While yesterday's 'reluctant performer' was shot in an open square, today's was taken in a partially underground area of Park Güell in Barcelona. What drew me to this shot, other than the guy himself, was the instrument he was playing ;– as it wasn't one I was familiar with. It turns out that it's a stick, a two-handed tapping instrument originally designed by Emmett Chapman.
In terms of the shot itself: while I liked yesterday's, I much prefer the harsher contrast of this one. If you're interested, the original is here:
If you've taken a look at my Black and White: part one tutorial you'll probably have already worked out that this was converted to black and white using the Channel Mixer, biased towards the blue channel. My reason for this was that I really wanted to bring out all the detail in his face, but an added bonus was that his shirt became much darker too – emphasising the detail in his face, the 'stick' and his hands.
And finally, a few days ago I mentioned that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS wasn't ideal for street/candid photography (it's not exactly an unobtrusive item), but in this instance I wouldn't have got the shot without it as a) I wouldn't have been able to get close enough with a shorter lens, and b) without the IS there's now way on earth I'd have been able to handhold at 1/30 using a 200mm lens.
As always, let me know what you think.
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped?
12.15pm on 7/9/08
Canon 1Ds Mark II EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
200mm
f/2.8
1/30
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
ACR
no
comment byrambohoho at 09:36 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2008
wow, amazing difference.
comment byAdam Swords at 09:48 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2008
I like this one a lot and I'm gutted not be in Barcelona.
The only negative is that I can see where you've edited out the background around his shirt - there's a few areas where it looks as though you've "rubbed out" part of the background and left some in. Perhaps your monitor isn't calibrated perfectly?
comment bydjn1 at 10:03 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2008
Adam: my monitor is fairly well calibrated but I can see what you mean. I've tidied up the edges you mentioned.
comment byRafael Perrone at 10:23 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2008
Good shot. I like this best. May I ask.?What's in the background?
comment bydjn1 at 10:28 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2008
Rafael: the blurred shapes in the background of the original image are people walking behind him.
comment byRobbie Veldwijk at 10:45 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2008
Very nice photo! Good light and strong composition! Very nice shot!
comment byGarry at 12:07 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2008
Great clear shot.
I found that the dodging that Adam mentioned only became noticeable when I'd compared it with the original shot, but it helps to view it with the site's black background - amazing how something as simple as the 'frame' can make so much difference.
comment byredge at 02:08 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2008
This is another great portrait David but I have noticed a few things:
First, I instantly know that you painted(?) the background particularly on the left before I even saw the original. I think it's obvious because he is well lit but darkness is creeping from his sides, which is unusual to me. I think it would be better if you darkened the background instead of blacking it out. Besides the bokeh in the original is just fine. Lastly, his right sleeve is also painted(?) too straight, which is kind of unnatural. Compare it to the original, it should have a little bit of curve.
Just my opinion!
comment byredge at 02:12 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2008
And, David would you rather use Channel Mixer in converting to black in white instead of the Black & White adjustment layer in CS3?
comment byMichael Rawluk at 02:43 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2008
The shot is so good with the tight crop. Stunning b+w.
comment byJacques at 12:14 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2008
David, I like this portrait very much. Regarding your comment about the lens stabilization, why, with such a good camera, didn't you set the ISO at 200 or 320 and wordked with a "safer" shutter speed than 1/30s ?
comment bydjn1 at 12:24 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2008
redge: I did produce a less obviously painted version, but ended up preferring this version. As for why I used the Channel Mixer rather than the Black and White tool: simply because they do much the same thing. The B&W tool has more flexibility, but in this instance the effect I was after could be achieved just as easily with the Channel Mixer.
Jacques: yes, that would have been sensible, but I hadn't realised how low the light was as I took the shot.
comment by ed at 02:33 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2008
some of your answers to the questions posed are ridiculous did'nt notice the low light come on plz. How on earth could you not notice the readings in your viewfinder ??????? there is no noticeable difference between 100 iso or even 400 iso( 400 for this shot may even have been a bteer choice ) especially as you enhanced the face to show more detail ...on the portrait itself it is another fine photoshop effort from your site.
comment byGarry at 03:48 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2008
Ed, you're a real ray of sunshine aren't you? Do you really expect us to believe that you have never taken a shot with an exposure that isn't optimal?
comment bydjn1 at 05:13 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2008
Ed: how could I not notice the readings in my viewfinder? Because I wasn't paying attention, and while that may have been a bit negligent I don't think that makes my answer ridiculous.. As for the difference between ISO 100 and 400: you may not be able to tell the difference, but I can.
comment byocorti at 06:57 AM (GMT) on 18 September, 2008
Very intense! Love the way you've 'lit' him up. Great work!
comment by Mark at 08:40 PM (GMT) on 18 September, 2008
Great portrait; really brings out the intensity of someone with an evident passion for what he does. The BW conversion does a great job of his face, hand and 'stick', but while I think most of the masking is good, his right arm is overdone, leaving a too-straight line on the shirt, particularly unnatural looking when compared to the original - perhaps rack up the blur on that mask? That said, I'd be pleased with myself if I'd bagged this.
comment by lain at 02:38 PM (GMT) on 22 September, 2008
I can't help but feel there is something wrong about taking someone's photo (and displaying it for all to see) without even their tacit permission.
comment bydjn1 at 02:45 PM (GMT) on 22 September, 2008
Iain: I can see your point, and if I thought the photograph disparaged him in any way I wouldn't post it, but I'm sure that he's pretty used to being photographed.
comment by will pattison at 09:09 PM (GMT) on 25 September, 2008
fascinating, and so is the photograph! i've been a nightingale fan for a long time, but i've never talked much about david's work with other people, so it's interesting to see the comments. everyone's an expert!!
makes you wonder what people would have said if henri cartier-bresson had posted his photographs on the interwebnet....
