"Blue Guy" revisited

On 2012-08-19 10:19:38 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:17:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2012-08-19 08:02:39 -0700, Alan Browne
: said:
:
: On 2012-08-19 10:26 , Robert Coe wrote:
:
: Yes. The cropped version illustrates (by violating) the "rule" that
: the subject of a portrait should usually be looking into, not out of,
: the picture.
: Look at a current American $10 note. The first thing you notice is that
: Al Hamilton should be facing in the other direction.
:
: The portrait is not over the whole bill, it is a self standing vignette
: in the middle of it. He doesn't have to be facing in any particular
: direction. Indeed all dead presidents (and Franklin) should perhaps be
: facing left.
:
: Note that Hamilton got plugged by Burr before any thought of a run for
: the presidency could germinate in his Federalist mind. So there are two
: non-presidents on US bank notes.

Three.

Well, two currently in circulation.
....and if you have a spare one of those $10,000 bills, just send it my way.

Hamilton is the only one facing left. I suspect that the reason lies in
heraldry and the fact that he was born out of wedlock. The use of
"sinister" in heraldry is usually found in the "bend sinister" which is
a band running from the top right of the shield to the bottom left,
over a claimed family coat of arms, usually indicating *******y within
that family. There is also the "baton sinister", a smaller narrow
incomplete strip running in the same direction as the "bend sinister"
and was an indicator of illegitimacy in a family line.

So having Hamilton, facing left was a way of calling him a *******.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-19 09:52:11 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:03:00 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
:
: OK!
: Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
: B&W treatment.
: So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
: created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...es/Cooper-Test

It's

a

bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
your No. 4, tinted blue.

Bob

Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried
something a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the
"street" path regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
Again with the original "Cooper Blue":

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2


A

bit difficult commenting on revisions to my own interpretation
because, of course, I'm biased to favor my own processing.

Duck's #2 - Too dark for me, and loses that statue/wax figure look
that I saw.

Duck's #3 - Too much variation in darks and lights. It makes my eyes
jump.

Duck's #4 - Again, it loses that statue/wax figure look that I saw.

I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
"leading area".

Now, to "Test 2":
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2

Duck's

#2 - Too blue. With everything blue, the man no longer stands
out.

Duck's #2 - Horrible. An affront to the eye.

Duck's #3 - Far too gimmicky. A blue head? Cyanotic? It may sound
hypocritical for the person who rendered an image blue to say that
another rendering is "gimmicky", but even "gimmicky" has a line not to
be crossed.

Duck made a comment in another post that there's something
"disturbing" about my image. That's good! That's what I saw, and
that's what I feel I emphasized in the processing. This wasn't
intended as photo-realism; it was intended as photo-surrealism.

I didn't show any bias in these comments, did I? sarcasm intended

PS: Anyone who wants to take a shot at revising any image of mine as
Duck did is more than welcome to do so. I think it was a fun
exercise.

The artist has spoken. ;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:46:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-19 13:14 , Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:02:39 -0400, Alan Browne
: wrote:
: : The challenge, when the subject is near the edge and looking to that
: : edge is that the viewer imagine what is there. That's tough. But
: : there's no "rule" unless the viewers are assumed to consume Pablum.
: : That's easy.
:
: Well, yes, there is a "rule".

And I did say that it's OK to ignore it at times.

: No there isn't. Drop rules. They're killing you.

Then can I also drop the "Rule of Thirds"? That's the one I've always thought
to be the silliest. :^)

Bob

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:52:11 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:
: I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
: look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
: though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
: the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
: as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
: should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
: stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
: "leading area".

Looking at it longer, I've concluded that the two croppings represent two
distinct interpretations of the presentation. Your cropping makes it appear
that the subject was interrupted and has turned in the direction of the
interruption, while the Duck's version does not. The effect is intensified by
the blending of the jacket and the turtleneck sweater in your version and the
more severe cropping on the right in the Duck's.

Bob

On 2012-08-19 14:05:24 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:09:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-08-19 09:52:11 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:03:00 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
:
: OK!
: Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
: B&W treatment.
: So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
: created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...es/Cooper-Test

It's

a

bit

of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
your No. 4, tinted blue.

