B&W Portrait

[Gerry F]

I would appreciate comments on this portrait and how to improve it. ThanksDSC01259 by gerald fraser, on Flickr

[pschlute]

I love the way the subject is lit, very dramatic.

I dont like the bright strip in the left of the picture and especially the brighter patch at the back of his head. I guess you were limited by the environment you are shooting in but you could do something about those in pp.

[Rufus]

+ 1 to Peter's comment.

[Manfred M]

Gerry, while I can see where you are trying to go with this image, the execution is not working at all for me.

The way that your subject fades into the background without any separation especially along the chin and neck is not working for me. When I open your image in Adobe Camera Raw, all of the blue that one sees are areas that are underexposed to the point where all shadow detail is lost. This is generally not considered good image craft. One needs to preserve details in the shadow area. A bit of black is fine, especially in a B&W image. Likewise, we would like to see some pure white as well, but there is none.




I'm not sure if this is due to post processing or issues in your exposure.

[DanK]

This has some nice dramatic elements, but I agree with the other comments. It would be easy to get rid of the distracting light over the back of his head. I would just select it and use content-aware fill. (I tried, and it worked well enough.) I would probably just burn the white area in front of his face to darken it somewhat. The more important issue is the one Manfred raised. I have a higher tolerance for lost shadow detail than he does, but I thin there is too much lost here. If the original exposure includes the detail, I would bring more of the face back.

[Shadowman]

Nice effort, I would go completely black in the background, no stray glimpses of tone.

[lovelife65]

Very nice attempt! I agree with most other comments, so not much to add ..... distracting elements, bringing out the subject just a bit more as the front of his face / head appears but the rest is mostly lost.

[Gerry F]

Thanks to you all for your helpful suggestions. I will use them to work on the photograph and submit again.

[Gerry F]

I have made changes in the light of your comments. Would appreciate your comments again. I have kept the dark background. The first is essentially the original minus the extraneous lighting.
#1DSC01259 by gerald fraser, on Flickr
#2 DSC01259 2 by gerald fraser, on Flickr
#3 DSC01259 2 by gerald fraser, on Flickr
#4 DSC01259 1 by gerald fraser, on Flickr

[pschlute]

I prefer your first edit Gerald. Removal of the distracting lighting, but leaving the exposure on the subject the same. The others reveal more detail but remove the dramatic effect.

[Manfred M]

Sorry, none of these quite do it for me, although #2 comes closest.

Unlike the first one where, where you have corrected some of the issues that were pointed out previously, there still isn't enough separation between some of the shadow areas of the neck and chin and the background. #3 and #4 are not particularly interesting because the drama of the face is lost and the shots just look underexposed.

The issue I have with #2 is that the shirt is too bright and gets to be a bit distracting. Replace that with the shirt from #1 and enhance some of the rim lighting, I think you will get a stronger image.

I think you might also want to consider cropping a bit from the left hand side of the image. I like negative space, but I find there is a bit too much and removing it places more attention on your subject.

[DanK]

I agree with Manfred. #2 was my pick of the 4, but his edit is better. He has restored the dramatic contrast in the face while removing the distraction of the bright shirt. I also think the cropping is better.

[Gerry F]

Thanks everyone and specifically Manfred for your input. I have learnt a great deal from this exercise. A couple of points:
First, it seems to me that the interesting part of this portrait is the facial profile and much less the rest of the head. Since the eye is attracted to the light does it not make sense to have the face lit up compared to the rest of the head, which should be dark (almost as possible) and not some sort of continuum between the two.
Second, I find there is a significant difference how the portrait appears depending on the screen used to visualize it. On my PC the picture is markedly lighter than on my iMac. So I am not sure that we all see the same photograph.

[Manfred M]

First, it seems to me that the interesting part of this portrait is the facial profile and much less the rest of the head. Since the eye is attracted to the light does it not make sense to have the face lit up compared to the rest of the head, which should be dark (almost as possible) and not some sort of continuum between the two.

In general, when we look at pictures of people (or animals) we tend to focus on the facial features, especially the eyes, but often the mouth and nose are important too. In this shot those features are clearly accentuated and are what draw us in to the image.

Human vision is also keyed to areas of brightness and high contrast, so we have to be a little careful to ensure that these parts of the image do not overpower and conflict with the facial features. In your #2, the shirt was bright and causing a distraction.

In your first image the issue in many ways was the lack of contrast between your subject and the background. In studio work photographers will often illuminate from the back so that the subject is separated from the background. The facial profile and those lines of light around the head and the way that the hair stands out fix that.

Second, I find there is a significant difference how the portrait appears depending on the screen used to visualize it. On my PC the picture is markedly lighter than on my iMac. So I am not sure that we all see the same photograph.

Often we do not see the same photograph, as you put it. When someone tells me my image is too dark or bright or that the colours are off, I will ask them if their computer screen has been profiled and calibrated and they are looking at the image in a dimly lit room. If the answer is no to either question, I know that it is their issue and not mine.

Every so often you will see a discussion, here at CiC, on having a computer screen profiled and calibrated. Unfortunately, most computer screens that come straight out of the box are set up to be much too bright. Manufacturers know that most computers are going to be used primarily in an office-like environment, so their output is cranked up quite high. While it is less of an issue with B&W images, the colour reproduction is often not accurate either.

Pros and serious amateurs take care of this by using a calibration tool made by companies like xRite (ColorMunki and i1) and DataColor (Spyder). Not only do they set up lookup tables to correct colour issues, they also allow the user to set the brightness of the screen to be in the right range. For photography we generally look for screen output to be in the 80 - 120 candela / square meter range.

The other issue is the viewing space brightness. If the room where your computer is located is too bright, then the screen will look dull and have low contrast. Most office environments are lit to 500 lux whereas the recommended room lighting for viewing and assessing photos should be below 70 lux. There are ways to measure this, but at a high level if you keep the room moderately dark so that you can still clearly see your keyboard and work area, that is probably just fine.

[Gerry F]

Thanks again for your in depth response which opens up another dimension that I had not previously considered. Obviously something I will have to look into.