Natural Beauty - C&C Welcomed

[KimC]

I find it to be a shame that society can't honor the beauty of people above 30... the person in this image was so excited when she saw her photos -- she said she couldn't believe it was her (but it is!). She's still talking about them and they put her on cloud nine -- what could be better.

I did comment on that book and I love it -- worth the money!

Look forward to seeing your posts Bruce.

Kim, thank you for starting this thread. My reaction is similar to Mike's (post #30). My favourite is the first photo. I've done very little portrait work except for children portraits when my nephew and niece were young a good many years ago. But I'm starting again and most of my subjects will be likely of a certain age (or more) so I'll look forward to more posts by you.

I had a look on Amazon at the book you refer to. The table of contents looks extremely useful. I'll look forward to reading your comments about the book -- or perhaps I'll just order a copy anyway!

[KimC]

Would love to see -- can you share her name with us?

About photographing people who are of "a certain age:" There is an excellent female photographer in South Africa who specializes in boudoir photography of women over 40.

[KimC]

Thank you for clarifying your comment Manfred.

I do like the crop on the Image 2 -- I do have other images of her, where she is facing me, with a similar crop. If interested, I have commented to Mike above concerning the problems I encountered on this shot, one of which was I couldn't get high enough.

Image 2 - I find that the model is a bit too close to the background and this accentuates the horizontal line of planks that appear to run straight through her head. Had she posed some 6 or 10 ft / 2 - 3m in front of the backdrop and had Kim used a fairly shallow DoF, I think the shot would have worked better.

That being said, I don't love the way the model's hands look in the shot. Being a fairly low shot, the hands are exaggerated a bit and are just a bit to prominant for my taste. If you play around with the image in Lightbox and position it so that the hands are not in the image, the composition seems to be a lot stronger.

A revised 3rd image is included above. I find her skin tone and all the green (find green so hard to work with) to be more appealing in the revised image I posted. Always interested in others opinions.

Image 3 - I really don't like the run of bright, featureless sky along the tops of the trees. It draws our eyes right past the subject. A bit higher view, with the camera at the subject's eye level and pointing down a bit fixes the background. A bit of quick work with the clone stamp to demonstrate what I am thinking here...

[KimC]

Yes, I agree.

I think reviewing this shot in the context of the others understandably leads people to believe that it actually was posed.

Thanks Mike. I agree it changes the dynamic.

Having said that, the most recently posted image indicates to me that the subject is looking at the flowers, not her foot, except that if anything she is making sure that she doesn't step on one of the flowers. That is such a huge difference between this image and the other one that is similar, which conveys to me that she is looking only at her foot. I think that's because the flowers stand out so much more in the most recent image than in the earlier version, so it makes sense that the subject is ensuring that she is avoiding them.

[KimC]

Thanks for commenting Raymond.

Tyhe cropped pics were great , steong composition and technically well edited

[Mike Buckley]

can you share her name with us?

If I could think of it, I would share it. It has been years since I have participated in the forum that she frequents.

[purplehaze]

Great project, Kim, and terrific results. The first and the third shots are my favorites. I did find the original #3 a bit too bright. Am not sure how I feel about your second version, as the lightness of her mood conflicts with the darkness of the sky for me. At a minimum, I would suggest you selectively brighten her face as my eye is being distracted from it by her white blouse.

Looking forward to seeing more...

[Manfred M]

Kim - I find what you are doing to be quite refreshing. Western society seems to have devalued "older" people and to many this really means anyone older than they are. Fortunately, other cultures do not have this problem and respect the elders in their societies.

I personally find people over 30 to be very interesting photographic subjects, simply because they are often quite comfortable with themselves and really don't care about what others think. They can be very interesting people.

[KimC]

Hi Janis. Insightful comment on the second version I posted (mood change/with lightness of her mood) - I'll have to give that some thought - thank you for mentioning.

Great project, Kim, and terrific results. The first and the third shots are my favorites. I did find the original #3 a bit too bright. Am not sure how I feel about your second version, as the lightness of her mood conflicts with the darkness of the sky for me. At a minimum, I would suggest you selectively brighten her face as my eye is being distracted from it by her white blouse.

Looking forward to seeing more...

[KimC]

Thank you for that comment Manfred. It took me 6 months to convince her to let me photograph her -- she never felt good enough. She hasn't stopped talking about her pictures... and the best part is, it's her -- no filters or PS - just a little tweaking. It's really a gift to me, to see her so happy.

