2018 Print 52 Shadowman P2

For my week 2 print project I am concentrating on composition, choices, and fine art. I know composition plays a big part in any capture, although I think macro and abstract is more about layout and visualization; I'm looking at positioning of the subject, addition or subtraction (crop, clone, etc.) and subject as an example of fine art.

f/7.1, ISO 3200, 1/3200sec.

This isn't the final composition of the print, it will be one of the three or none, looking for opinions on each, should cloning be done, should each be rejected for some reason.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...2&d=1514977273

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

For my week 2 print project I am concentrating on composition, choices, and fine art. I know composition plays a big part in any capture, although I think macro and abstract is more about layout and visualization; I'm looking at positioning of the subject, addition or subtraction (crop, clone, etc.) and subject as an example of fine art.

f/7.1, ISO 3200, 1/3200sec.

This isn't the final composition of the print, it will be one of the three or none, looking for opinions on each, should cloning be done, should each be rejected for some reason.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...2&d=1514977273

---

My take:

Third one is too dominated by the out of focus foreground friend. 1st one is lovely--subject appears engaged and engaging and the purple flowers add interest. Middle one has neither the positives or the negatives of the other two. I assume these are foxes of some sort?

I agree with Judith about #3. With #2 there is a rather prominent grass stem adversely causing distraction with the distant animal. So because of that, the first image appears as the best for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urbanflyer

My take:

Third one is too dominated by the out of focus foreground friend. 1st one is lovely--subject appears engaged and engaging and the purple flowers add interest. Middle one has neither the positives or the negatives of the other two. I assume these are foxes of some sort?

---

Hi Judith,

I thought as much, I think I was drawn to the third because of the direct eye contact; can probably be salvaged with a severe crop. These are the north American kit foxes. Thanks for reviewing and responding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

I agree with Judith about #3. With #2 there is a rather prominent grass stem adversely causing distraction with the distant animal. So because of that, the first image appears as the best for me.

---

Hi Geoff,

I noticed the distracting stems and considered cloning but also thought it might make for a more natural look. Thanks for commenting.

We often talk about cloning images and for certain fields of photography (journalism) excessive editing is frowned upon. I was wondering if anyone who prints their images ever used hand tinting to correct slight defects?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

We often talk about cloning images and for certain fields of photography (journalism) excessive editing is frowned upon. I was wondering if anyone who prints their images ever used hand tinting to correct slight defects?

---

Hand tinting was something done to colourize old B&W photographs that were produced in a traditional "wet" darkroom. That process is obsolete in the digital world as these effects can be applied digitially using software like Photoshop.

While I used toning and spotting on prints in the wet darkroom days, I do all that type of work in Photoshop now. I'm not sure how the dyes and colours would react with modern inkjet prints and papers.

The issue with "excessive editing" in photojournalism is there to preserve the integrity of the image and to demonstrate that the photographer has not made any substantive changes to the image by removing material or adding something that wasn't there. So far as I know, basic edits that adjust for minor issues like contrast, sharpness and even cropping are quite legal in that type of work.

Hi John,

I agree with the others: #1 would be my choice. But even there, one might do some cloning. The branch of the bush just to the left and behind the left ear is distracting. I'm not sure if I would take it out completely, or leave it in for the natural effect, but tone it down significantly. I'd try both to test the effect before calling it final.

As a point of information, John, I print all my keepers. I use Canon papers almost exclusively, and a low end Canon printer. Although I use Lightroom for most of my editing, I usually print from PSE.

I agree with Manfred regarding "excessive editing," and see nothing wrong with removing or toning down the branch in this image - because it doesn't affect "the story" one way or another, and the image is not likely to be used for journalistic purposes anyway. But adding, deleting, or substantially altering any element in a journalistic image - to the extent that it changes the story the image wants to tell, is wrong, if not illegal.

I'm looking forward to following your project. Thanks for including all of us.

Zen:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

Hand tinting was something done to colourize old B&W photographs that were produced in a traditional "wet" darkroom. That process is obsolete in the digital world as these effects can be applied digitially using software like Photoshop.

