Simone

[wide2tele]

I added a film photo in the nature section to introduce myself, here is a digital photo for the people section. Got both categories covered now. Hope that makes me a fully fledged member!

[escape]

Welcome to the forum, Mark. I like your photo very much. To me, the look in their eyes, and exposed skin communicates a certain vulnerability. I will leave it to others to critique it technically. But your definitely a full-fledged member. No doubt about it. Look forward to seeing more of your photos and involvement. Regards, Daniel

[Manfred M]

Very nice image Mark; the tattooed couple really stand out from your average portrait.

I find the light a bit hard for my taste, although it does go well with the subjects. I would like to see the hot areas burned down just a touch.

[pschlute]

Cracking image Mark. The eye contact is wonderful.

For info....if you want to display a larger image your best bet is to use a hosting site like Flickr and link directly.

[wide2tele]

Welcome to the forum, Mark. I like your photo very much. To me, the look in their eyes, and exposed skin communicates a certain vulnerability. I will leave it to others to critique it technically. But your definitely a full-fledged member. No doubt about it. Look forward to seeing more of your photos and involvement. Regards, Daniel

Thanks Daniel, much appreciated! Happy to be fully fledged!

I find the light a bit hard for my taste, although it does go well with the subjects. I would like to see the hot areas burned down just a touch.

Can totally understand your point of view Manfred and it's an image likely not for everyone. Heck, I'm not even a tattoo person myself but the one thing they requested was to have their tattoos really stand out.
This wasn't the final edit. I'd have to go looking for that one. I made a few minor tweaks but it certainly was left very contrasty. The end image was printed on a semi-matte surface and it really kills the contrast. I always pump up the contrast for this type of printing because I found unless you completely blow out the whites prints turn out quite nice.

Cracking image Mark. The eye contact is wonderful.

For info....if you want to display a larger image your best bet is to use a hosting site like Flickr and link directly.

Thanks Peter! Funny part of this portrait, the guy had make-up. He came to have the pics taken during his lunch break. Soon as he left, we hid and watched him drive down the road and stop. The wife said he would pull over immediately to remove the make-up before he got back to work. She knows her hubby well!

Oh, yes, I can post larger images but I'm picking out stuff I have handy on a drive and they are all at this type of res. The originals I would really have to dig for so I'm just going with these.

[Wandjina]

Hi Mark and welcome. I love the image. The story is in the eyes. There is a tenderness in both sets of eyes that contrasts with the harshness of the tattoos and the solid stone background.
I would like to see a little more separation in contrast between her hair and the wall, but it is a great image. Well done!

[wide2tele]

I would like to see a little more separation in contrast between her hair and the wall, but it is a great image. Well done!

Thanks Martin! Yeah, you do make a fair point.

[Manfred M]

Can totally understand your point of view Manfred and it's an image likely not for everyone. Heck, I'm not even a tattoo person myself but the one thing they requested was to have their tattoos really stand out.
This wasn't the final edit. I'd have to go looking for that one. I made a few minor tweaks but it certainly was left very contrasty. The end image was printed on a semi-matte surface and it really kills the contrast. I always pump up the contrast for this type of printing because I found unless you completely blow out the whites prints turn out quite nice.

I have absolutely nothing against the image and have done some work with a tattoo / piercing model myself. As you have said, definitely not to everyone's taste.

I'm also a print maker, so understand where you are coming from. A screen (in a suitably dark room) has around 10 stops of dynamic range. A print on a matte paper, you are down to around 7.5 stops, a luster paper is around 8 stops of dynamic range. The image needs to be "calmed" to come out well as a print. I generally finish my images that will be displayed digitally a bit differently than my print images.

I have just added my tattoo model at: Stephanie - Tattoo Model

[Tom Barry]

A very striking image, well conceived and well done.

[wide2tele]

I'm also a print maker, so understand where you are coming from. A screen (in a suitably dark room) has around 10 stops of dynamic range. A print on a matte paper, you are down to around 7.5 stops, a luster paper is around 8 stops of dynamic range. The image needs to be "calmed" to come out well as a print. I generally finish my images that will be displayed digitally a bit differently than my print images.

I remember the old days you had a choice of matte/pearl/gloss paper. Then you just had to find a consistent quality lab and you stuck with them.
Today there appear to be so many printing variables. Different papers, inks, surfaces, methods, I can't keep up. I haven't used any lab in a long time as I wasn't taking photos but the last lab I used I sent test pics to be printed on their various products so I had an idea how to prepare images and understand what to expect back.

A very striking image, well conceived and well done.

Thanks Tom. Greatly appreciated!

[Manfred M]

I remember the old days you had a choice of matte/pearl/gloss paper. Then you just had to find a consistent quality lab and you stuck with them.
Today there appear to be so many printing variables. Different papers, inks, surfaces, methods, I can't keep up. I haven't used any lab in a long time as I wasn't taking photos but the last lab I used I sent test pics to be printed on their various products so I had an idea how to prepare images and understand what to expect back.

I've never relied on labs, but have always done my own work, starting back in the "wet" B&W and colour darkroom. Then, just like now, test prints is how I get the final print looking the way that I want. Around 80% of my prints are done on two or three different papers; a fine art matte cotton rag (I use both papers that have OBAs and without) and a lustre paper. I have not found a lustre paper I am ready to commit to since Canson changed its Baryta Photographique paper. I use Epson Ultra Premium Photo Luster for my "run of the mill" prints when people are not too fussy.

[DanK]

I remember the old days you had a choice of matte/pearl/gloss paper. Then you just had to find a consistent quality lab and you stuck with them.
Today there appear to be so many printing variables. Different papers, inks, surfaces, methods, I can't keep up.

Actually, it's not as bad as it seems.

When I first started to do digital printing seriously, I was overwhelmed by the choice of papers. I eventually found a way to deal with that, which is to ignore it--sort of.

First, there are a few categories that include each include a large number of papers from different vendors. Put differently, there are a handful of variables--e.g., coated or not, what kind of coating, warmth/coolness of the stock, surface texture--that define much of the variation. I dealt with that in part by buying sample packs from a handful of companies--first Red River and Moab, then Canson and Hahemuehle--to get a feeling for the different types. Then I tried to find a paper or two of each type that I really liked. That process was a lot of fun. I often ended up with a bunch of small prints spread out on a table so that I could explore how they differed.

I ended up with a handful of papers that I use perhaps 90% of the time. My standard coated paper for serious prints was the same one Manfred used until it was discontinued: the original Canson Baryta Photographique. My usual run-of-the-mill paper has been Moab Exhibition Luster, although I've used some from Red River, which has a great variety. My most common serious matte paper has been Canson Rag Photographique. I'm not advocating for any of these, just explaining that once I found them, I was satisfied and could afford to ignore other papers or casually explore them when I was curious. That was the critical step for me: reaching the point where I really don't much care about all the countless papers I don't use.

Then Canson discontinued the original Baryta, and several other manufacturers that sourced from the same mill did the same. This forced me back into a lot of trials of high-end coated papers. I really like Breathing Color River Stone Rag and have bought a bunch, but it is OBA-free and a little warmer than the Canson, so I might end up with two papers of that type rather than one.

To wander back onto the topic: if that image were mine, I would definitely not print it on a matte paper. The contrast is too important a part of the image. I'd print it on a coated paper. I'd even consider a metallic paper, although I rarely use them for my own work.

[lovelife65]

outstanding image. Very emotional and impacting.

[wide2tele]

outstanding image. Very emotional and impacting.

Thanks Sharon.