Bob

Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried
something a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the
"street" path regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
Again with the original "Cooper Blue":

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2


A

bit

difficult commenting on revisions to my own interpretation
because, of course, I'm biased to favor my own processing.

Duck's #2 - Too dark for me, and loses that statue/wax figure look
that I saw.

Duck's #3 - Too much variation in darks and lights. It makes my eyes
jump.

Duck's #4 - Again, it loses that statue/wax figure look that I saw.

I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
"leading area".

Now, to "Test 2":
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2

Duck's

#2

- Too blue. With everything blue, the man no longer stands
out.

Duck's #2 - Horrible. An affront to the eye.

Duck's #3 - Far too gimmicky. A blue head? Cyanotic? It may sound
hypocritical for the person who rendered an image blue to say that
another rendering is "gimmicky", but even "gimmicky" has a line not to
be crossed.

Duck made a comment in another post that there's something
"disturbing" about my image. That's good! That's what I saw, and
that's what I feel I emphasized in the processing. This wasn't
intended as photo-realism; it was intended as photo-surrealism.

I didn't show any bias in these comments, did I? sarcasm intended

PS: Anyone who wants to take a shot at revising any image of mine as
Duck did is more than welcome to do so. I think it was a fun
exercise.

The artist has spoken. ;-)

Would that van Rijn guy want "Son of Titus" to have a blue head?

Would Pete Rubens want "The Adoration of the Maji" done in selective
color?

Would Vinny Von G want "The Yellow House" done in spotty black and
white?

There is always something such as this:
http://www.team-noris.de/media/bilde...aue_reiter.jpg

....or perhaps Vincent's "Irises" with a change in interpretation?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...20SHARE/Irises
;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-19 17:20 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:46:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-19 13:14 , Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:02:39 -0400, Alan Browne
: wrote:
: : The challenge, when the subject is near the edge and looking to that
: : edge is that the viewer imagine what is there. That's tough. But
: : there's no "rule" unless the viewers are assumed to consume Pablum.
: : That's easy.
:
: Well, yes, there is a "rule".

And I did say that it's OK to ignore it at times.

: No there isn't. Drop rules. They're killing you.

Then can I also drop the "Rule of Thirds"? That's the one I've always thought
to be the silliest. :^)

It's actually one of the best to remember - and then use differently.

Freeman Patterson refers to it as the "tool of thirds" to remind himself
(and students) to look at the geometry, position, relationships, empty
space and so on. Dividing on boundaries or points isn't necessary - but
it is a possible starting point when composing an image.

I recall a photoclub presentation by a very good nature photographer and
in it she starts "... in these next images I'll emphasize the rule of
thirds." But all of her photos had nothing on the thirds lines or
points - they were pushed right to the edges and corners in those
"boxes". Her take on it was quite different than what I expected.


--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:52:09 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:
: On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:41:01 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:52:11 -0400, tony cooper
: wrote:
: : I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
: : look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
: : though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
: : the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
: : as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
: : should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
: : stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
: : "leading area".
:
: Looking at it longer, I've concluded that the two croppings represent two
: distinct interpretations of the presentation. Your cropping makes it appear
: that the subject was interrupted and has turned in the direction of the
: interruption, while the Duck's version does not. The effect is intensified by
: the blending of the jacket and the turtleneck sweater in your version and the
: more severe cropping on the right in the Duck's.
:
: The Duck didn't crop at all. He kept the entire o-o-c image intact.

If the Duck didn't do any cropping, how come the subject's head is so much
closer to the right-hand edge of the picture in his version than in yours? And
how does his version manage to keep pretty much the same aspect ratio as
yours?

: I cropped to take out the darker objects in the top left corner. I
: did darken the tee shirt because I didn't want a distracting bit of
: lightness at the bottom.
:
: As far as being interrupted, the subject is either asleep or dead.

Yeah, I guess. Until I looked more closely, I thought the light glaring off of
the subject's eyelids were his eyes. I.e., that he had his eyes open.

Well, then I don't see any reason for cropping on the left. But of course I'm
not the one who has to be pleased.

Bob