ulrikft2 wrote:
Great portrait philber! Love it

+1

lovely portrait Philber.

Philber,

Outstanding Portrait - I love the subtle color tones - the Zeiss lenses really complement your style.

VladiD wrote:
Outstanding images prashant, the first one is particularly excellent. I need to utilize my 50 1.4 Planar more.
Thanks VladiD.
And do post them here !!

nice photos.

erichard wrote:
My apologies for working someone else's photo, but I see a lot here in Alt. that could be a bit enhanced in PP, ....

As long as you have received permission from Philber and Rick prior to reworking and posting their photo.

I didn't, but glad to take them down if it's a problem. Not a big deal. Some seem to get touchy about this, and most don't. Personally, if someone has a better or different take on a photo of mine, I'd like to hear it, as I'm always looking to improve or widen my horizons. The other point I'd make is, that rather just saying the portrait was underexposed, as a negative, why not just demonstrate how nice it could be in a photo. A lot of my photos come back like the Indian gent, as I didn't have a flash handy or wouldn't use one in any case, and you're just kind of stuck exposing for the background or the subject. But, they can often times become the real keepers. Personally for me, it's not worth the trouble to go through permissions, etc., as it takes time even to do the PP. But like I said, if the forum votes thumbs down on it, so be it.

One other thing to think about is, generally, if you are shooting alt, chances are you aspire more to "fine art" outcomes rather than photos just for memories sake. We are looking for edge to edge detail, etc. This goes beyond non alt photos generally speaking. My opinion is, you can't really get into the "fine art" realm without taking that unsculpted RAW image and working it. The camera makers purposefully make the RAW image unmodified so that advanced photographers can manipulate them from the ground up. A raw image is meant to be manipulated, as they were never intended to be left unsharpened, etc. Bottom line, I think to get where Alt folks want to go, PP is a requirement that is worth pursuing, maybe even more than acquiring a $2000 Leica, etc.

But maybe I should restrict it to those welcoming criticism under the photos, which I occasionally see.

Erichard,

I like the pp you did on my Lighthouse - I usually wait til I print to kick things up a bit depending on type of that paper I am using. As far as Philber's portrait - I liked his version better - in my opinion the "mystery" of the scene was in the softer color tones.

Rick

Rick, I liked your version, and then I was thinking, "what if", and so I tried fooling around with it. Same with the portrait. Then I'm thinking, do I toss these out, or post them as examples of another interpretation. I've tossed a bunch out in the past. I think your photo interpretation surely will please many. I was just trying to add some more drama for fun.

It's interesting what you say about the portrait, and I guess I wasn't looking at it that way originally. Personally, I like to hear what people think, as it definitely shapes what to strive for. I see so many photos go by without much honest discussion. The portrait is a great capture.

erichard, I have no problem learning how to make my pics better, and thanks for your endeavour. However, in this case, it doesn't wrok for me. Let me tell you why, it isn't a case of "not invented here". From my POV, the shot is not undersexposed, else the man's clothes would also be underexposed, which they are not. Secondly, you lightened up his skin tone to the extent that it looks washed out. Maybe doing less would be a better compromise. Lastly, my shot, as I see it, has an aura of almost malevolent energy. This is not happenstance. That was what I felt, rightly or wrongly, that this man radiated.
Comments are welcome...

Philber, right,but I'm not saying the photo as a whole is underexposed, as surely 90% is just fine. I just think the skin tones, due to his dark pigmentation, are underexposed, and I think you are right that somewhere between the two might still retain that malevolence you speak of, and Rick alludes to. As far as the washout, I think it definitely could have been done better from a full resolution, RAW image, rather than the smallish jpeg, no doubt. That all said, maybe you and Rick are correct. Certainly, it got a lot of good reviews, more than most.

50mm at f/5.6

erichard wrote:
...as surely 90% is just fine. ..


I think that this is the whole point of making suggestions and asking permission. The photographer/artist has a vision for their work. Others may have a different vision of how it could look, but it is not their work.

Suggestions...fine. Process others' images...best to seek permission first. Arguing and re-arguing a re-interpretation of an image...missing the point. Not your image. Not your vision. It is not about one opinion being right or superior. It is about which realizes the shooter's vision.

