He isn't particularly heavyset or round faced but I liked the way it worked.



True that, just throwing out the info for those that might want to know about lighting patterns.  I'm guilty as most for not employing the pattern enough.  It can be quite effective, as you have demonstrated.


----------



## amolitor (May 20, 2013)

I'm a guy who loves the inky pools of darkness as much as anyone, so I am kind of back and forth on the right side of his face. Letting it go to flat black works, I think, but I think a little more texture in the shadow would work better. I assume that the negative has a great deal more shadow detail and that this is a scanning artifact or a JPEG artifact of something.

There's also something a bit weird with his eyes, I can't quite put my finger on it. He looks slightly corpse-like for some reason I cannot articulate. Since I have no idea why the eyes look like that to me, I can't speak to whether it's a photographic thing, or if he just has a touch of cataracts or whatever.

These are, obviously, pretty minor quibbles. It's a nice picture.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 20, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I'm a guy who loves the inky pools of darkness as much as anyone, so I am kind of back and forth on the right side of his face. Letting it go to flat black works, I think, but I think a little more texture in the shadow would work better. I assume that the negative has a great deal more shadow detail and that this is a scanning artifact or a JPEG artifact of something.
> 
> There's also something a bit weird with his eyes, I can't quite put my finger on it. He looks slightly corpse-like for some reason I cannot articulate. Since I have no idea why the eyes look like that to me, I can't speak to whether it's a photographic thing, or if he just has a touch of cataracts or whatever.
> 
> These are, obviously, pretty minor quibbles. It's a nice picture.



Thank you Andrew for the thoughtful feedback. You have some good points. I can't tell you what the deal with his eyes is though.


----------



## runnah (May 20, 2013)

I am more impressed that you found a black guy in Maine.


----------



## KrisztinaK (May 20, 2013)

I can't put my finger on what it is about this portrait that I like so much, but I just wanted to tell you that I really like it.   

I think it's the combination of his expression and the lighting, they really do complement each other.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 20, 2013)

KrisztinaK said:


> I can't put my finger on what it is about this portrait that I like so much, but I just wanted to tell you that I really like it.
> 
> I think it's the combination of his expression and the lighting, they really do complement each other.



Thank you Krisztina! Glad you like it.


----------



## KmH (May 20, 2013)

I like the light. I would have had him tilt his head down a tad from the neck, and then lean forward from the waist just a bit.
That would give a bit more regal looking pose. As it is, the head position looks disdainful, or haughty.

I've always liked short lighting.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 20, 2013)

Thanks for the suggestions on posing Keith. I'll have to give that a try next time I'm shooting males.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

runnah said:


> I am more impressed that you found a black guy in Maine.



I once dated a nice black girl from Madawaska. 

Yeah dude, UP IN THE COUNTY.


----------



## amolitor (May 21, 2013)

I think I've figured out why I find his eyes uncomfortable. There's very little separation between the pupil and the iris, because his iris is so dark. Maybe it gives me the idea that his pupils are wildly dilated or something.

i think the separation is there, it's just very hard to see in this copy of the picture.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think I've figured out why I find his eyes uncomfortable. There's very little separation between the pupil and the iris, because his iris is so dark. Maybe it gives me the idea that his pupils are wildly dilated or something.
> 
> i think the separation is there, it's just very hard to see in this copy of the picture.



I personally don't get that vibe but I can understand and see what you mean. Maybe I can attempt a rescan and see if I can improve upon it.


----------



## Granddad (May 21, 2013)

I like it lots, nice work. Anything you do to it from here on will be tweaking to get the best out of a good shot. If it were me I'd see how bringing out a little more texture on the dark side of his face looks but that would be totally an eyeball job and very subjective. :thumbup:


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

Granddad said:


> I like it lots, nice work. Anything you do to it from here on will be tweaking to get the best out of a good shot. If it were me I'd see how bringing out a little more texture on the dark side of his face looks but that would be totally an eyeball job and very subjective. :thumbup:



Thanks for the feedback Granddad!


----------



## Mach0 (May 21, 2013)

I like it man.


----------



## Big Mike (May 21, 2013)

> I like it. I am struck by the fact that the dark side of the face is facing the camera and the bright side is facing away. It's different.


As mentioned, that is "short" lighting.  It works well to make people look slimmer because it lights a smaller portion of the head.  The opposite is "broad" lighting, where the light comes from the other side and basically lights up the whole head and some of the face.
Short lighting is also the style that lights up the 'mask' of a person's face...as opposed to lighting their head.  So it's probably not as 'different' as you might think.  
It really stands out in this portrait because of the deep ratio.  The shadows are very dark compared to the lit side of the face, so the lighting pattern pops out at you.  

