Years Past (Millennial with old truck) C&C Welcomed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

That's an understandable attitude of a commercial photographer. They can't justify the time to really get everything "right" because they have to make a living at it.

On the other hand, we hobbyists at least who think as I do can justify the time even if we don't have the skill or talent to get it "right." My point is that the attitude and results of the pro photographers are not necessarily the gold measures simply because they are accomplished professionals.

As an example, when I was in high school in the 1960s, I took clarinet lessons from a clarinet player who was also a cello player in the orchestra of a very popular nationally (probably internationally) broadcast television show. He explained that when he and the others played a really fast major scale on the cello, they would simply skip the seventh tone of the scale and play the 8th tone twice. This might have been the practice of the commercial guys playing television shows but I learned later that no respectable cellist in a major college symphony orchestra, much less a major pro symphony orchestra, would ever think of doing that.

So, when I hear and see what the commercial photographers do, I don't hold that as a standard just because it's their standard.

---

Mike - I totally agree, to a point. In fact that is similar to an argument I use myself. What a commercial photographer does establishes the "floor", i.e. the minimum amount of work to produce an image that is acceptable to a client. These clients are admittedly not photographers and are unlikely to put things under the same level of scrutiny that many of the members here would. Still it represents an acceptable baseline.

This brings us to that question that can never be answered. "What is good enough". Kim's original posting certainly clears that bar. It is an excellent image that she and the subject should be happy with. The question then becomes "how much effort should one put into post-production?".

Again, the answer I got when I asked a number of the commercial photographers I know ranged from "less than 30 seconds" to around 10 minutes for a large sized print. Again that puts a time / monetary value statement around the time it takes to produce an acceptable commercial image. The other thing I will add, part of the reason that it takes so little time is that these people "get it right in the camera", so the amount of PP is vastly reduced.

The second part of the question is something I refer to as principle of diminishing returns. At some point the additional effort that goes into PP work (even for us amateurs) is going to make marginal improvements. I'm a firm believer in the 80:20 principle that simple suggests that 80% of the total improvements can be accomplished with 20% of the total effort. The other 20% of the improvement will take 80% of the effort. As much as possible, I try to live that rule and if the work cannot be accomplished relatively quickly, perhaps it's not worth the effort given the marginal improvement that will bring.

Bottom line - do I think my edit improved the image. The answer is yes. Second question, do I think that it's perfect, the answer is clearly "no", but in my eyes it passes the "good enough" criterion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Y\
Concentrate on the face, the rest does not matter nearly as much. ..

---

Hi Kim,

As others have posted, your technique/composition is great and your concept use of the B & W/shadows is awesome.

I'd fully agree with Grumpy.

However, you and your clients seems content, which may be the final measure.

Congrats on a good job!
:)

I lost the link to this one that I saved and just found it last night. You did a good job here, Kim...according to me. I am glad too that it merits a lengthy discussion of what is good and what is not.

Completely agreed, Manfred.

Nice image. Old trucks/cars in dusty barns and sheds make for great images.

Dave

Thanks Manfred. I just made that change on my original; it looks good. Yes, lighting was harsh; I was shooting earlier than I would have liked - this was the last foliage weekend and it was supposed to snow later in the afternoon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Some how I missed this one. Very nicely done and the rationale for going B&W makes a lot of sense. Trying to fight a giant red reflector in the shot would have been rather challenging. It looks like you had some fairly harsh lighting hitting your (primary) subject, given the shadows in the image.

If it were my shot, I might go back and dodge the eyes a tiny bit. The lighting is giving him a bit of the "racoon" eyes look and bringing the eyes out would open up his face a bit more. (I know - it's a really super niggly point).

---

Mike, I have viewed the rest of the discussion; however, I was wondering what shadows are you referring to? The one by his arm, or are you speaking of all of them, which would bring out the darkness around the truck? If I lift all the shadow, it loses something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

I can top that when it comes to super niggly points. If you're going to go to the trouble of lifting the shadows in the eyes (I hope I would do that and often have), you should also go to the trouble of lifting the other shadow areas. That's because photogs such as myself will notice that, lacking special lighting equipment, it's a dead give away that some shadows were lifted during post-processing and others were forgotten.

---

Thank you Greg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FootLoose

Nice composition, Kim, and good conversion.