As I had purchased ZE 21 and ZE 35, for some months now I neglected my previous lenses. Spurred on by those who love the ZE 50 Planar f:1.4, I remembered how well it has served me, and I went out today determined to use nothing but. So I had 4 ZEs in my bag, ad opportunities to use all 4, but I used only my 50. It felt so good to have this light, discreet, all-purpose lens. Here are but some of the results. I'm in love again, 50 MP notwithstanding.

Grenache, the part you quote was only mentioned as I think he misinterpreted was I saying, that I am not saying he underexposed the whole deal. Unless the scene is evenly lit, we either expose for one thing or another. I just think the skin tones lost out in the compromise, as it would for any of us. I just prefer it brought up a bit in that area.

That said, though, it's enough criticism about my posting that I shall take them down and not post such things.

erichard, no need to "give up", since nobody got hurt or complained, at least not the two people who might have. Next time, I suggest that, when you touch-up a picture, you post that you are ready to take it down if there is an objection. That is what I have done, at it seems to be OK.
Regarding my pic, I went back and tried to lighten up the face as you suggest. I did not find a way to make it better than it is. As soon as I apply even modest change, I lose more contrast and tone than my gain on the face. That said my lack of PP skills is impressive, so that doesn't mean that it can't be done...

I appreciate your post Philber, but not including yourself and Rick, two out of two objected. Considering it was not even their photo, I gather it must be a strong opposition. While I agree with Grenache and Burningheart that the most polite thing to do is ask first, no doubt about it, I think this is basically impractical to the point that few will ever put up alternative interpretations. It's just not worth going to all that trouble for such an insignificant post. I think such an approach weakens the potential of the forum, but hey, I'm just one guy, and I do not want to impose myself on others.

When you try to lighten up the face or whatever, it certainly is possible to lose the contrast and get wash out, as you say. What I do is make a layer in which the light tones above a certain breakpoint get lighter, and the darks either remain the same, get darker, or get lighter but not as much as the light tones get lighter. Whichever one of those you pick, you will either retain the contrast, enhance the contrast or go somewhere in between. On curves in Photoshop, you are basically making one of those "S" shaped contrast curves, and I do it in Lab Color for jpegs/tifs in the lightness channel, though there are other ways. The curve basically steepens in the region you want contrast. Mask off the areas you don't want affected (or vice versa, mask it all off and paint in what you want). The other way, which I like very much, is to simply pull up the lighness curve on a layer to the maximum you need for the shot as a whole, and what you will see is maybe that washed out look you were mentioning. But, what you do is mask it all off, and then with a soft brush at ~12% opacity, paint in white on that mask, painting in the areas of the face (in this case) that you want to brighten, with heavier emphasis in certain areas, building up to potentially 100% opacity in certain spots. So you can selectively retain all the darks you want, and can go back and forth till you get the desired effect. If you know all this, my apologies. I know exactly what you are describing, and it's a good thing to avoid. By working in Lab mode, you avoid affecting the color while using the lightness channel, but LAB mode is not absolutely necessary.

If you are in Lightroom, the same effect is done, probably, by simply using the brightness adjustment brush, and this maybe even better, as you are working with the RAW file (probably the same as using LAB, ie. lightness channel). There is a limit to how much pushing can be done in the shadows, but RAW does the best job. I use Lightroom the most, and only used Photoshop Lab because jpegs were posted here.

In an effort to dispel the thought that the ZE 50mm 1.4 is only sharp at infinity - here is a shot at aprox 25'.

Agreed Rick! It is only at less than 8' that I feel the ZE 50 is losing sharpness, and even more if opened wider than f:2.0. Here is an example shot today, with crop, where the head of the rhino was 12' away tops.

Wow, Philber! Your photos with the ZE 50/1.4 really sing. The detail on the rhino is almost unbelievable.

I like the first shot with the black and white pillars. What exactly are they supposed to be?

As an Englishman, Ye Olde English Fish & Chips made me smile. Americans seem to have a habit of not going in for historical accuracy.

Fish and chips date from 1863 when John Lees combined fish and chips at Mossley market, in Lancashire, and soon after opened a shop nearby that boasted a sign in the window: 'Chip Potato Restaurant. Oldest Established in the World'.

Victorian England had longed dispensed with the "olde", "shoppe" and "worlde" of Elizabethan times.

And I'll wager those chips (fries) taste nothing like proper English chips. For a start, I cannot see any malt vinegar bottles on the counter.