I agree that the eyes could use a bit more exposure.  

Well Done.


----------



## ktan7 (May 21, 2013)

Not too bad for one light setup! Good work.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> > I like it. I am struck by the fact that the dark side of the face is facing the camera and the bright side is facing away. It's different.
> 
> 
> As mentioned, that is "short" lighting.  It works well to make people look slimmer because it lights a smaller portion of the head.  The opposite is "broad" lighting, where the light comes from the other side and basically lights up the whole head and some of the face.
> ...



Thanks Mike. 

I made a few adjustments per the suggestions... 

Before: 







After


----------



## runnah (May 21, 2013)

Much better, did you rescan or tweak?


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

I just saw what I could do within the realm of lightroom, if it came to it I could rescan.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (May 21, 2013)

What roll did you use dude?


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

Expired Tri-X 400 that I found.


----------



## jowensphoto (May 21, 2013)

RESCAN, RESCAN, RESCAN!


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

I may, if I have time later. Also, almost 9k posts. Huzzah.


----------



## jowensphoto (May 21, 2013)

Are there anymore levels after Junkie?


----------



## ronlane (May 21, 2013)

I think you need to reshoot the whole thing. I mean, if you can' produce a better b&w than that, maybe you just need to send me the camera and give up.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

jowensphoto said:


> Are there anymore levels after Junkie?



Only TPF-Rehab In-Patient



ronlane said:


> I think you need to reshoot the whole thing. I mean, if you can' produce a better b&w than that, maybe you just need to send me the camera and give up.



Alright, PM me your address bud.


----------



## ronlane (May 21, 2013)

Done  :hug::


----------



## ronlane (May 21, 2013)

Well since I'm one post away from 1800 (isn't that a good tequila?) Why not make it 1800 on Tyler's thread.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Well since I'm one post away from 1800 (isn't that a good tequila?) Why not make it 1800 on Tyler's thread.



Good point. Why not? It's the best thread to make it in.


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 21, 2013)

Nice job, he looks like Don Cheadle.


----------



## runnah (May 21, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> Nice job, he looks like Don Cheadle.



I was going to say Tim Meadows.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> Nice job, he looks like Don Cheadle.



Thanks Joe. I'm a big fan of the Cheade.


----------



## runnah (May 21, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> > Nice job, he looks like Don Cheadle.
> ...



We can't be friends anymore if you don't like tim meadows.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

runnah said:


> We can't be friends anymore if you don't like tim meadows.



I like Tim meadows but I appreciate Dons acting prowess more.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

Surprised Andy hasn't come back to comment on the changes I made per his suggestions.


----------



## jwbryson1 (May 21, 2013)

I like this shot but, as an amateur photographer, I question why you don't have more light on the left side of his face.  I understand the short lighting but his face blends into such darkness that you lose all detail.  I'm not a pro, but it's my understanding that you should get a good jaw line when lit properly.  To me, that would mean that the left side of his face could use more light.

What am I missing?


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> I like this shot but, as an amateur photographer, I question why you don't have more light on the left side of his face.  I understand the short lighting but his face blends into such darkness that you lose all detail.  I'm not a pro, but it's my understanding that you should get a good jaw line when lit properly.  To me, that would mean that the left side of his face could use more light.
> 
> What am I missing?



Did you check out the rework of the original? Just curious. I brought out some more detail on the darker side. 

I thought the jaw line was pretty visible, but I suppose that's subjective. He did ask for a "dark and dirty" use of light. So I went with what he asked.


----------



## amolitor (May 22, 2013)

Huh? What? Oh!

Sorry. My world view is crumbling, I thought you were an ignorant troglodyte who could take pretty good pictures but THEN I learn that you recognize the superiority of naan. So now I don't know what to think. I no longer recognize this world as comprehensible.

Anyways. Yes, nice changes. Subtle but I think they distinctlY make it better, and it was good before. So.


----------



## jwbryson1 (May 22, 2013)

I had not seen the rework until this morning.  Subtle edits but I think it makes a big difference.  Very good stuff.


----------



## runnah (May 22, 2013)

That made the texture really pop.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Huh? What? Oh!
> 
> Sorry. My world view is crumbling, I thought you were an ignorant troglodyte who could take pretty good pictures but THEN I learn that you recognize the superiority of naan. So now I don't know what to think. I no longer recognize this world as comprehensible.
> 
> Anyways. Yes, nice changes. Subtle but I think they distinctlY make it better, and it was good before. So.



I still am an ignorant troglodyte who can take pretty good pictures. That certainly hasn't changed, however my appreciation for Naan is in the public eye. 

Thanks Andy, JayDee and Joggah. Glad you like the rework.


----------

