Random Snap

This almost doesn't work this small. What I like are the details—the half-full glass between their knees, the fact that her toenails are painted, his tattoo, the older person's hand on his bicep, the way her fingers fan out delicately on top of his like swan feathers.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Henry Rogers: "Presumably it's a story with actors rather than a slice of life. The glass, or plastic beaker, seems to be dry rather than empty. The girl has painted toenails but un-painted finger nails. Is that a real tattoo on the inside of the man's left arm or a transfer? Male tattoos are often where they show best, on the outside of an arm, but that wouldn't work in this scene. Both females have hands in more-than-casual gestures. It's an intriguing scene but does it mean anything? If not, does that matter. Oh, and it's pretty good technically too but that may not be the point. Tell us more please Mike!"

Mike replies: I can't tell you what it means, but it was entirely adventitious—no setup or direction at all. It really was a "random snap." I did take a variant or two before they moved, though. It was taken in the front of a speedboat on a lake. (To answer some other commenters, no, I wasn't driving the boat. I think we were moving along the shore at trolling speed at the time.)

Geoff: "I think you've probably answered this before but what do you use to put those nice filed neg. carrier borders around your digital images? (at least that's what I assume is going on here) Great shot by the way!"

Mike replies: Several people have asked about the processing so here goes: Usually I do balancing (set the vignetting, burning and dodging, and image geometry [Lens Corrections > Manual Transform]) in Photoshop first. Then open in Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 and set the tones using the Global Adjustments, being very careful of the Structure slider which is one of those "crack cocaine" controls in post. (I.e., get addicted and you can't get enough...until your picture, like an addict's life, lies in utter ruins). Then I open a Color Filter, usually Yellow but infrequently orange or red, almost always backing it off from its default. Hint: look for mid-tones with the color filters, especially with skin tones. In Finishing Adjustments I use Sepia 19 for Toning, backing it off to the neighborhood of 20/20 for "Silver" and "Paper" toning. Generally I use a little more toning for images of people and a little less for landscapes or anything with skies. Finally, I use Image Border #3 and back it off to –95 in the Size slider.

This last is the only real "fakery" in this method, but I'll tell you why I do it: it's to make my digital B&W pictures consistent with the rest of my life's work. I see my work as a continuity. Film to digital was a huge disruption for me as it was for many people, but if a film and digital B&W picture are framed and hung near each other, I don't want either one to scream "this is film!" and "this is digital!"—I want people to look at the pictures. I probably wouldn't use a border if I were starting out now, but I'm not starting out now—I have hundreds of pictures already in my print cases that have borders. So the new ones need to be, not identical, but aesthetically consonant with the old ones.

I now almost never start with sharpening or noise reduction. I've found that current cameras are sharp enough with no adjustment or just a little "Clarity" and don't need more, and what noise I see is seldom intrusive. (This is quite a big change from, say, 2005, when we were preoccupied with sharpening and noise.) Note that B&W has an advantage here because we don't see chroma noise nearly as much. But I seldom use sharpening or noise reduction on color pictures now either, at least for Web use.

I seldom use Curves but when they're needed it would be very difficult to explain in words what to do. I just know what images with various curve shapes look like in B&W images, from long work with enlarger printing and film and paper sensitometry, so when I see any of those "looks" in the digital image I know what to apply to counteract it or back it off. This would require a short seminar-type class to convey properly (and it would take me a lot of time to work how to teach it). But I seldom use Curves, so you can ignore this bit.

And a few more words about image processing:

In general, processing is not really a technical matter. Yes, you need the technical skills so you can implement your adjustments, but what it's really all about is judgement: taste and intention. That is, what looks right to you, and what you want the picture to look like. In "amount," processing might well be less important than how you see and what you take pictures of; but in "quality," it's every bit as much about your personality and preferences, your own idiosyncratic sense of "there, that's right, that's the way I like it and think it should be." That's 85% of post-processing for me. It will naturally be more or less for others, because some peoples' work is more about processing and some peoples' work is less about it. 

