My only quibble with the colour version is that, on my screen at least, the upper and lower body flesh tones do not match, the legs being noticeably pinker. Still, a very fine image. Love the dancer, the light and the background.
My only quibble with the colour version is that, on my screen at least, the upper and lower body flesh tones do not match, the legs being noticeably pinker. Still, a very fine image. Love the dancer, the light and the background.
That's actually a fairly common issue with most colour images that have legs in them. That tends to be brought about by a combination of lighting and the fact that people usually get more sun exposure to the top of their bodies than the bottom. Not only does the skin have a different colour, it's a bit patchy as well. This tends to be more of an issue with models that have very fair skin and is the reason that a lot of fashion and beauty photographers tend to prefer more "olive skinned" models.
If you look carefully at the B&W, the legs do have a patchy look to them as well. The normal "fix" for this is to colour correct the legs (take out the red and add a bit of yellow) and remove the patchiness through either dodging and burning or adding a slight local blur to those areas. Sometimes we even run into model where the face does not match the arms and torso which does not match the legs! The face issues are often a combination of more sunlight to that part of the body as well as some inappropriate choices in makeup.
In this scene, even the lighting impacts what is happening. The upper body is lit from the camera left side with some direct light but the lower part of the legs are getting some reflected light from the floor.
Post 18, Manfred thanks for the additional comments and suggestion, I like the edit and will consider the dodging and burning of the B & W version. I printed the B & W version on Canson Platine and the paper surface did give it a bit more kick.