While I used toning and spotting on prints in the wet darkroom days, I do all that type of work in Photoshop now. I'm not sure how the dyes and colours would react with modern inkjet prints and papers.

The issue with "excessive editing" in photojournalism is there to preserve the integrity of the image and to demonstrate that the photographer has not made any substantive changes to the image by removing material or adding something that wasn't there. So far as I know, basic edits that adjust for minor issues like contrast, sharpness and even cropping are quite legal in that type of work.

---

I would think the original inks should be compatible with both paper and dried/semi-dried ink. Regarding cloning/spot removal yes I would normally do so using software, I only thought about after I printed my choice of the three for week 2. There was a minute spec of white to the right of the fox, I think it'll only be visible from close viewing. On the positive side, I planned to print a copy or even larger size anyway so I need to remember clone out the spec.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zen

Hi John,

I agree with the others: #1 would be my choice. But even there, one might do some cloning. The branch of the bush just to the left and behind the left ear is distracting. I'm not sure if I would take it out completely, or leave it in for the natural effect, but tone it down significantly. I'd try both to test the effect before calling it final.

As a point of information, John, I print all my keepers. I use Canon papers almost exclusively, and a low end Canon printer. Although I use Lightroom for most of my editing, I usually print from PSE.

I agree with Manfred regarding "excessive editing," and see nothing wrong with removing or toning down the branch in this image - because it doesn't affect "the story" one way or another, and the image is not likely to be used for journalistic purposes anyway. But adding, deleting, or substantially altering any element in a journalistic image - to the extent that it changes the story the image wants to tell, is wrong, if not illegal.

I'm looking forward to following your project. Thanks for including all of us.

Zen:rolleyes:

---

Hi Zen,

For my folio any editing will be a secret between us on the forum :cool:, moving forward I've noticed how controversial cloning/editing seems to be for specific genres, I'm often torn between aesthetics and reality such as the shot with the errant stems; luckily I had enough fallback images so the subject matter wasn't lost.

First is best but needs light patch to left, level with the foxes eyes, removing or toning down
Roy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I would think the original inks should be compatible with both paper and dried/semi-dried ink. Regarding cloning/spot removal yes I would normally do so using software, I only thought about after I printed my choice of the three for week 2. There was a minute spec of white to the right of the fox, I think it'll only be visible from close viewing. On the positive side, I planned to print a copy or even larger size anyway so I need to remember clone out the spec.

---

That would take some testing to ensure that you are correct.

Photographic papers used in the B&W (and colour) wet darkrooms were significantly different than modern inkjet papers and ink. These papers were designed to spend significant time complete immersed (soaked) in water and had to spend significant times exposed to chemicals and wash cycles to remove chemical residues. In the case of B&W papers, no dyes were used and the images that we see are metallic silver that is embedded in an emulsion that coats the paper. In the case of colour papers, the colours come from dyes that are not water soluble, so one could apply water based dyes that soaked into the emulsion without worrying about the dyes being affected.

Inkjet inks are largely water soluble; with pigment based inks being somewhat less so than dye based inks. Adding a water based ink that is used in classical retouching work will impact your inkjet print in two important ways:

1. It will cause some degree of dilution of the inks on the paper.

2. Part of how inkjet papers work is that there is local swelling where the wet ink is applied. As this dries, this swelling disappears and is partially responsible for creating a mechanical bond with the pigment. Wetting this with a retouching dye will loosen this bond.

Retouching of this type is generally done with a very small, fine sable hair brush, so there is some mechanical abrasion on the surface of the paper as the retouching ink is applied. Doing this type of work requires a lot of dexterity and practice. Once the ink is down, there is no way of removing it, so it is very easy to make a mistake and go too far and the print becomes scrap.

Good luck if you try to go this route; proceed carefully to see if it will work. My guess is it will be easier (and cheaper in the long run) to just clean up the original and do a reprint.

