First Communion (C&C welcomed)

[KimC]

This weekend, I photographed this little girl's first communion...

ISO 3200; 1/100s; f3.2; 85mm

[bertam]

This weekend, I photographed this little girl's first communion...

ISO 3200; 1/100s; f3.2; 85mm

WoW! That's a really emotive. You really captured the moment and the composition lack nothing.

[Donald]

That is a beauty.

I don't know what you think of maybe burning those very bright highlights in the top left quarter of the image, just to tone them down a little bit.

But a really super image.

[KimC]

That's a significant comment to me Bertam as that is what I strive for. Thank you.

WoW! That's a really emotive. You really captured the moment and the composition lack nothing.

[KimC]

Thank you very much Donald. I have been struggling with PP lately - questioning whether I am too conservative, and is it problematic that I don't PS my images as that's what seems "popular". Why I am mentioning this, is that I did play with this one some... just to experiment and try to figure out what I prefer. What I ultimately decided is that I preferred this image, which just has very slight basic adjustments. I also thought about the highlights, and decided i was ok with them as they added a more "religious feel" to the image for me, and no matter when I look at this, all I see is that face.

That is a beauty.

I don't know what you think of maybe burning those very bright highlights in the top left quarter of the image, just to tone them down a little bit.

But a really super image.

[Donald]

I also thought about the highlights, and decided i was ok with them as they added a more "religious feel" to the image for me,...

And that is such a crucial point for folks to take on. The fact that the author/creator of the work did think about all the parts of the image and that nothing is there by accident. So, I am very happy to see those highlights there because they are as they are because of a conscious decision. That's art.

[rpcrowe]

Lovely image... Her hands tend to attract my attention before my attention is attracted on her eyes. Perhaps this is what you intended.

Perhaps this is because her hands are brighter than her eyes or that they seem (on my monitor) to be the point of focus rather than the eyes...

[Shadowman]

Nicely composed and exposed.

[William W]

Brava! You nailed it.

I also agree: ‘emotive’; ‘a beauty’; ‘moment and composition lacks nothing’; ‘super image’.

***

I also agree with what Donald’s and Richard’s “Viewer’s Eye” noticed when looking at the image and I think that these are points worth further exploration/discussion.

Firstly, I want state clearly that I do understand (perhaps more than some might realize) how in our Journey in The Craft all serious and dedicated Photographers will tussle with (what) Post Production (is necessary) – and I appreciate the reasons for that tussle . . . it concerns the development of a Style and also the development of the Artistic skill of "seeing" and "drawing" with the Light and "timing" the Moments, 'in situ'.

Secondly, I want state clearly that I did read carefully and understand (Kim’s) response to Donald’s comments about the highlights and also Donald’s reply to that and his appreciation of the Artist’s conscious choice.

With those two points in mind I think it is worthwhile questioning/exploring mechanisms as to how we come to those choices of what we might or might not to do (in Post Production).

One method I often use is to create (only) two options which are under my serious consideration and then (this is the key bit) walk away. Come back the next day with a clear mind and view them in an A/B scenario.

It doesn’t matter what The Artist (Kim) finally chooses as “better” – my point is to outline (and open for discussion) a prescriptive mechanism which can be used for (sometimes) choosing Post Production when we are in two minds about what to do.

The mechanism I described above allows me to disassociate myself and my memory from my being at the shot.

Underlined and bold purposely, because I think that it is important to not have any ‘carry over’ from being at the shoot which impacts on the OBJECTIVE analysis so that the FINAL IMAGE will portray and convey (to all those many other people who were not there) the moment which was experienced (and captured) at the shoot.

***

After my being “WOWED” by the overall image . . . and for quite a while . . . the only two (niggling) elements which irritated my “Viewer’s Eye” were the highlights on the pew, top left quadrant, and the relative minor lack of light on the eyes/face and the White Communion Dress when those areas were contrasted to the Hands: my Viewer's Eye was distracted by the highlights and my Viewer's Eye felt that the Eyes, Face and Dress should be 'equal to' the Hands - thus rendering the "Whole Person" dominate in the (powerful) scene and not just one portion (her hands) of her.

Faced with those considerations - if it were my image - I’d make a couple of very small changes and leave it for an A/B the next morning and then I would choose:



WW

[IzzieK]

Good explanation and argument, William of Strayla. But I think I will go with the choice of Kim here about not toning down the bright reflection of light at the left quadrant. The girl itself has a good contrast, good background that doesn't blend with the colour of her skin at all. The subtle blues in each corner of the frame also looks good. I applaud her choice of not touching the image so much in pp too. The image is strong enough. It is not just an ordinary shot -- it is a very good shot.

[TonyW]

I agree with Izzie about the bright reflections but Bill's subtle brightening of the face makes it even lovelier.

[Mike Buckley]

Wonderful image, Kim, for all the obvious reasons.

is it problematic that I don't PS my images as that's what seems "popular".

