Almost a snapshot but hopefully a little better

Low light was a problem, shot at iso 400, 1/50, 35 mm, f/4.0 (rebel xti, 24-105 IS). I like the sublety of the light and the boy's natural joy in interacting with the kitten.



However....it's not crisp enough.

Hi Rachel
I'm viewing on an uncalibrated monitor at the office and can't distinguish the kitten - though can guess where it is. Maybe shadow/highlight applied to the boy's face and furry creature would being out more detail.
Cheers
Mike

Rachel

I like this, but I think the reason it's ot crisp is that the focus is behind the boy.s eyes and glasses, which are quite soft. The hair towards the top of his head looks sharper (this is also centre frame and so maybe where the focus point is?). You may also have a little bit of motion blur at 1/50th as people move really fast - that isn't evident to me in the screen shot though.

Mike

Behind...do you mean to the right? I generally aim for the eyes, but as mentioned people move fast especially boys with kittens on their shoulders.

I'll clean it up a bit and repost. What I love about this is the boy's delight and the lighting: Just the face and the kitten.

Cat's name is Alex, by the way. We found him under a bridge last week in the park. Four weeks old then, now five.

Rachel

not that I am any kind of big shot pro shooter or anything ever like that this is what I think for what it is worth-

first thing I can't see the childs eyes
it seems not to have a blur but almost like one sort of
the kitten is really not seen that well
but I do love the idea of it being shot so indiscriminately-
itseems to need to be a bit larger as well
love love the smile!

Charlotte-

Rachel Foster said:

Low light was a problem, shot at iso 400, 1/50, 35 mm, f/4.0 (rebel xti, 24-105 IS). I like the sublety of the light and the boy's natural joy in interacting with the kitten.

Click to expand...

.

Rachel,

But we need some light. I, for one, couldn't see any kitten! We saw this phenomenon in the recent set of portraits using natural light where I complained about the same issue. So what's the real problem? The photographer decides on the basis of memory. The client recognizes only on the basis of experience and education. The gap occurs when we photographers lose our insight and publish work that only makes sense to us since all we need is a jog to our mindd so we can recall the kitten. Everyone else, by contrast, will remain lost. So make it easy for your clients and admirers who, after all, want to like your work!



So, Rachel, I've taken the liberty of correcting your picture. I used selective opening of the shadows and sharpening key lines. So now all your followers can enjoy this photograph too!

Asher

Wow, it's startling what you can do with a jpeg!

Asher, the selective sharpening is excellent and together with opeing up the shadows does let us share much more in Rachel's lovely work. What tool did you use?

Thanks,

Mike

Ok
As I like this image and it's mistery, I guess too much light would destroy that; but a bit more than orignal and some sharpening as well may improve…

here's my take:.................................................................................................................................................................................and here Rachel's original

I LOVE THESE! Wow.

I have a confession to make. I hate hate hate photoshop. I know how to do very few things with it. But, those few things I use constantly. Now, I cannot live without photoshop.

The Narrative Photograph: what is the minimum needed?

Nicolas Claris said:

Ok
As I like this image and it's mistery, I guess too much light would destroy that; but a bit more than orignal and some sharpening as well may improve…

here's my take:.................................................................................................................................................................................and here Rachel's original

Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiments. However, you too, like Rachel, use memory not just image signals to aquire the concept of small fluffy kitten. So one needs light.

Images don't have to have meaning to work. However, I]this one photograph has it's own narrative, which to be read, needs the lights on[/I] . There's no way round this, there are just 3 immediate choices for completing the intended narrative.

1. Without sufficient light to show the softnesss of a real kitten: we totally lose most important meaning. Essentially the cat is not there; except if you knew it was there and even then it's a poorly rewarded struggle at best. This is Rachel's original and also, I'm afraid the careful changes by Nicolas.
   
   
2. Light is returned to this portion of the image: This is my version with "© Jacob Eliana" shown vertically limn dim grey on the lower right. We see and enjoy the kitten! The story comes alive. The cost is some loss of perhaps a tad of mood. However the story is not changed significantly. There was nothing holy, therefore or essential in all that extent of darkness. What seemed to be important turned out to be trivial after all.
   
