No gold....

[davidstringer]

A cold wintry day on the beach and this lad didn't seem to be ejoying himself hugely, but was preoccupied...


No Gold by husbandandwife, on Flickr

[Goldcoastgolfer]

Are you able to go in tighter? I think a close up showing his focussed expression (at least that's what it looks like to me) would make the picture come to life a bit more.

[davidstringer]

Thank you Malcolm. I was fully zoomed in and didn't want to crop in on him any more...

[MiniChris]

Curious, but I have to ask...what is it about the background which so enthralls you as to want to keep it in the shot? It seems to me the little guy digging in the sand at the beach is the focus point. Include enough water, sand and kid (though it does need more foreground) and that's the shot...everything else is quite superfluous.

[davidstringer]

Maybe superflous to you, but it seemed to convey the cold and bleakness to me. Not to worry, I liked it

[Geoff F]

Yes, Dave, but I suspect a very slight crop of somewhere around 10% to the top and left side would still leave that 'wilderness' effect but might also concentrate more on the child.

[davidstringer]

Fair comment, Geoff. I'll give it a try. Thanks

Dave

[rob marshall]

A cold wintry day on the beach and this lad didn't seem to be ejoying himself hugely, but was preoccupied...


No Gold by husbandandwife, on Flickr

I think it's underexposed by about one stop. It also needs a crop to bring the boy into the shot more. All that empty space is too much, I think.

[davidstringer]

Thanks

[Daisy Mae]

I don't think it is overexposed David but I agree the subject is a bit ambiguous and lost,

It's one of those modern day dilemmas where taking photographs of children is now regarded as somehow suspect
so you have to go in on full zoom which doesn't leave you much room for cropping.

[rob marshall]

I don't think it is overexposed David but I agree the subject is a bit ambiguous and lost,

Daisy

I don't think anyone said it was over-exposed but under-exposed (that was me). When you look at the original does it look OK to you on your monitor? Is your monitor calibrated?

rob

[Daisy Mae]

No..my monitor is fine..I meant 'under' Rob

Sheesht! Sorry.

[rob marshall]

No..my monitor is fine..I meant 'under' Rob

Sheesht! Sorry.

But do you see the original as an OK exposure? And does my edit look too bright?

[Daisy Mae]

Yes! It does look too bright..to me!

I think David's exposure was spot on.
Sorry Rob

[rob marshall]

Yes! It does look too bright..to me!

I think David's exposure was spot on.
Sorry Rob

You know, I thought you might say that. My monitor is calibrated regularly, and when I print images they look just as they do on the screen and the exposure is spot on. If your monitor is not calibrated the chances are that you will see things that are underexposed as OK because most monitors display too bright for photo images. And a normal exposure (like my edit) would look too bright on an un-calibrated monitor. In most cases. Is your monitor calibrated?

[Daisy Mae]

Yes my monitor is calibrated..spyder?

[rob marshall]

Yes my monitor is calibrated..spyder?

Original and histogram. A nice bell shape, but no whites at all in the last 20%




My edit and histogram. Also a nice bell shape, but mine is shifted to the right (brighter) due to increasing exposure. I went slightly too far, but only a bit. I originally said it needed about 1 stop, but it's probably 0.75 stop.

[rob marshall]

and this one is +0.5 stop on the original. Shall we call it +0.5 stop?

[Daisy Mae]

Call it as you see it Rob.

I like David's exposure and agree a smaller crop to isolate the child with its immediate environment would help.

Graphs are very impressive but talent is better. ..judgment by the smartest optical tool..the EYE.

[rob marshall]

Graphs are very impressive but talent is better. ..judgment by the smartest optical tool..the EYE.

Oh, really? Well let me tell you something... my gun is bigger than your gun... NA-NE-NA-NE-NANA!

I'll see you outside the saloon.