Scary!

[Loose Canon]

I know this shot is cliché, passé, and various other “é’s” on at least a couple of levels. If this one doesn’t scare the bejezus out of you, then you must have nerves of steel! For one thing the old “camera in front of the face” shot has been done a squillion times.

Then I chose to use selective coloring. I don’t normally use it if I don’t have to, but I am surprised at the number of “civilians” (non-photographers) that love it. I have seen it used to garish and horrifying ends.

Please feel free to mention all of this if you feel the desire! But I needed to get a shot like this done.

So here is how it went…

Two lights. One lighting the shooter with a 20* grid and one snooted lighting the front of the lens. I wanted to throw some light on the front of the lens to bring secondary attention to the reflections that I had planned on compositing.

To take advantage of hoped for perspective distortion, I shot up close with my 17-40L at 40mm. The goal was to get the lens distorted and looking large. There was no special background per se. I killed ambient with shutter speed.

Special processing included the selective coloring and the lens reflections among other things!

Shot @ f/8, 1/200, ISO 400.
Manual flash, Key @ ½ & change, Lens @ ¼ & change.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Terry,

Good effort, but to be honest, I find the lens reflections distracting as it isn't obvious how they have occurred and I spend too much time trying to work it out.

The other thing that grabs my attention is the over brightly sharpened facial hair and skin pores - but perhaps I'm missing the point.

The crop/composition and exposure is spot on.

Hope that's helpful,

[Loose Canon]

Hey Dave!

Thanks for being honest!

There is no reason for the reflections other than something to make the shot a bit different. As with the selective coloring. No worries if you can’t seem to “work it out”! There’s nothing to work out and the only thing obvious is that it’s a specialty composited/processed shot and admitted as such. As such it is not necessarily intended to represent reality in its truest form.

It is, however, shot based on composition and lighting/exposure and I appreciate the comments made in that respect. The main goal was to get that happening and once that was accomplished (hopefully), the rest could happen in post.

As far as the over sharpened facial hair and pores, you are seeing a skin sheen causing spectral highlights that have actually been cranked down quite a bit. The hair has not been sharpened at all nor has the skin (except for global downsize sharpening for posting, which may be the culprit), nor has it been dulled down. That’s just the shot unless I made a mistake following my usual procedure for sizing an image for posting here. I guess I have a high dynamic face (HDF)! But you have a good point and I will l look at doing some further adjustments toward that end.

I appreciate you looking and taking the time to comment, Dave. Thank you, sir.

[Mike Buckley]

Terry,

I apologize that I didn't take the time to read your lengthy, probably informative post. That's because I am mesmerized by your image and simply skipped past your text.

Apparently contrary to Dave, whose post I lightly skimmed, I'm intrigued by the eye that is the source and the various reflections, upside down and otherwise, in the other parts of your photo. I don't understand the physics of light or optics enough to understand how you made this image, so, unlike Dave, I'm not spending any time trying to figure out how you produced the image. Instead, I'm really enjoying it.

I've gotta stop typing now so I can get another look at your photo!

EDIT: Okay, now that I've done that, you might want to consider toning down the bright, very sharp parts of the face and hair on the side of the head. They detract a bit from the source eye.

Again, very well done!

LAST EDIT: Too bad the photo doesn't display a Nikon camera, but I'll forgive you.

[allenlennon]

Terry, firstly i do love the idea behind the photo and the photo itself, i to had this idea aswell, same stance and selective colouring of my eye(natural colour of course)and have a question, is this a self portrait? If so did you use another camera or a mirror? And now since i seen you have done a great job i dont think i can do this in great detail as you.

Now to the photo, unlike Mike and Dave, I love the skin and the hair as is, and to me it does not distract but rather add to the image, and the eye is what im drawn to. The reflections on the lens, although skilfully done, dosnt really do anything for me. And another note about the reflection, and i must say im no smart person on the physics of reflection, but wouldnt the reflection be up right not upside down? But i see how that would be a interesting thing to do.

[Loose Canon]

Hi Mike!

Thanks for taking the time to comment, sir.

I apologize for the Canon! My Nikon gear was in the laundry at the time and I was relegated to using inferior equipment for this shot!

Hey Allen! I appreciate you viewing! I want to mention I enjoyed your first shots with your Nero Trigger! Looking forward to more!

This was a self portrait and it was shot in a mirror.

Because of that, all of the lettering was backwards. I made everything look “right” in post because I didn’t want it to be totally obvious it was shot in a mirror! It must have worked to some degree since you asked about it!

As long as the reflections seem to be bothersome and not a true rendition of reality (which they were never intended to be), I might add that not only did I reverse the lettering (another deception!), but the “17-40mm 1:4L would be in the wrong place in a true frontal view. It would actually be on the other side of the lens and the “77mm” lettering, which is in shadow and not visible on the camera right side of the lens, would be visible instead.

The reflections would indeed be right-side up Allen! Your eye and camera sensor, however, “sees” what they are looking at upside down.

I lit the face from one side (camera left), and the lens from the other (camera right). The theory was that the shadows would all be on the same side. Notice the “Canon” lettering shows the shadow going left to right starting with the letter “C”. This is contrary to the lighting because I reversed the lettering. I probably should have dodged and burned the word “Canon” a little to make it look more in line with the lighting and to make it say “Nikon”!

I think you could pull a shot like this off Allen! I got Faith in you, Bro!

[RustBeltRaw]

Bit of a mind-bender, Terry. You're right that this has been done before, but rarely this well. The shot has a trippy, slightly scary mood. Very good work!

[allenlennon]

Thank you terry for your detailed reply. And I will have a crack at it once I get time.

[GrahamS]

Good eye for a photograph......

[Loose Canon]

Bit of a mind-bender, Terry. You're right that this has been done before, but rarely this well. The shot has a trippy, slightly scary mood. Very good work!

Thank you for saying Lex. Not to mention that dude is ugly as a mud fence!

Thank you terry for your detailed reply. And I will have a crack at it once I get time.

You are most welcome, Allen.

Good eye for a photograph......

Now dat's de woist 'ting I evah hoid (Best Groucho impression while waving a cigar)!