   
3. Voice over or else specific instructional text. See the text in blue added as a compositional element.

© Rachel foster: Left Image: Made Brighter and sharper where needed and Right Image: Text added to perform the function of all the changes seen on the left.


"Over here, masked in shadow, hidden from light, sits a small soft fluffy kitten, tabby, half black and white, obviously the boys delight"

One needs to ask of a narrative picture, "Is there enough information so that someone new coming to the scene would not need instruction, when none is provided?

Asher

I agree that enough light is needed to see the furball. The problem I am encountering is that my monitor shows brighter than others. Asher, your version looks blown on this screen but not on another.

I have spyder II but in trying to calibrate really messed up my monitor. I've not yet had the courage to try it again.

Rachel Foster said:

I agree that enough light is needed to see the furball. The problem I am encountering is that my monitor shows brighter than others. Asher, your version looks blown on this screen but not on another.

I have spyder II but in trying to calibrate really messed up my monitor. I've not yet had the courage to try it again.

Click to expand...

Rachel,

Don't worry about that. The final output is for the printer. That will help you decide on how bright to set your monitor and your ambient lighting. For this picture, in the final image be parsimonious in the use of any effect, darkness, included. You can have mood AND meaning. I slight touch of darkness goes a long way! I promise!

If we had the RAW file, anyone can do better. The picture is worth your time in working on it some more. That's how one goes from good to great and thence to excellent. Maybe it will not arrive at the top rung in this picture. However, your next pictures will benefit!

Your Spyder I was perfectly good. You just made some common mistake:

Common parameters to watch out for:

1. Only calibrate (actually estimating the profile, to be precise) when screen is warmed up for an hour. 30 min minimum!
   
   
2. Repeat measurements in 15min, i hrs, 8 hrs 24 hors and a week or two. Likely you'll find that you need to remeasure screen within 8 hourse for critical color even on a fairly expensive monitor.
   
   
3. Using a too strong strong ambient light, having colored clothes or pictures around. A grey or black tee-shirt is fine.
   
   
4. Laptops don't calibrate so well. Only use the center of the screen for critical color.

I don't have RAW (I don't always shoot RAW due to size), but this is the original done with PS "auto levels." It looks far too bright on my screen.



Another shot, also looking far too bright




Are they as overblown as they appear to me?

Rachel Foster said:

I don't have RAW (I don't always shoot RAW due to size), but this is the original done with PS "auto levels." It looks far too bright on my screen.

Another shot, also looking far too bright

Are they as overblown as they appear to me?

Click to expand...

No light=no kitten in the first picture! Maybe one could figure a squirrel or rat but a lovely kitten? The picture is of course not too bright. You need to explore selectively brightening the kitten. Do you know how to do this?

Poor distribution of light in the second is unflattering for her face. The kitten is a little bright, I admit but that is not the real issue. A child, unless levitating old folk and moving them into a lion's cage as the evening meal, should be lit evenly with no harsh shadows. Here, the severe facial lighting dominates the picture! Rachel, don't you see that too?

You cannot make the needed changes with tools that act globally throughout the entire picture. So that rules out Auto-levels or auto-anything else. You need to use tools that can work on local problems in lighting. The easiest are as follows:

1. Light appropriately before the shutter is released! (What light did you use?)

2. Use Highlight/shadow Filter in Photoshop. Use it only the least amount needed. (Do you use it currently?)

3. Make selections and save them. Then work on the levels, curves, Hue/saturation and sharpness of each portion of the images separately. (Can you do this?)

As far as RAW is concerned, your time is too valuable and your needs so great, that not having RAW is like shooting oneself in the hand one's uses for the mouse! Memory chips are almost free of charge. Hard drives are down to about $150 for 500GB! If you want to progress, either shoot each picture without error in lighting or else use RAW and have the ability to deliver the image you want.

We do product shots where the pictures are only in jpg and each examined on a large screen. These are pretty much delivered as shot. Unless you are that good, RAW is essential. My people shoots are always in RAW.

Asher

That's what I thought too. The lighting did not work and is problematic.

Ok, I have my plan of attack.