- This topic is empty.
Another oul’ wretch
-
ciaran wrote:
I desaturated to -55 in the RAW conversion, which leaves a greyish skin tone. Basically, heading towards monochrome, but not the whole way. Then in PS, I added a multiply layer (25%), which adds a hint of red back into it.
It’s a very nice effect Ciaran, thanks for sharing.
Reminds me a lot on the work of Andrzej Dragan. Well worth a look if you like this sort of thing. Good stuff Ciaran – it’s always nice to see someone moving out of their comfort zone and trying something different.
JohnnyMcMillan wrote:
No no, the shot isn’t mine, I just came across it on the net earlier on…
Perhaps, the word should have been “coincidentally” so, rather than “ironically”? And yet again, thanks for commenting on the shot(s).
paperdoll wrote:
It’s a very nice effect Ciaran, thanks for sharing.
No bother :)
Thorsten wrote:
Good stuff Ciaran – it’s always nice to see someone moving out of their comfort zone and trying something different.
Yeah it was an interesting and enjoyable experience. To decide to go out and shoot a very specific theme rather than more normal modus operande of wandering around and hoping I stumble across a shot.
You should distance the second and third shot a bit more…they look too tight together
JohnnyMcMillan wrote:
You should distance the second and third shot a bit more…they look too tight together
Yup.. have to agree. The final shot(s) are all separate prints, so I just stuck them together like this to show the progress of the panel.
Very impressive & inspirational. Also enjoying the critique/discussion on this thread. Thanks Ciaran. :thumbs up smiley if there was one:
Wonderful work Ciaran. This kind of thing would be a alien to me….it requires a bit of discipline :oops:
I love the toning. The most powerful element in them all is the eye contact. It really pierces into the brain. The combined effect of the eyes in one frame is extremely effective.
great job Ciaran…. I know this isn’t the final layout but I would keep 1 and 2 away from each other as they look like they could be brothers… I like the fact that number 4 doesn’t have his hand up to his mouth…. number 2 doesn’t look as much of an ould wretch either… if you did manage to get more than six good shots I would leave him out for that reason and also his similarity to number 1. Looking forward to seeing the final set.
Dave
Being honest, these photos don’t do that much for me at all I’m afraid.
The subject matter is fine, as is the composition and format used to frame them.
However, there are a few things that really let them down from my point of view:1/ They’re soft, and it doesn’t look like a deliberate softness – more a slight camera or subject movement. Part of what’s interesting about shooting crinkly old faces is the texture of the skin, and in these I’m just not seeing enough of that. There’s a slight shift going on somewhere, either at the camera end of things or the subject and the result is not pin sharp crinkles. Annoying.
2/ I’ve always believed that the most important part of a full face portrait was the eyes, and in these images the eyes are all dead looking. There’s plenty of detail there which can be brought out, but as they are the eyes just don’t engage with me.
3/ The images themselves seem soulless and flat, I just think they could do with more punch and life about them. They sit on the page/screen rather than jump off it; surrounded by black these faces should really come to the fore and be striking, but they don’t.
Mick.
Thanks for the feedback Mick
Mick451 wrote:
1/ They’re soft, and it doesn’t look like a deliberate softness – more a slight camera or subject movement. Part of what’s interesting about shooting crinkly old faces is the texture of the skin, and in these I’m just not seeing enough of that. There’s a slight shift going on somewhere, either at the camera end of things or the subject and the result is not pin sharp crinkles. Annoying.
Yup, there is softness, particularly in the first two (the main ones posted). It’s camera shake due to slow shutter speed. The light on both occassions was poor, so I went as high as I dared with the ISO and slow as I could with the shutter speed to trade off exposure with sharpness. I wish they were sharper than what they are, but c’est la vie. I don’t think they’re soft to the point they’re bin material and on the prints at normal viewing distance they don’t look too bad. Thankfully, lighting for the second pair was considerably better, so the shake wasn’t an issue. It’s just a pity they’re not quite as full of character.
Mick451 wrote:
2/ I’ve always believed that the most important part of a full face portrait was the eyes, and in these images the eyes are all dead looking. There’s plenty of detail there which can be brought out, but as they are the eyes just don’t engage with me.
As you pointed out, the detail is there and with some further tweaking it could be brought out. In fact the very first post, which had the shot in B&W the eyes were considerably brighter. For this series though I’m happy to leave them toned down though, as I personally feel it suits the mood.
Mick451 wrote:
3/ The images themselves seem soulless and flat, I just think they could do with more punch and life about them. They sit on the page/screen rather than jump off it; surrounded by black these faces should really come to the fore and be striking, but they don’t.
Mick.I guess this one is subjective so there’s no debating it :) I appreciate the comments.
Jesus ciaran ur putting me of the fags. lol
like the shots though, do u think if u were to start smoking that u might connect with the subjects better lol.I was wondering if you told your models that they could see themselves on this site if they looked under “oul’ wretch”?
PeteTheBloke wrote:
I was wondering if you told your models that they could see themselves on this site if they looked under “oul’ wretch”?
I refuse to answer that question under the grounds that I may incriminate myself :oops:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
