I'm not terribly fond of this conversion or the exposure, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what it's missing. I did very little PP on this except for a small amount of sharpening and a warming filter. This was the actual image as taken from my D200. I had the camera in B&W mode (for the first time), so this image does not have a color counter-part. I was trying to see how the D200's B&W mode looked compared to some color conversions I have done.

Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks!

My comments below are not a criticism of you, your subject/model, or your talent.
I offer them in a friendly 'voice' and with the sole intent of helping you.

The exposure seems right for a shadow.

You did photograph a face in a shadow. So....what would one expect? Or, how did you expect it to look any different?

You did get a nice expression in the image.

Steady Hand wrote:
The exposure seems right for a shadow.

You did photograph a face in a shadow. So....what would one expect? Or, how did you expect it to look any different?

Great! I'm relatively new to looking at my pictures critically, so I was worried that the exposure was a little off. Glad to know those worries were unfounded. Thanks for your comments!

I would get rid of the dark area above his head, and fix the one tooth. Like steady said, you exposed well for the shadow side.

I think it's under-exposed. (IMHO.)
And the orange-cast of the sky looks odd to me.
I would probably expose closer to this example... (of course, highlights are blown out here, but his face seems more "out of the shadows.")
One option would've been to use a reflector to get some light bouncing back on his face.
Good luck!

I tend to agree with Carrol. Bumping up the exposure on the face and addind some contrast so the side of the head doesn't get lost in the wash out helps it.

If you had to do it over, what would you do? That's something I ask myself a lot... Answer that and you'll find what you think is missing.

AL

The things which attract a viewer in a photo with a face in it are: the eyes, the mouth, what contrasts most with the background. In your photo the eyes are barely visible and the while the head is contrasting somewhat with the background the light on the front of the face is too flat and dark to compel much attention.

The difference perceptually between you looking at the face and I is that you have a stored 3D memory of the face in your brain from seeing it in person, I don't and must rely on the clues provided by tonal variation to discern shape.

The edit below shows about how it would have looked if taken with fill flash over the lens on a bracket with a downward direction and modeling with highlights on the raised parts and shadows on the lower ones. I also darkened the background a bit for better contrast with the lightened face (done in shooting by increased shutter speed), and lightened the sweater as it would be with more flash. The zipper was sharper than the eyes, indicating back focus, which I compensated for by selectively sharpening the eyes and blurring the sweater a bit. I added catchlights to the eyes to make them more noticeable, about what you'd get with the diffusers I use.

adlook wrote:
I tend to agree with Carrol. Bumping up the exposure on the face and addind some contrast so the side of the head doesn't get lost in the wash out helps it.

Great points Carrol and AL. Thanks!!


adlook wrote:
If you had to do it over, what would you do? That's something I ask myself a lot... Answer that and you'll find what you think is missing.

I'd have used my dang flash...

cgardner wrote:
The things which attract a viewer in a photo with a face in it are: the eyes, the mouth, what contrasts most with the background. In your photo the eyes are barely visible and the while the head is contrasting somewhat with the background the light on the front of the face is too flat and dark to compel much attention.

The difference perceptually between you looking at the face and I is that you have a stored 3D memory of the face in your brain from seeing it in person, I don't and must rely on the clues provided by tonal variation to discern shape.

Superb comments! Thank you very much. I'm very much still in the learning phase, so comments like these and everyone else's have been very helpful.

cgardner wrote:
The edit below shows about how it would have looked if taken with fill flash over the lens on a bracket with a downward direction and modeling with highlights on the raised parts and shadows on the lower ones. I also darkened the background a bit for better contrast with the lightened face (done in shooting by increased shutter speed), and lightened the sweater as it would be with more flash. The zipper was sharper than the eyes, indicating back focus, which I compensated for by selectively sharpening the eyes and blurring the sweater a bit. I added catchlights to the eyes to make them more noticeable, about what you'd get with the diffusers I use.

I really like how you have adjusted the pic. I never noticed the back focus, but then again, I did sharpen the image in post, so perhaps that's where the perceived focus issue came from. I actually have a LumiQuest 80-20 bouncer plus their Promax system. I just assumed it was best suited for use indoors and never gave it any thought about using the bouncer outdoors. I'll use it for sure next time. I don't have a bracket, but even without one, I think the results would have been much better.

cgardner wrote:
There's really nothing important beyond the width of his shoulders so that's where I cropped it so the curves lead up the face and then nothing distracts from it.

Good points about the background. For family and friends, they would recgonize the background and probably be less distracted by it. But for the unfamiliar viewer, I can see how that could be distracting. I'll keep that in mind from now on.

cgardner wrote:
Also realize that a white border surrounded by the dark page of the forum overpowers the content of the photo skewing perception.

Never considered this either. But, I'm not sure tht I totally understand the issue. Not that I dismiss it at all, I just don't get the "perception skewing" thing.

[qoute]
cgardner wrote:
Also realize that a white border surrounded by the dark page of the forum overpowers the content of the photo skewing perception.

Never considered this either. But, I'm not sure tht I totally understand the issue. Not that I dismiss it at all, I just don't get the "perception skewing" thing.


Here's an analogy... You are driving a night down a road. You can see fine through the windshield. But then you encounter an oncoming car with its high-beams blasting at you.

What happens to your ability to see where you are going?

Same thing if you take a dark background photo and surround it with a white border. The glare blinds you. The pupils of your eyes react to the brightness in the field of vision and you loose the ability to see some of the darker shadow detail.

Just take photo and try white, middle gray, dark gray and black mats around it and compare how it affects you perception of the photo. When I mat a photo when framing or in Photoshop for display I pick the color /tone mat and mat size which my eye tells me provides the best balance. Not equal balance, but rather one which naturally pulls the eye of the viewer into the photo and holds it there. For example, see how I edited and matted the photo in this thread: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/632229/0#5601200

BTW - if you use the Lumiquest outdoors add the insert that bounces all the light forward because there is nothing to bounce the 80% off of.