And specific to me, here are two hints about the way I process. With almost every control, there is "too little" and "too much." It's easier to judge the proper amount of almost everything by starting with too little and creeping up on "too much" gradually or incrementally. If you start with massive amounts of Structure or Clarity, it's more difficult to back off to find the right point. Start off with too little and move up on it until it seems like enough.

What I do with almost every parameter is to move up on it until it becomes noticeable, then back off just a tad. I never want people to look at a picture and say "what a beautiful print!" or "what excellent post-processing!" first. They can say that later if they want to. But their first reaction should be to the visual contents of the picture—in this case, parts of the bodies of three people touching and the details that provide clues as to their identities and situation. That's the important aspect of the picture, not how much toning I gave it or whether it's super-sharp or not.

Finally, Taran asked how size could matter. That's art school 101 (i.e., very basic, and very important) but—talk about size—it's too big a subject to cover in this already-too-long reply.

Comments

[Ben Rosengart]

I love it. Can you get Voja to print it?

[Jayson Merryfield]

Apparently I'm on Facebook too much. My first instinct was to click the "Like" button.

[Paul]

Lovely image, is this yours? I like it because it's full of questions, boring photos leave nothing for our imagination to try to answer.

[James Sinks]

If it [possibly] doesn't work small, why not post a link to a larger version?

[Hans Muus]

Mike, this is your picture? I assume so, and for one time the heading is wrong - and very much so. Tongue in cheek false modesty, is that what it is? What a beautiful photo this is! May be it was a 'random snap' at the time the shutter was pressed, though I doubt even that - when images like this one present themselves there is always that goose-fleshy feeling, or a silent 'wow! it's happening now!' - at least I cannot imagine it otherwise. But as we all know (...) a photograph is more than the moment of exposure, only later in darkroom or PP do they come to full bloom, and then and there (if not sooner) the keepers 'are divideth from' the snaps and labeled retrospectively. Most as 'just snaps' because they don't work out.
But this one did - I love it.

[Steve Pritchard]

At first glance it looks like an intimate depiction of a romantic moment; until one notices the presence of the older person's hand, at which point, to me, it suggests a story of loss and consolation. A far more poignant tale altogether. I love it.

[Chris Spyr]

Mike, what kind of vehicle are they riding? Is it a boat (I think I see a sliver of water at the top edge)? You'd better not have driven the vehicle, and it'd better not be a car...;-)

Very nice picture, of which I like best the mood that emanates.
Cheers

[Mike]

Print sale!

[Paul Bass]

Oh yeah. I could look at this for a long time. All those close, soft, light grays are lovely. That's really, really nice, Mike.

[James W.]

Nice. My kind of shot.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140799161]

Nice work.

[Softie]

I like it, but my first thought was: framing nightmare. So many important elements on the edges of the print.

[Richard Alan Fox]

Larry Clark, cover of Teenage Lust.

[Mike]

Hi Mike
I'm a long-time reader of your site, and I have never commented before.
This photo is just superb. You can feel the emotion oozing out of it.
Of course, the B&W treatment helps a lot. Great capture and great processing.
Another Mike

[Barry]

Interesting that the tattoo is from the Silence of the Lambs movie poster. I assume that is Chianti in the glass.

[Kevin Pfeifle]

Wow! I love this...you should have it printed at Didital Siliver Imaging and turn it into a print sale.

[Robert Meier]

That's not a tattoo -- it's hair.

[Taran]

This is almost an invitation to discuss the existential properties of an image. How is it, an image like this, could be better big? At what size does more of the population say "thats better" or "its too small". If I take a crap image, and put it on the side of a building, is it better because it is bigger (it seems there are a few artists who make their living this way)? What if the image looks worse bigger? How can size or the display medium possibly interfere with my experiencing a photograph?

Things become even more cloudy if you add the photographer into the equation... should a photographer care about presentation? An editor once said to me: "the photo you make the most money off of will likely be printed on toilet paper (newspapers)". If you are a photographer who cares about the details and you happen to make the local paper or magazine, get ready for a bit of a shock. You may get paid, but your photo will look pretty bad.

[Jay Frew]

Interesting shot Mike. Looks like they are in a boat.

Uhhh...were you driving that boat when you took the picture?

