# 4th of July with the new 5DM3



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 5, 2012)

In the spirit of environmental portraiture, breaking in the new 5D Mark III.  Edited in Lightroom.  C&C is always welcome.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 7, 2012)

Another from a different day.  Going for very different mood.


----------



## Beaner96 (Jul 7, 2012)

One and two are my favorites I don't really like the skin tone on number 3


----------



## Postman158 (Jul 7, 2012)

Number 3 is my favorite. Razor sharp!


----------



## janineh (Jul 8, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:
			
		

> Another from a different day.  Going for very different mood.



Prefer the edit of this one... The other colours are a bit strange.


----------



## rokvi (Jul 8, 2012)

Cute snaps. The colour is off in all of them #1&2 looks like it might have been done on purpose for creative purposes perhaps?  #3 looks like you slid the tint too much too the left, I'd say bring it back a tad so the skin looks more natural not a sickly green.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 8, 2012)

#1 and #2.. treatment is not attractive (IMO), way off.

#3 is much better, but could be improved. A bit warmer would be nice

I am assuming you do not calibrate your monitor?


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 8, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback.  #1-2 were processed for effect and I felt captured the mood of the moment.

I'm interested in more feedback on the color in #3.  I think the tone and expression convey a somber realism, that being the intent anyway.  I'm not sure if there is a difference between monitors but I do not see a green shift in the skin tone.  In fact, I had warmed it a considerable amount and given 5 points toward magenta.  Any more magenta and the skin definitely looks odd.  If anything, I'm only tempted to warm a little further.  Hmmm...


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 8, 2012)

And, I do not specifically calibrate my monitor.  I edited in ProPhoto RGB on an iMac 27" in native configuration.  Should that make too much of a difference among monitors?

Like I said, the color shift in #1-2 were a creative choice andI've received mixed feedback.  Some have really liked and others not so much.  I don't want the processing to make or break the image.  I'll have to give this more thought.

Thanks again.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 8, 2012)

Correction:  I made global and some brush adjustments in ProPhoto RGB in Lightroom 4.1 then went to Adobe RGB (1998) in PS CS5.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 8, 2012)

Okay, I made some subtle adjustments to the skin tones.  I think I prefer this version.  Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 8, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> And, I do not specifically calibrate my monitor.
> 
> Like I said, the color shift in #1-2 were a creative choice and I've received mixed feedback.  Some have really liked and others not so much.



Since you don't calibrate your monitor, I have no idea if you are seeing what I am.
In your mixed reviews, is there room for a 'holy saturation and color shift, Batman, this spoils everything.'


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 8, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> In your mixed reviews, is there room for a 'holy saturation and color shift, Batman, this spoils everything.'



As I said, I've received positive and negative feedback on the processing.  Here is a more conventional view for the haters.  I also cleaned up some distracting highlights and evened out the highlights and shadows on the subject's face.  I should have done that the first time around.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 8, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> * Here is a more conventional view for the haters!*



hmmmm.... sorry I tried to help. I won't do so again!    I will say that you need to consider who you got positive feedback from and who you got negative feedback from. Look at their experience in photography, knowledge of art, that sort of thing!   (and Facebook doesn't count.. or shouldn't! Really!)


----------



## gsgary (Jul 8, 2012)

Way too much saturation


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> hmmm.... sorry I tried to help. I won't do so again!



Lighten up, Francis.   If I didn't want feedback I wouldn't have asked.  I get that the saturated, cross processed look doesn't suit every sensibility.  The positive feedback from credible sources was within the context of a fun, alternative look.  YMMV

For a more serious take, how about the revised version?

gsgary, do you think the revision is too saturated as well?  The floaty and bathing suit are truly that vibrant.  I had to drop the saturation and raise the luminance to keep them from overpowering the scene. Much more and they will deviate too much from what I know to be true.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 8, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > SoonerBJJ said:
> ...



Francis?  (Ignored!)


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 8, 2012)

This has been an insightful exercise if for no other reason than to convince me that I need to calibrate my monitor.  Viewing the revision on a family member's monitor I'm noticing problem areas that I did not recognize on my own.

I'd like to get the wide pool view down just right.  I'm fairly content with the composition and technical aspects, but the processing has been a challenge.  I'll be back when I _think_ I've got it closer to where it needs to be.  Appreciate the input.