As you think about that, perhaps consider that the prevalent thinking at CiC tends to be relatively conservative and that if you participated regularly in other sites (perhaps you do) or reviewed other styles of photography (perhaps you do), you would be exposed more to other approaches not often displayed or discussed here. As an example, I recently saw a relatively large photo in a magazine of a famous chef whose name doesn't come to mind. A small but prominent part of the background was a building lit very brightly by a low sun that would make the highlights in your background look absolutely tame. I'm confident that if that photo was displayed here and if its photographer wasn't revealed, the typical critique here would be to tone down the background. Apparently the editor at the magazine felt otherwise.

[Mike Buckley]

The mechanism I described above allows me to disassociate myself and my memory from my being at the shot....I think that it is important to not have any ‘carry over’ from being at the shoot which impacts on the OBJECTIVE analysis so that the FINAL IMAGE will portray and convey (to all those many other people who were not there) the moment which was experienced (and captured) at the shoot.

For me, that method works sometimes and sometimes not. As an example of when that method might not work, I can imagine Kim wanting to very carefully remember the mood, ambiance, atmosphere and other similar feelings experienced at the event to ensure that those same feelings are transmitted to the viewer by whatever characteristics are exhibited in the photo. Indeed, just a week ago I post-processed a forest scene exactly that way to ensure the mood I remembered was conveyed in the photo.

[NorthernFocus]

Really a nice image, Kim. In this particular image nothing distracts my attention from those eyes. Nicely done.

Regarding PP, as others have said we all go through the struggle of whether to and how much. There are many things that influence that decision. Personal preference/style, client requirements, etc. are factors involved in the decision. Subject matter may also dictate. In situations where the photographer has substantial control over the situation no or minimal PP should be necessary. However when conditions in the field dictate lighting angles, lens selection, background content, etc, one has to decide whether to utilize PP capabilities, accept a substandard image, or simply don't bother with the shot.

[Mike Buckley]

In situations where the photographer has substantial control over the situation no or minimal PP should be necessary.

When I'm working in my makeshift studio, sometimes I have the choice of taking significant time in the studio or significant time during post-processing. I almost always choose the latter because the amount of time required is more predictable. That's probably just for me because I'm such a klutz when it comes to arranging things in the studio.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Kim. A very nice image. Although I like William's edit too, I prefer your original

[KimC]

Thank you John.

Nicely composed and exposed.

[KimC]

Thanks for your comments Richard. I'll respond as part of my response to Bill (WW).

Lovely image... Her hands tend to attract my attention before my attention is attracted on her eyes. Perhaps this is what you intended.

Perhaps this is because her hands are brighter than her eyes or that they seem (on my monitor) to be the point of focus rather than the eyes...

[KimC]

Thank you Bill.

Brava! You nailed it. I also agree: ‘emotive’; ‘a beauty’; ‘moment and composition lacks nothing’; ‘super image’.

Glad I was on the right track. I actually did this with several - I worked on them on Monday/Tuesday, saved the versions I liked, and then made a decision yesterday morning, which I preferred. In every instance except one, it was the "less" processed version. My feeling was the added processing (which was light handed), took some of the richness away.

I also agree with what Donald’s and Richard’s “Viewer’s Eye” noticed when looking at the image and I think that these are points worth further exploration/discussion.

***

One method I often use is to create (only) two options which are under my serious consideration and then (this is the key bit) walk away. Come back the next day with a clear mind and view them in an A/B scenario.***

I like this point Bill. I appreciated Richard's comment -- I was at the shoot, and I was well aware that her hands were lighter. What I didn't consider is how might someone who wasn't at the shoot see them, and how will the camera see them. It seems rather than "not having any carry over", it should be an added consideration - I saw the scene, what did I like about it and want do I want to carry forward, and how might someone not there to witness it perceive the image?

The mechanism I described above allows me to disassociate myself and my memory from my being at the shot.

Underlined and bold purposely, because I think that it is important to not have any ‘carry over’ from being at the shoot which impacts on the OBJECTIVE analysis so that the FINAL IMAGE will portray and convey (to all those many other people who were not there) the moment which was experienced (and captured) at the shoot.

I wanted to take some time to think about this. I have decided, I continue to like my decision to leave the highlights. I like the ambiance it adds, especially because it was a Holy Communion. I do like the tiny bit of brightness you added to her face; however, I would not touch her eyes. She has black eyes and I do like them as is.

Thank you for your detailed comments as always.

After my being “WOWED” by the overall image . . . and for quite a while . . . the only two (niggling) elements which irritated my “Viewer’s Eye” were the highlights on the pew, top left quadrant, and the relative minor lack of light on the eyes/face and the White Communion Dress when those areas were contrasted to the Hands: my Viewer's Eye was distracted by the highlights and my Viewer's Eye felt that the Eyes, Face and Dress should be 'equal to' the Hands - thus rendering the "Whole Person" dominate in the (powerful) scene and not just one portion (her hands) of her.

[KimC]

Thank you for your comment Izzie.

Good explanation and argument, William of Strayla. But I think I will go with the choice of Kim here about not toning down the bright reflection of light at the left quadrant. The girl itself has a good contrast, good background that doesn't blend with the colour of her skin at all. The subtle blues in each corner of the frame also looks good. I applaud her choice of not touching the image so much in pp too. The image is strong enough. It is not just an ordinary shot -- it is a very good shot.