My final composition for week 2.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4631/...2e951d29_z.jpgKit by JOHN, on Flickr

Week 1 can be found here: 2018 Print 52 Shadowman P1

For Week 3 I decided to use movement as the theme, I debated between printing a shot with slow shutter speed and one that froze the moment in time. This image was printed on Epson Premium Glossy 13" x 19" paper.

Dancer
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4694/...6e363f1d_k.jpgLehre Lady Image Border by JOHN, on Flickr

For week #4, I wanted to try some third party papers using matte black ink, I have a variety pack of Canson papers and wanted to try Edition Etching Rag, 310 gsm but the paper was too thick to insert through my Epson P5000 through the cassette or rear feed. I eventually was able to insert through the front feed, this method takes a lot of trial and error and the experience makes me leery of purchasing any of the material in roll format.

The image I chose to print is another of my street captures with the thought always of turning it into a semi-formal portrait. The shot was taken on an overcast day so it doesn't have that special pop that I'd get on glossy using photo ink, I like the surface of the paper though and might consider purchasing more of the etching rag in cut sheets or I might look for similar surface in the Epson line.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4694/...f2b67c20_b.jpgHer Eyes by JOHN, on Flickr

For this week's print I wanted to stay with the monochrome theme and play around with highlights and shadows. This was taken in December on a cold winter morning on an overcast day. I wanted to capture the sparks and should've used a slower shutter speed but was shooting handheld and not happy with the results so adjusted settings to f/5.6, 1/500sec, ISO 500. This was printed on Canson Arches Velin Museum Rag, 8.5" x 11".

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4722/...51b2a80e_b.jpgSteel with Signature by JOHN, on Flickr

Hi John,

Several things caught my attention in this image. First, the pattern of steel behind the welder. I like it because of the pattern; but also because it provides an appropriate background for a welder/iron worker. That is, it is what one would expect to see behind a welder working in a new bldg. Secondly, the apparent underexposure, which is exactly true to life deep in the midst of new building steel. The structure above almost always blocks out sunlight from above and, frequently, the only light sources are the sparks of the welder or jury rigged incandesants [sp?] added by the contractor.

The third thing is the position of the subject in the frame. No doubt you saw the discussion here several days ago on the theory that we view images beginning at lower left, then move diagonally to upper right. In THIS case, whether you composed deliberately or not, the subject is on that diagonal line. To me, the image is quite pleasing, and seems to provide confirmation of that theory. More than coincidentally, it also fits perfectly in the rule of thirds. So the question is, did you have either or both those "rules" in mind when you composed, or was it pure instinct that directed subject placement in the frame?

No matter how or why you composed the image as you did, I think it's well done. Thanks for sharing your work with us.

Zen:D

Hi Zen,

Thanks for the comments. Regarding the composition, I think its mostly instinct but that has developed slowly over the years as when I first started I tended to center the subject in my viewfinder. My reasoning for centering is usually because I try to fill the frame but also because I've been taught that the center of the lens is sharpest and I tend to strive for the best of my gear. There were so many interesting angles and shapes within this capture that it made it easier to put the welder in the spot he is in, also even better that I was able to catch the trail of sparks falling downward. Thanks again.

As I stated in my intro to the Print 52 part of the endeavor is to complete a portfolio of my images. I had originally posted this image in another thread https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...ad61341.htmand had only printed at 8" x 10" on Canson PhotoArt HD Canvas paper. I wanted a larger size for my portfolio and chose Moab Somerset Velvet paper at 11" x 17". The final output differed greatly in tone and I attribute this to two or more factors, I used different color settings on each: used relative colormetric for small print and perceptual for larger print. I also used ICC profiles for each, if I had chosen Printer manages color for the larger print tones would've been closer to each other. I will have to reprint the larger image if I want each to have same look.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4759/...28b446da_z.jpgP5 for upload by JOHN, on Flickr

John I found that with B&W images that setting the printer to "printer manages colour", and selecting advance B&W setting in printer setting I got better B&W prints than using Photoshop manages colour.

Cheers: Allan