----------



## rokvi (Jul 8, 2012)

Honestly I don't think you need to get creative with colours. This photo tells a story. I see a cute, happy little girl who is having a blast in the pool with the family. I don't see a need to take away from that.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 8, 2012)

rokvi said:


> Honestly I don't think you need to get creative with colours. This photo tells a story. I see a cute, happy little girl who is having a blast in the pool with the family. I don't see a need to take away from that.



That's a good point.  Trying this again.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 9, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> rokvi said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly I don't think you need to get creative with colours. This photo tells a story. I see a cute, happy little girl who is having a blast in the pool with the family. I don't see a need to take away from that.
> ...




Still a lot of color, looks a bit like HDR


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 9, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Still a lot of color, looks a bit like HDR



And a heavy hand with the vignette slider.
There are blanched areas on her face and the colors overall look unnatural and pumped up.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 9, 2012)

Thanks for the detailed input.  I'm really having a difficult time with the face.  Her right eye and cheek fell in a shadow and there were bright spots on the bridge of the nose and under the left eye.  Specifically where your arrows are pointing.  I tried to burn those spots and keep uniform saturation, but as you point out that seems to have "blanched" those areas.  Perhaps I was too concerned with "creating" even lighting on the face?  Or, perhaps too heavy handed in my efforts to do so?

re: the colors.  The scene truly was that vibrant.  IIRC, I dropped the vibrance and saturation considerably.  I dropped saturation and raised luminance only slightly in the purple, magenta, red and orange channels.  I boosted the blues just a bit, but I'm guessing that isn't the problem area.  The purple floaty IS truly what you see.  The color and vibrance in the most recent revision truly reflects it's real appearance.  It is NOT boosted.

I added just a light brushing of saturation to the bushes at top left because they looked rather dull after I dropped global saturation and vibrance.  I went over the blue and green pool toys in the background with a heavy desaturation and burn brush to deemphasize them.

I have a tendency to get heavy handed with the vignette.  But with a colorful, busy background I thought in this case it would help direct focus toward the subject.  I gave additional burning to the fence and trees along the top edge.  Too much?

I gave a fair amount of contrast because the face and skin tones just seemed flat.  Perhaps, I had made them flat in my effort to even lighting on the face.  Then I was having to make up for that in contrast.  Taking a step back, maybe I was chasing my tail?

Thanks again for the ongoing feedback.  This is a learning process.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 9, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> re: the colors.  The scene truly was that vibrant.  IIRC, I dropped the vibrance and saturation considerably.  I dropped saturation and raised luminance only slightly in the purple, magenta, red and orange channels.  I boosted the blues just a bit, but I'm guessing that isn't the problem area.  The purple floaty IS truly what you see.  The color and vibrance in the most recent revision truly reflects it's real appearance.  It is NOT boosted.



This picture just looks way too worked.
It is a good example of a situation where someone perhaps could have shown you a better look rather than trying to get you to one with words.
Your insistence on two things:1) not calibrating your monitor so we don't know what you see and 2) not allowing editing, just short circuits a learning process.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 9, 2012)

I am not averse to others editing my images, I just prefer to have a say in when and by whom.  If you or any of those other folks participating in this critique want a go, have at it.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 9, 2012)

OK, how about posting a large original.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 9, 2012)

Here is a different look.






I'll get an original up, too.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 9, 2012)




----------



## rokvi (Jul 11, 2012)

I don't know, see what you think:


----------



## ainsleyyip (Jul 11, 2012)

This will be my version of editing =)


----------



## rokvi (Jul 11, 2012)

Ok this is where we need someone with a calibrated monitor, I see 3 different edits, all with different levels of brightness...


----------



## mishele (Jul 11, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> SoonerBJJ said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...








Great quote and great movie.....lol


----------



## ainsleyyip (Jul 11, 2012)

rokvi said:


> Ok this is where we need someone with a calibrated monitor, I see 3 different edits, all with different levels of brightness...



Is this better?


----------



## rokvi (Jul 11, 2012)

ainsleyyip said:


> rokvi said:
> 
> 
> > Ok this is where we need someone with a calibrated monitor, I see 3 different edits, all with different levels of brightness...
> ...



On my screen, yea.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

I appreciate the effort but I don't think those are any better than the two versions I've left above.  Other than a cute face there is nothing to draw the viewer into the main subject.  With uniform brightness the eye wanders around a cluttered scene and the skin tones are washed out against the background.  I think my versions did a better job of emphasizing the subject.  Cute snapshots but nothing more.  I think there is potential to do something more artistic with the image, but that probably falls in some middle ground between my original over saturated, shifted version and these relatively boring edits.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

ainsleyyip said:


> rokvi said:
> 
> 
> > Ok this is where we need someone with a calibrated monitor, I see 3 different edits, all with different levels of brightness...
> ...




