Derek, please excuse my lack of appreciation for "body art" on women BUT I must say her chest tat really enhances this composition(if it is indeed a "tat")!
I believe we have seen her before so I must go back and check to see if it is indeed body art.
Her eyes are haunting and the placement of her face within her arms is great!
Well done Derek!
Dan
Danpbphoto wrote:
Derek, please excuse my lack of appreciation for "body art" on women BUT I must say her chest tat really enhances this composition(if it is indeed a "tat")!
I believe we have seen her before so I must go back and check to see if it is indeed body art.
Her eyes are haunting and the placement of her face within her arms is great!
Well done Derek!
Dan
Dan, thank you so much for the kind words. That is indeed body art on Marah’s chest—check the nsfw link for a full view.
Couple "technical" things catch my attention. Not to take away, but just for your awareness in case it is of concern for you.
1. There is a warm color cast in the shadows.
Not sure, if that is there for artistic license / toning or an oversight.
2. The focus on the left side is different from the focus on the right side. I know we mentioned something in this regard on previous discussion, but I kinda forgot your perspective on it. The eyes and brow are most noticeable, but in the arms also.
Again, just fyi stuff, in case.
100% supersat for ease of illustration where the cast resides.
Couple "technical" things catch my attention. Not to take away, but just for your awareness in case it is of concern for you.
1. There is a warm color cast in the shadows.
Not sure, if that is there for artistic license / toning or an oversight.
2. The focus on the left side is different from the focus on the right side. I know we mentioned something in this regard on previous discussion, but I kinda forgot your perspective on it. The eyes and brow are most noticeable, but in the arms also.
Again, just fyi stuff, in case.
100% supersat for ease of illustration where the cast resides....Show more →
Thank you so much for the input Kent. The color cast is intentional, but perhaps executed poorly. And the focus…well I am afraid that I am unwilling to give up my shallow dof with sloppy plane of focus placement style. Thank you for the 100% supersat, Warhol print—I actually like it for more than its illustrative purpose.
Derek, I really like this and it's warm tone. I must be slow, but I fail to see anything useful that can be learned by deliberately whacking the saturation slider to 100. This has the tone of Ilford's rich Multigrade RC Deluxe Pearl finish paper, my fav.
WYSIWYG works just fine for appreciating black & white images - no Photoshop eye dropper, or mode checking required.
Dneufarth wrote:
Thank you so much for the input Kent. The color cast is intentional, but perhaps executed poorly. And the focus…well I am afraid that I am unwilling to give up my shallow dof with sloppy plane of focus placement style. Thank you for the 100% supersat, Warhol print—I actually like it for more than its illustrative purpose.
Derek, always glad you understand.
As to the "sloppy plane of focus" ... no worries, it's got it's own kind of appeal with the edgy style.
Cool that you saw the "Warhol" aspect of the supersat. I didn't intend for that, but I also thought it had it's own vibe to it, too. Again, likely goes with the edgy.
My only reason for mention was in case it was an overlook on your part. If you're good with it (i.e. in control of where you want it) ... that's the part that counts.
Can we look forward to some "Warhol" styling in the future.
James Markus wrote:
Derek, I really like this and it's warm tone. I must be slow, but I fail to see anything useful that can be learned by deliberately whacking the saturation slider to 100. This has the tone of Ilford's rich Multigrade RC Deluxe Pearl finish paper, my fav.
WYSIWYG works just fine for appreciating black & white images - no Photoshop eye dropper, or mode checking required.
The 100% is just to reveal location of color casts ... diagnostic tool, makes it easier to see. Not to be construed as a direction for taking the image. It revealed the difference in lighting color. Had the image been 100% mono, then it never would have revealed. But, in the OP I saw the cast (likely due to the difference in lighting temps from outside vs. inside). That's different (imo) than an overall toning (uniform vs. non-uniform), or a duotone. Just wanted the OP to be aware. He was. He is. All is good.
J. Pow wrote:
I really like the DOF on this particular photo. The eyes have me..Really cool. Also I like the asymmetrical crop on the symmetrical pose.
James Markus wrote:
Derek, I really like this and it's warm tone. I must be slow, but I fail to see anything useful that can be learned by deliberately whacking the saturation slider to 100. This has the tone of Ilford's rich Multigrade RC Deluxe Pearl finish paper, my fav.
WYSIWYG works just fine for appreciating black & white images - no Photoshop eye dropper, or mode checking required.
RustyBug wrote:
Derek, always glad you understand.
As to the "sloppy plane of focus" ... no worries, it's got it's own kind of appeal with the edgy style.
Cool that you saw the "Warhol" aspect of the supersat. I didn't intend for that, but I also thought it had it's own vibe to it, too. Again, likely goes with the edgy.
My only reason for mention was in case it was an overlook on your part. If you're good with it (i.e. in control of where you want it) ... that's the part that counts.
Can we look forward to some "Warhol" styling in the future. ...Show more →
Since I have noted my severe color blindness on other occasions, it is good that you called out the color cast—and we got a Warhol out of the deal😁
I agree with many above, great pose and composition, wonderful focus on the eyes, etc. This is a very nice image.
The only CC I offer is for the backing of her nose piercing. I find it slightly distracting. Respectfully, I would have removed it. Just my 2 cents on a wonderful image.
chad hites wrote:
I agree with many above, great pose and composition, wonderful focus on the eyes, etc. This is a very nice image.
The only CC I offer is for the backing of her nose piercing. I find it slightly distracting. Respectfully, I would have removed it. Just my 2 cents on a wonderful image.
Thank you Chad for the kind words. After proofing the image for print, I came to the same conclusion about the nose stud back, and I will also remove the spot from the opposite side of the nose just at the edge of the nostril.