Kim - I find what you are doing to be quite refreshing. Western society seems to have devalued "older" people and to many this really means anyone older than they are. Fortunately, other cultures do not have this problem and respect the elders in their societies.

I personally find people over 30 to be very interesting photographic subjects, simply because they are often quite comfortable with themselves and really don't care about what others think. They can be very interesting people.

[William W]

Regarding reworked Image #3 (post #35):

. . . the 3rd image was reworked today. . . This rendition gives it a bit of a different feel...which I like. Interested in others thoughts.

My thoughts:

1. The ‘different feel’ portrays the Subject as a stronger and more dominate ELEMENT WITHIN THE IMAGE mainly because the Subject is now in direct juxtaposition to the sky and secondarily (as a result of that juxtaposition) is more dominate on the grass palette.

2. The overall is a ‘dark and ominous feel’ upon which is placed a strong, dominate Subject, which makes the image stronger, generally.

3. The rework makes Image #3 as a stand-alone Portrait, better. The viewer’s eye may concentrate more on and return to the Subject’s Face now that the sky is not a great big (white) negative space

4. The rework neither makes Image #3 as strong, nor as as meritorious as Image #1, apropos the brief: “to take the best image I can, of women of a certain age; honoring the richness of her beauty and spirit on that day and not trying to make her look years younger.”

5. The rework of Image #3 exacerbates the particular problem of the lighting, an expanded commentary and PP options for consideration are below.

6. The rework introduced (or re-introduced) a Blue Cast.

***

One of the (technical) considerations with Image #3 is the Face being in Soft Shadow.

The fortunate element is that, because is a SOFT shadow, Post Production can be (more easily) used to give the illusion of a Fill Light (arguably more easily than of the face were in HARD Shadow).

There are a few methods, I tend to use Dodging and Burning (I guess because I learned in a Darkroom) and where necessary, localized Cloning.

Also I perceive a definite BLUE Cast in rework Image #3 and this is indicative of the shot being made under CLOUD COVER and is evidenced by the WHITE top, not being white.

Also noted is that the ‘cloud cover’ blue cast often plays a little havoc with Caucasian Skin Tones, especially those which are ‘peaches and cream’ or 'slightly tanned', rendering those lighter skin tones appearing ‘dirty’ or ‘dusty’ – and that’s exactly what I see on our Studio Monitor.

Below is a quick and rough indicative A/B using Photoshop –

1. OVERALL Expand Dynamic Range

2. Re-work on the face ONLY - Dodging and localized Cloning to remove the shadows under the eyes; lighten portions of the hair

3. OVERALL Colour Balance to remove Blue Cast (3 Sliders – Shadow/Mid/High)


(Original is on the top / left)

Full frame crops, A/B:


*

Enlarged Crops, to show detail, A/B:


Notes:

A) The expanding overall DR and Colour Correction has dramatic effect on middle ground grass

B) Obviously, ONLY the localized work on the face and the Colour Corrections could be done, (excluding the increase in DR), which would keep the ‘dark and ominous’ feel to the background template and the subsequent general drama to the image.

WW

[KimC]

Bill, as always, thank you for your very detailed comments. I am going to rework this image using your comments, and also take into consideration Janis' comment about the impact the darker image had on her lightness of mood and repost. I appreciate your mention of the skin tone issues. I was having a hard time with that and thought it was related to my distaste for green's reflective abilities. Good to know the impact of cloud cover on certain skin tones.

Regarding reworked Image #3 (post #35):

My thoughts:

5. The rework of Image #3 exacerbates the particular problem of the lighting, an expanded commentary and PP options for consideration are below.

6. The rework introduced (or re-introduced) a Blue Cast.

***

One of the (technical) considerations with Image #3 is the Face being in Soft Shadow.

The fortunate element is that, because is a SOFT shadow, Post Production can be (more easily) used to give the illusion of a Fill Light (arguably more easily than of the face were in HARD Shadow).

There are a few methods, I tend to use Dodging and Burning (I guess because I learned in a Darkroom) and where necessary, localized Cloning.

Also I perceive a definite BLUE Cast in rework Image #3 and this is indicative of the shot being made under CLOUD COVER and is evidenced by the WHITE top, not being white.

Also noted is that the ‘cloud cover’ blue cast often plays a little havoc with Caucasian Skin Tones, especially those which are ‘peaches and cream’ or 'slightly tanned', rendering those lighter skin tones appearing ‘dirty’ or ‘dusty’ – and that’s exactly what I see on our Studio Monitor.

