looking through older pics

[Misty-Bug]

here is one of my son. I have always liked the shot myself but feel like something else is missing. What could it be? I have it in color also. Does it need to be a darker B&W? cropped more? I was going for the sheer size of the photo compared to the child. And awesome site once again. Making my love of photography come back to life!!

[Marko]

This photo is also a bit small on the eyes.

This is a super-cute shot! Love it. I love the perspective and how large the wheel is in relation to the child. You could have tried to also zoom out a bit more - also get the child's legs and feet in the shot. Still, this shot works for me.

What it could use IMO is more contrast and it should be an easy fix. I would just use the curves or levels tool in a graphics program like photoshop. You could also probably sharpen it a wee bit.

Hope that helps,

marko

[Misty-Bug]

This photo is also a bit small on the eyes.

This is a super-cute shot! Love it. I love the perspective and how large the wheel is in relation to the child. You could have tried to also zoom out a bit more - also get the child's legs and feet in the shot. Still, this shot works for me.

What it could use IMO is more contrast and it should be an easy fix. I would just use the curves or levels tool in a graphics program like photoshop. You could also probably sharpen it a wee bit.

Hope that helps,

marko

Marko, here is the original. Then a bigger version of the one you saw above. So you think it should be a darker B&W? how would I sharpen? I am game to having you play with the pic so you can show me what you mean, if you want to.

[Misty-Bug]

thanks Ted. But you don't think it is too dark now?

[tedh]

Personally I like my B&W prints on the dark side. Still has good shadow detail and the highlights are crisp.

Actually the JPEG is not quite as contrasty. It lost a little detail when I reduced the size to upload it. Below is a direct link from my website. And I did lighten it up a touch.



But it is subjective. If you want to send me the original I can do whatever you want to it.

I'm curious what some other members think.

[Misty-Bug]

well I do see what you mean. Compared to mine it is better. Mine was a little light. Thanks

[tegan]

In pro and enthusiast venues it is generally accepted as basic that quality in black and white photography has a lot to do with the tonal range, or how many shades from black to white are in the photo without losing detail. On that basis darkening the shot makes it worse. You lose detail and it looks underexposed.

Your reply to Marko had a better black and white version.

Tegan

[Marko]

I definitely like the black and white better than the colour - I think the perfect print lies somewhere in between your version and ted's version...is IS somewhat subjective at this point though...AND you can be SURE that our monitors are not all calibrated the same way to judge the subtle differences in tones on the same playing field.

Here's my version sharpened a bit
filter - unsharp mask
% = 90
radius = .9
Threshold = 0

I also used levels (before the sharpen - I always sharpen last) to play with the tones globally
then i dodged (lightened)the bushes in the back to get some detail in them. I also dodged the baby's face a wee bit. Then I burned (darkened) the tire.
I did all the dodging and burning with a regular soft brush - blending mode on OVERLAY with an opacity ranging fro 6% to 15%.

I am a VERY average photoshopper but I do lots of dodging and burning. The total time I played on this image was about 6 minutes.

hope that helps

Marko

[Misty-Bug]

ok I like yours. I have no clue how you did it though