;~))

Cheers! Jay

[Bob Rosinsky]

Excellent photo. Curious composition. Interesting little treats for the viewer to discover. The picture looks a little "flat" on my monitor. I think it would make an outstanding print. Kudos!

[Soeren Engelbrecht]

Mike, I think that shot very much deserves a place here:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.dk/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Absolutely love it :-)

Soeren

[Geoff]

I think you've probably answered this before but what do you use to put those nice filed neg. carrier borders around your digital images? (at least that's what I assume is going on here) Great shot by the way!

[John R.]

That is an amazing and beautiful shot, Mike.

[Bron]

Very interesting compositionally, though that BS aside, it very much struck a strong emotional chord for me. Reading the "back story", and realizing who at least one of the people was added to that, but it is a very humanistic image.

We, as a family, aren't buying as much art as we used too, (we are soon to have a third teen girl for the school year, so our priorities are skewed) but this, smallish by today's standards, so you have to get up close and look, would be a most worthy addition.

__________________
Bron

http://bronislaus.com

[Sarge]

Great shot, Mike!

Touching.

[ctein]

Dear Mike,

This is a wonderful photograph and will, of course, be part of a print sale. It brings both Callahan and Mann to mind. It's exceptionally evocative, so much so that it's unusually fungible. It works entirely well on my large monitor at approximately 3.5" by 5" size. As a very small “snapshot” sized print, it would be exceedingly effective. But I can also see it working well at larger sizes. It would have entirely different qualities four times as big, as a 14" x 20" image. If the file held up to that degree of enlargement, it would be wonderful at that scale, too, but it would work in a different way. Once the viewer had been grabbed by the general composition and subject, one would be drawn into exploring the levels of meaning in the details. Maybe it wouldn't work that big; that actually does get into the compositional effect of what is and isn't sharp. But the possibility is there.

Further fungibility: the color version also works very well. Clearly needs custom printing [knowing grin] but with the proper printing it would be equally wonderful in different way. Conveying a bit more of the snapshot aesthetic, it initially has a casual impression that becomes more profound the longer one looks at. Not that that's what you had in mind for it, I'm just noting that it's unusual for a photograph to work well in so many different forms.

This is also one of the rare cases where a black border makes a huge difference. Compositionally, there's a problem with the brightness at the top of the photo tending to drag one's eye out of the frame and away from the subjects of interest. It's tricky to deal with that kind of stuff. One's first instinct is to burn it in, but then the upper background becomes more detailed and attracts more attention for that reason. Simply flattening it out merges it into the arms–– bad idea. Cropping even a smidge off of it drastically improves the overall composition, but that trashes the tattoo. Nasty problem, nasty nasty. The black border solves it by preventing the eye from wandering out of the picture. It forces attention back into the scene.

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[Stan B.]

A thin black border does wonders to consolidate both complementary and contrasting tonal values, along with the diverse compositional elements in a B&W image into one unified, handsome, working whole (as exemplified here)- and yet looks absolutely tacky on a color image.

Ctein- I was thinking Nicholas Nixon...

"Fungibility!?!"

[Eric Rose]

Awesome shot Mike. Looks like it came out of a Ralph Lauren ad.

[Shelley Stallings]

Mike,
For my money, easily the best photo you have ever posted on the site. This vignette of life, sort of mysterious, makes a person want to know more of the story. The third person's hand adds so much. B&W is the way to go, just as you decided for the image. The skin tones are perfect. I have always loved people images with no heads, allows a viewer more 'time' to look at the details of the shot.
It is one of those images which make me say, I wish I had taken it and hopefully will inspire me to get out there and notice the interactions between people.

[Henry Rogers]

Mike,
Thanks for featuring my comment. But I'm jolly glad I didn't post all the things my imagination told me about your beautiful shot since the people in it are real and your friends. I couldn't help seeing it in short-story terms with more than one possible story line. Maupassant, Somerset Maugham, Hemingway......take your choice.

[Shelley Stallings]

Triangles!!!! I remember 40 years ago when my first photo instructor intoned, "triangles often make for interesting composition". This image is packed with triangles.

[Bron]

Ivan Le Lorraine Albright. "The Door".