Below is a quick and rough indicative A/B using Photoshop –

1. OVERALL Expand Dynamic Range

2. Re-work on the face ONLY - Dodging and localized Cloning to remove the shadows under the eyes; lighten portions of the hair

3. OVERALL Colour Balance to remove Blue Cast (3 Sliders – Shadow/Mid/High)

Notes:

A) The expanding overall DR and Colour Correction has dramatic effect on middle ground grass

B) Obviously, ONLY the localized work on the face and the Colour Corrections could be done, (excluding the increase in DR), which would keep the ‘dark and ominous’ feel. to the background template and the subsequent general drama to the image.

WW

[William W]

. . . I appreciate your mention of the skin tone issues. I was having a hard time with that and thought it was related to my distaste for green's reflective abilities. Good to know the impact of cloud cover on certain skin tones. . .

I saw the blue cast in the wooden fence railings first, before the shirt or the skin. The railing is a dominate Element in the Composition, I have views on that too, but suffice to say that because it is a dominate feature, it drove me completely nuts to see the railing as "blue". Probably now that I have mentioned the railing all that you might see is a blue railing also! Welcome to my world of crazy!

The areas of skin that are in more shadow appear 'dustier' - the top of her R Shoulder is very fresh looking by comparison.

It's just experience: trillions of Brides and white dresses and cloudy days or under open shade.

The biggest factor to overcome is one's own brain - the brain 'interprets' what the eye sees. One has to switch off the Brain's Auto Colour Correction Mode (and also Auto Exposure Correction Mode). That's easier to do for PP and Darkroom work than in situ when shooting - BUT both can be achieved with Practice and Discipline.

WW

[William W]

Addendum - related information:

Maybe have a look at the commentary I just made here: Three questions about white balance

Post #21.

Inside that commentary is a link, the flowers are in open shade. If we were to keep "correct white balance" the flowers would be similarly 'dirty' and 'dusty'.

Open shade can have a similar effect, like cloud cover.

WW

[KimC]

Here's my re-work of the image taking into consideration your comments and Janis'. I did feel your rendition had a hint of yellow in her skin-tone that she doesn't have, so I tried to keep it as close to her real tone as possible. Hopefully this is an improvement.

I saw the blue cast in the wooden fence railings first, before the shirt or the skin. The railing is a dominate Element in the Composition, I have views on that too, but suffice to say that because it is a dominate feature, it drove me completely nuts to see the railing as "blue". Probably now that I have mentioned the railing all that you might see is a blue railing also! Welcome to my world of crazy!

The areas of skin that are in more shadow appear 'dustier' - the top of her R Shoulder is very fresh looking by comparison.

It's just experience: trillions of Brides and white dresses and cloudy days or under open shade.

The biggest factor to overcome is one's own brain - the brain 'interprets' what the eye sees. One has to switch off the Brain's Auto Colour Correction Mode (and also Auto Exposure Correction Mode). That's easier to do for PP and Darkroom work than in situ when shooting - BUT both can be achieved with Practice and Discipline.

WW

[purplehaze]

Viewed from my iPhone, it looks lovely, Kim.

[William W]

[KimC]

Thank you and thanks again for your earlier comment :-)

Viewed from my iPhone, it looks lovely, Kim.

[KimC]

Thank you for the collage Bill - very helpful to see them in this format. I did have them enlarged on my Mac, but this is better.

IMHO, it appears the last rendition took the best of the previous three. Would you agree?

[Cantab]

Thank you for the collage Bill - very helpful to see them in this format. I did have them enlarged on my Mac, but this is better.

IMHO, it appears the last rendition took the best of the previous three. Would you agree?

Kim, I'm going to jump into the discussion with a focus on skin tone. I'll begin by saying that I obviously don't know what colour your model's skin is and how tanned, or not, she was when you took the picture. As importantly, I haven't recalibrated/profiled my monitor for a few months so it may not be giving me an accurate rendition -- although it still seems okay with other photos.

To my eyes, the last rendition is not quite right (on my monitor). My inexpert view is that her skin tone may be slightly blue and may be over saturated. On the other hand, the third rendition (Bill's post #51) may have a slight yellowish hue (on my monitor).

This all leads me to two conclusions: a properly calibrated monitor, etc., is critical and adjusting skin tones is no easy task!