1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sisterly Love

Discussion in 'Exhibition Lounge' started by Lounge Lizard, Mar 5, 2006.

  1. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    And another one...

    [​IMG]
     
  3. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    Re: And another one...

    Much prefer the second...............but then I'm a sucker for just a "plain old fashioned style" portrait....................probably because I'm plain and old fashioned myself! ;)

    BigWill
     
  4. chris000

    chris000 Well-Known Member

    Re: And another one...

    Lovely portraits David :) I especially like the grain in the first one, often works well in black and white portraits I feel
     
  5. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    A question for David...............

    ..........in the first image is that actually film "grain" or is it digital "noise" or a photo editing software generated effect? It looks suspiciously like the latter to me and while I've always quite liked the effect of film grain, I've always struggled to accept digital noise on equal terms.

    BigWill
     
  6. Chris Cool

    Chris Cool Retired

    Re: And another one...

    Great stuff! :D


    Chris
     
  7. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    Re: A question for David...............

    It was shot on digital so can't be genuine grain. Neither is it noise. It is simulated film grain that I added later. It looks better on a full-size print than it does on screen.

    So, what don't you like about it? The effect, or the fact that it has been added afterwards?
     
  8. chris000

    chris000 Well-Known Member

    Re: A question for David...............

    I for one don't care - an effect either works or it doesn't - it works here so why should it matter how it got there?
     
  9. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    Re: A question for David...............

    It doesn't bother me either but for some it is 'cheating' if it wasn't there at the time of taking.
     
  10. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Re: A question for David...............

    It doesn't look much like actual film grain to me on my monitor, but does it work? I think so, yes.
     
  11. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    Re: A question for David...............

    The print looks fine but downsizing it for the web lost the effect so I added a bit more, maybe too much, but you get the general idea...
     
  12. CircleOfConfusion

    CircleOfConfusion Well-Known Member

    Re: A question for David...............

    I think adding anything after is perfectly alright, I think its only "cheating" if someone is trying to pass it off as being original/deny post processing work.

    I like it, but I think I'd prefer it with a bit more contrast
     
  13. Re: A question for David...............

    David, I think the concept was correct but I would like the photo better, if it were abolutely "as taken".

    I thought when I first saw it - "I don't like the grain much - seems over prominent". Then this morning I realised why - it's different.

    I think we are so attuned to film grain that this looked different - so therefor "worse". That, of course, is pure conservatism, for there is no reason why "digital grain" should be any "worse" than ordinary.

    Show it to any casual photographer and they would accept or reject it for what it is and the points raised in this thread would not arise.

    Personally, I never like, nor have used any "soft focus" filters, grain screens, graduated filters etc. I frankly think it looks "cheesy" particularly on wedding photos where it enjoyed a vogue for many years (still seems to in France!)

    For me all pictures are better straight (I admire people who get up at 4am and stalk a landscape at sunrise) and children and people should be clearly shown - warts and all.

    Perhaps that's why I would never make a commercially successful photographer!

    Paul

    (after that outburst, I think I had better put a few of my children's photos up for your criticism!
     
  14. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    Re: A question for David...............

    Well, it was taken in colour and so the conversion to monochrome and sepia toning has already destroyed the purity of what was shot if I am to follow your line of thought. However, I am not a 'warts and all' photographer. To me, photography is an artist medium and I am simply taking what the camera recorded and converting it into what my mind wanted in much the same way as painters have done down the centuries.

    Yes, the grain is maybe over-prominent - in the print it is about right but it is not easy to make a web-viewable images look identical to the print.
     
  15. Re: A question for David...............

    David,

    Interesting point you make about artistic values - I have never been in the least bit artistic with mine!

    Could we see the colour original? Would others here prefer it?

    I think that may provoke an interesting debate.

    Paul

    N.B.
    Now would a repetition of the debates that went on in the AP of the 1890s (realism v non-representational photography) constitute "trolling"? ;)
     
  16. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    Re: A question for David...............

    If I get time, I'll post it tonight.

    It depends on how the question is asked. If it's for serious debate and worded as such then it has validity. If it's asked purely to cause a heated debate then that is trolling.

    At the time in the 1890s, a heated debate did ensue (though probably in the gentlemens clubs and not Internet forums!) and led to The Linked Ring being formed as alternative to the RPS. I might even dare to venture that a division of a kind stilll exists today only that the RPS has changed polarity. The Linked Ring (now The London Salon) still promotes photography as an artistic medium while the RPS now sees itself as the avant garde of photography, pushing it forward and promoting things that a lot of people may not necessarily identify with - a sort of Tate Modern of Photography. Now that's a discussion point if ever there was one... ;)
     
  17. downfader

    downfader Well-Known Member

    I think both are good portraits. They are what any self respecting parent would surely wish to commission. Yeah the grain in the first is over done (its lost its contrast a little as a result) but as you said the web sized image doesnt convey grain all that well. I've had the same problem in the past. :)
     
  18. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    Re: A question for David...............

    I'm not terribly keen on the effect David. I have no qualms whatsoever about how it was produced it's just that I feel it is very "in your face" and not quite as "subtle" as "traditional" film grain but then you did say you had boosted the effect for the web so perhaps the print looks different when seen "in the flesh" so to speak.

    Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever, it's just that I'm more of a "traditional grain" man.....................see, told you I was "old fashioned". :D ;)

    BigWill
     
  19. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    The original (for Paul)

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Re: The original (for Paul)

    David, but that is a wonderful shot - it captures a fleeting moment in time - the essence of good photography!

    Most of the the time they are probably "squabbling" so this is absolutely unique - the sort of picture they will treasure in the future.

    I think there are two reasons I prefer this:

    The colour adds realism and makes this a "fact" a rare moment of companionship rather than a "lets pose for the photographer in an artificial misty eyed moment"

    The second is that grain (film or artificial) distracts - its like looking through a window at a scene rather than stepping outside.

    Muted colours, Good framing, exposure, focus and the exact moment - this picture did not need "enhancement"

    Does anybody else agree with me?

    Paul
     

Share This Page