---

Thanks for your comment Vic. Yes, I agree with Manfred on the eye shadows. It was a positive change to the image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rider in the Sky

Hi Kim,

As others have posted, your technique/composition is great and your concept use of the B & W/shadows is awesome.

I'd fully agree with Grumpy.

However, you and your clients seems content, which may be the final measure.

Congrats on a good job!
:)

---

Thank you Izzie. Yes, I always find it helpful when good and need to be improved are pointed out -- it helps all of us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IzzieK

I lost the link to this one that I saved and just found it last night. You did a good job here, Kim...according to me. I am glad too that it merits a lengthy discussion of what is good and what is not.

---

I agree Dave; I wish finding such was easier :-) Thank you for your comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave A

Nice image. Old trucks/cars in dusty barns and sheds make for great images.

Dave

---

Kim,

Like you, I also would have tried lifting the shadow by the arm. However, if that looks better as is, I would leave it as is. Keep in mind that a shadow that far from the shadows on the subject's face could be less or more intense in the physical scene depending on the light that is being reflected into those shadows by the surroundings. My point is that it doesn't look unnatural for that shadow to be darker than the shadow in the subject's eye sockets.

However, I would definitely lift all of the shadows on the subject's face and neck. It looks a bit odd to me that the eye sockets look so bright when the other areas of the face and neck display supposedly different lighting.

Thanks for responding and sharing your thoughts Mike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Kim,

Like you, I also would have tried lifting the shadow by the arm. However, if that looks better as is, I would leave it as is. Keep in mind that a shadow that far from the shadows on the subject's face could be less or more intense in the physical scene depending on the light that is being reflected into those shadows by the surroundings. My point is that it doesn't look unnatural for that shadow to be darker than the shadow in the subject's eye sockets.

However, I would definitely lift all of the shadows on the subject's face and neck. It looks a bit odd to me that the eye sockets look so bright when the other areas of the face and neck display supposedly different lighting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Mike - I totally agree, to a point. In fact that is similar to an argument I use myself. What a commercial photographer does establishes the "floor", i.e. the minimum amount of work to produce an image that is acceptable to a client. These clients are admittedly not photographers and are unlikely to put things under the same level of scrutiny that many of the members here would. Still it represents an acceptable baseline.

This brings us to that question that can never be answered. "What is good enough". Kim's original posting certainly clears that bar. It is an excellent image that she and the subject should be happy with. The question then becomes "how much effort should one put into post-production?".

Again, the answer I got when I asked a number of the commercial photographers I know ranged from "less than 30 seconds" to around 10 minutes for a large sized print. Again that puts a time / monetary value statement around the time it takes to produce an acceptable commercial image. The other thing I will add, part of the reason that it takes so little time is that these people "get it right in the camera", so the amount of PP is vastly reduced.

The second part of the question is something I refer to as principle of diminishing returns. At some point the additional effort that goes into PP work (even for us amateurs) is going to make marginal improvements. I'm a firm believer in the 80:20 principle that simple suggests that 80% of the total improvements can be accomplished with 20% of the total effort. The other 20% of the improvement will take 80% of the effort. As much as possible, I try to live that rule and if the work cannot be accomplished relatively quickly, perhaps it's not worth the effort given the marginal improvement that will bring.

Bottom line - do I think my edit improved the image. The answer is yes. Second question, do I think that it's perfect, the answer is clearly "no", but in my eyes it passes the "good enough" criterion.

---

I just started following this sidetrack discussion between commercial photographers and the photographer trying to make it look realistic and another thing to consider is the patience of the model, is the truck hood hot from the midday sun, does the photographer have an assistant or the reflector needed (can a makeshift reflector be used), is the light fading, there are so many variables to consider when making any shot look near perfect.

I liked your post John as it made me wonder, what exactly is "perfect"? I've seen some photos that may be technically perfect but they don't excite my eye; so are they perfect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I just started following this sidetrack discussion between commercial photographers and the photographer trying to make it look realistic and another thing to consider is the patience of the model, is the truck hood hot from the midday sun, does the photographer have an assistant or the reflector needed (can a makeshift reflector be used), is the light fading, there are so many variables to consider when making any shot look near perfect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KimC

I liked your post John as it made me wonder, what exactly is "perfect"? I've seen some photos that may be technically perfect but they don't excite my eye; so are they perfect?

---

Hi Kim,

Perhaps only technically perfect, aesthetically they may be lacking.

Very nice image Kim, black and white conversion is really good.