Far better than the overprocessed originals that were posted!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 11, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> I appreciate the effort but I don't think those are any better than the two versions I've left above.  Other than a cute face there is nothing to draw the viewer into the main subject.  With uniform brightness the eye wanders around a cluttered scene and the skin tones are washed out against the background.  I think my versions did a better job of emphasizing the subject.  Cute snapshots but nothing more.  I think there is potential to do something more artistic with the image, but that probably falls in some middle ground between my original over saturated, shifted version and these relatively boring edits.



But there is a cluttered background with lots of things to attract the eye and her skin is uniformly lit because she was in the shade.
This is a pleasant family shot and no amount of 'something artistic' is going to make is much better.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:
			
		

> I appreciate the effort but I don't think those are any better than the two versions I've left above.


O rly?



> Other than a cute face there is nothing to draw the viewer into the main subject.  With uniform brightness the eye wanders around a cluttered scene and the skin tones are washed out against the background.


You are right. When a photo comes out of the camera as a snapshot, it will remain a snapshot. Still a nice memory though. 



> I think my versions did a better job of emphasizing the subject.


I don't. 



> Cute snapshots but nothing more.  I think there is potential to do something more artistic with the image, but that probably falls in some middle ground between my original over saturated, shifted version and these relatively boring edits.



Yes, cute snapshots. That's what they are, and should be enjoyed as such IMO.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> But there is a cluttered background with lots of things to attract the eye and her skin is uniformly lit because she was in the shade.
> This is a pleasant family shot and no amount of 'something artistic' is going to make is much better.




In my versions, the background doesn't appear nearly so cluttered and doesn't compete for the viewer's attention.  Darkening and slightly desaturating them relative to the subject does wonders.

And, she is in the shade but there is a distinct shadow cast across the left side of her face (camera left).

"Artistic" was probably overstated.  "Interesting" might have been a better choice.  If we agree that the originals were oversaturated, I think there is a middle ground that has more punch but keeps attractive, tasteful skin tones.

Thanks again for the input.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 11, 2012)

This picture, or any picture, does not become, as if by magic, interesting and charming and enjoyable by making the colors garish and otherwise beating the crap out of it with post-processing..

I think you have a blind spot here.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> This picture, or any picture, does not become, as if by magic, interesting and charming and enjoyable by making the colors garish and otherwise beating the crap out of it with post-processing..
> 
> I think you have a blind spot here.



Do you even read my posts?  I'm pretty sure I covered that already.

Funny, that you're the one that asked for the original and all you've offered since are one liners that fail to add anything constructive or insightful to this dialogue.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

"I don't think that any photograph should be only an exact reproduction of what's in front of the lens without any more emotion or content than that... There is no individuality or any personality that shines through.  Each picture... should bring with it some emotional impact, something that carries the viewer beyond the frame."

Sound familiar?  It should because those words are taken from your own website.

I have an _idea _of what I'm trying to express with the processing.  I probably haven't articulated it well enough here and I obviously haven't achieved it _yet_.

Maybe you should check your own blind spots before you go after mine.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > This picture, or any picture, does not become, as if by magic, interesting and charming and enjoyable by making the colors garish and otherwise beating the crap out of it with post-processing..
> ...



Funny.... in your very first post, I remember you called yourself a "motivated beginner" and asked for C&C!

 Lew is not a beginner... neither am I, nor is Tyler. Neither are some others who have commented about your choice of processing!

We are TRYING to give you advice... but you don't seem to understand that, or at least don't want to listen to it! All I can say is Good Luck with your photography!


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Lew is not a beginner... neither am I, nor is Tyler. Neither are some others who have commented about your choice of processing!
> 
> We are TRYING to give you advice... but you don't seem to understand that, or at least don't want to listen to it! All I can say is Good Luck with your photography!



With all due respect, you and I obviously have very different ideas of what makes an _interesting_ portrait.

So far the advice has basically been toward what amounts to an accurate, literal portrayal of the scene.  The submitted images reflect that ideal.  I am looking for something between literal and my overdone original.  You either get that, or you don't.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

I think I like this one best.  A far cry from the original, but also not a literal translation.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 11, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> So far the advice has basically been toward what amounts to an accurate, literal portrayal of the scene.  The submitted images reflect that ideal.  I am looking for something between literal and my overdone original.  You either get that, or you don't.