While yesterday's 'reluctant performer' was shot in an open square, today's was taken in a partially underground area of Park Güell in Barcelona. What drew me to this shot, other than the guy himself, was the instrument he was playing ;– as it wasn't one I was familiar with. It turns out that it's a stick, a two-handed tapping instrument originally designed by Emmett Chapman.
In terms of the shot itself: while I liked yesterday's, I much prefer the harsher contrast of this one. If you're interested, the original is here:
.../archives/the_reluctant_performer_2.php
If you've taken a look at my Black and White: part one tutorial you'll probably have already worked out that this was converted to black and white using the Channel Mixer, biased towards the blue channel. My reason for this was that I really wanted to bring out all the detail in his face, but an added bonus was that his shirt became much darker too – emphasising the detail in his face, the 'stick' and his hands.
And finally, a few days ago I mentioned that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS wasn't ideal for street/candid photography (it's not exactly an unobtrusive item), but in this instance I wouldn't have got the shot without it as a) I wouldn't have been able to get close enough with a shorter lens, and b) without the IS there's now way on earth I'd have been able to handhold at 1/30 using a 200mm lens.
As always, let me know what you think.
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
Canon 1Ds Mark II
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
200mm
f/2.8
1/30
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
ACR
no
Very nice :)
really great dave. i especially like how you took out the background on this one.
i was wondering if you could remember the name! Good shot :)
Deke/Brooks: thanks.
inocuo: I had to check the spelling, but I did remember :-)
Very intense portrait, love it!
wow, amazing difference.
I like this one a lot and I'm gutted not be in Barcelona.
The only negative is that I can see where you've edited out the background around his shirt - there's a few areas where it looks as though you've "rubbed out" part of the background and left some in. Perhaps your monitor isn't calibrated perfectly?
Adam: my monitor is fairly well calibrated but I can see what you mean. I've tidied up the edges you mentioned.
Good shot. I like this best. May I ask.?What's in the background?
Rafael: the blurred shapes in the background of the original image are people walking behind him.
Very nice photo! Good light and strong composition! Very nice shot!
Great clear shot.
I found that the dodging that Adam mentioned only became noticeable when I'd compared it with the original shot, but it helps to view it with the site's black background - amazing how something as simple as the 'frame' can make so much difference.
This is another great portrait David but I have noticed a few things:
First, I instantly know that you painted(?) the background particularly on the left before I even saw the original. I think it's obvious because he is well lit but darkness is creeping from his sides, which is unusual to me. I think it would be better if you darkened the background instead of blacking it out. Besides the bokeh in the original is just fine. Lastly, his right sleeve is also painted(?) too straight, which is kind of unnatural. Compare it to the original, it should have a little bit of curve.
Just my opinion!
And, David would you rather use Channel Mixer in converting to black in white instead of the Black & White adjustment layer in CS3?
The shot is so good with the tight crop. Stunning b+w.
David, I like this portrait very much. Regarding your comment about the lens stabilization, why, with such a good camera, didn't you set the ISO at 200 or 320 and wordked with a "safer" shutter speed than 1/30s ?
redge: I did produce a less obviously painted version, but ended up preferring this version. As for why I used the Channel Mixer rather than the Black and White tool: simply because they do much the same thing. The B&W tool has more flexibility, but in this instance the effect I was after could be achieved just as easily with the Channel Mixer.
Jacques: yes, that would have been sensible, but I hadn't realised how low the light was as I took the shot.
some of your answers to the questions posed are ridiculous did'nt notice the low light come on plz. How on earth could you not notice the readings in your viewfinder ??????? there is no noticeable difference between 100 iso or even 400 iso( 400 for this shot may even have been a bteer choice ) especially as you enhanced the face to show more detail ...on the portrait itself it is another fine photoshop effort from your site.
Ed, you're a real ray of sunshine aren't you? Do you really expect us to believe that you have never taken a shot with an exposure that isn't optimal?
Ed: how could I not notice the readings in my viewfinder? Because I wasn't paying attention, and while that may have been a bit negligent I don't think that makes my answer ridiculous.. As for the difference between ISO 100 and 400: you may not be able to tell the difference, but I can.
superbly strong.
Very intense! Love the way you've 'lit' him up. Great work!
Great portrait; really brings out the intensity of someone with an evident passion for what he does. The BW conversion does a great job of his face, hand and 'stick', but while I think most of the masking is good, his right arm is overdone, leaving a too-straight line on the shirt, particularly unnatural looking when compared to the original - perhaps rack up the blur on that mask? That said, I'd be pleased with myself if I'd bagged this.
I can't help but feel there is something wrong about taking someone's photo (and displaying it for all to see) without even their tacit permission.
Iain: I can see your point, and if I thought the photograph disparaged him in any way I wouldn't post it, but I'm sure that he's pretty used to being photographed.
fascinating, and so is the photograph! i've been a nightingale fan for a long time, but i've never talked much about david's work with other people, so it's interesting to see the comments. everyone's an expert!!
makes you wonder what people would have said if henri cartier-bresson had posted his photographs on the interwebnet....
wp.