What I think you don't get is that sometimes the bad elements in a picture are so strong as to keep it from being elevated into something better. 
Looking at your original it is easy to number them. 


A main subject that is totally flatly underlit. 
The subject is encased in a large, vividly color flotation device whose color dwarfs that of anything else., a garish color item that takes up lots of attention 
The background is cluttered with objects and colors that draw the eye. 
This same background is illuminated with dappled light over a range from deep shadow to bright light, much of this at tonal values lighter than the subject and thus draw the eye. 
Any of these are difficult to overcome but expecting to make a memorable image from this starting point is unrealistic and magical thinking.

This is what I would do to make this look better
  rotated to get her upright - and the water flat - because there is no artistic reason for her or the water to be slanted.
  crop the picture to make her bigger and more important in the frame
  remove most of the eye-attracting items, color and dappled light in the background - and darken the background so she stands out from it.

and I'd end up with a pleasant but low contrast picture of a little girl - a family shot, for the memory books. One that you could look at and your eye stays with the subject.

All that other 'artistic' stuff you were doing didn't add anything because you didn't have the concepts of what makes pictures good and bad.
Your 'tries' are like a chef finding that his boullion is much too salty, throws in lots of other spices essentially at random in the hopes of making the soup better. 

Cameras, lenses and software need a person in the loop to make good pictures


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Lew is not a beginner... neither am I, nor is Tyler. Neither are some others who have commented about your choice of processing!
> ...



With all due respect, I recommend you try Instagram, Selective Color and Posterizing!!! You might like it!


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> What I think you don't get is that sometimes the bad elements in a picture are so strong as to keep it from being elevated into something better.
> Looking at your original it is easy to number them.
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for the specifics.

With my most recent version, I _think_ I addressed some of these issues.

-I brightened and evened the light on her face, but as you said there is only so much I can do with flat light.  I'm trying to learn how to _technically_ optimize what I've got, without destroying or rendering artificial the skin tones.
-I dropped saturation on the floatation device and bathing suit so that they might compete less with the face.  Again trying to optimize what I have to work with.
-I darkened and desaturated the background relative to the subject, such that I feel it directs attention back to the subject.

And re: leveling.  That bugged me from the start but I wasn't able to level without cutting off her hand at the wrist.  I believe you'll see that to be the case in your own edit.  That wasn't a tradeoff I was willing to accept.  Awkward cut at wrist vs angled horizon.

I am not new to capturing and composing images.  I have a pretty sound grasp of the technical side of photography and elements of composition, but I am extremely new to digital processing.  I have only started to tackle Photoshop within the last month or so.  Before that, I have been using only basic manipulations in Lightroom.  I may have an idea of what I want an image to be, but I don't yet have the technical know how to make it happen.  In that regard, I'm on the steep part of the curve and bound to make mistakes.  Such is life and learning...


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

And, BTW I did not take this photograph.  It would be difficult to take it from my position in the pool behind my daughter.  My wife snapped the pic and I cropped to where I thought it should be and embarked on this processing adventure.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 11, 2012)

So, in short, everything that is wrong, you saw and fixed (even better than I did cuz I cut off the hands) and, in fact, you weren't even responsible for the mistakes because your wife took the picture.
I got it.

Did she insist that you choose this image, edit it this way and then post it?

TBH, I don't think that anyone cares about the rationalizations. 
You slough off the efforts of those people trying to help you and try to reason your way back to being correct.
I don't think you'll have to deal with me any more.

Lew


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

Wow... you really do have thin skin, don't you?  I thought this was a dialogue rather than a lecture.  I didn't argue any of your points, I simply countered withhow I would attempt to address them.  If you consider that an affront, then perhaps you need to lighten up as well.

As far as I can see, you didn't make any effort with my image other than to straighten and crop it... cutting off the wrist in the process.  If you consider that a productive addition to this critique then I have given you far too much credit.

And, if you really think I'm blaming my wife for my efforts at processing then you are an even more pompous ass than I had been led to believe.  I'm not sure how else to address that.

I think I'll still sleep okay knowing you've written me off.


----------



## rokvi (Jul 11, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:


> Wow... you really do have thin skin, don't you?  I thought this was a dialogue rather than a lecture.  I didn't argue any of your points, I simply countered withhow I would attempt to address them.



"Counter" - Contrary; Opposing. One that is opposite.


"Argue" - To put forth reasons for or against; Debate.


Your right. You did counter.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 11, 2012)

Actually, you'll notice I used "counter" in its verb form.  There is a difference.


----------

