Couple from Friday night - revised....

[bdcolen]

Revised version:
http://www.bdcolenphoto.com/Other/DGRIN/i-HmMqVLf/0/X2/00034BW-X2.jpg

Original version:
http://www.bdcolenphoto.com/Other/DGRIN/i-CKL8HLt/0/X2/00034-X2.jpg

Comments more than welcome - I think, for a number of reasons, this works much better than the version I originally posted :

1. It's much closer to what I saw;
2. It requires some looking;
3. It doesn't smack the viewer in the nose;
4. It does a better job of conveying the idea of the couple in their own little world in a crowd.]
Oh, and it's more subtle.

Thoughts?

Mod edit: I included the original here to make comparison easier. Hope that's OK. -R.

[bfjr]

My comments here will be esqued by viewing the 1st post.

Having said that
the 2nd strikes me better based on 3 of your 4 points. It accomplishes that well.
I do not agree with #4 as I think the 1st one evokes more on that level

Would have a hard time choosing one over the other and if pushed would base it on
intended use.

Having now said all that, I still prefer the 1st.
Told you I'd be esqued.

[rainbow]

This post raises some interesting food for thought. I have no doubt that the second is more of what came out of the camera and perhaps closer to what you saw. But I also suspect that what your brain registered upon viewing the scene is somewhere between the two.

To wit, the bright wall in the back would not have been a bright distraction as the iris and retinal adaptation would have subdued that. Likewise, the people would have appeared much brighter than presented in either shot (excepting the couple in the first post). I also contend that the couple would have "appeared" brighter in your mind as the object of your attention (perhaps due to the resolution fall off from our foveal viewing?), though how much is subject to interpretation.

So, if you wanted to process closer to what you saw, perhaps taking down the brightness of the wall and lightening the crowd's faces would be a good start. And then upping the couple's brightness a notch (no more, no less...) would be fair game.

This is meant for discussion (rather than "you ought to...") as we have not had a good "roll on the floor" discussion with you in quite awhile... :rofl:wink

[michswiss]

I think the shot is somewhere between the two versions you've posted.

[bdcolen]

My comments here will be esqued by viewing the 1st post.

Having said that
the 2nd strikes me better based on 3 of your 4 points. It accomplishes that well.
I do not agree with #4 as I think the 1st one evokes more on that level

Would have a hard time choosing one over the other and if pushed would base it on
intended use.

Having now said all that, I still prefer the 1st.
Told you I'd be esqued.

Not at all:D - I asked the questions to get responses, not bs - and God knows I can count on honest responses from you, Ben. :rofl

[bdcolen]

This post raises some interesting food for thought. I have no doubt that the second is more of what came out of the camera and perhaps closer to what you saw. But I also suspect that what your brain registered upon viewing the scene is somewhere between the two.

To wit, the bright wall in the back would not have been a bright distraction as the iris and retinal adaptation would have subdued that. Likewise, the people would have appeared much brighter than presented in either shot (excepting the couple in the first post). I also contend that the couple would have "appeared" brighter in your mind as the object of your attention (perhaps due to the resolution fall off from our foveal viewing?), though how much is subject to interpretation.

So, if you wanted to process closer to what you saw, perhaps taking down the brightness of the wall and lightening the crowd's faces would be a good start. And then upping the couple's brightness a notch (no more, no less...) would be fair game.

This is meant for discussion (rather than "you ought to...") as we have not had a good "roll on the floor" discussion with you in quite awhile... :rofl:wink

Not only is this a very interesting response, but I also suspect that it is close to right. Our eyes do indeed adjust in ways the camera does not. For instance, we tend to see light as relatively neutral, rather than in its true colors. Example. A couple years ago I took a photo of the front of our house after a snow storm, with Christmas "candles" in the windows. I showed the photo to my wife, who told me that there was something radically wrong with it, because, of course, the camera showed that the light was quite yellow. I tried to convince her that it was indeed yellow, but got nowhere. But then I screwed around with the white balance, and when it was "fixed," she told me that that was the way it really looked. :rofl

So, yes, I probably saw the people as much lighter, and tuned out the background. I did not, however, see the couple in a spotlight - I simply spotted them. I really can't take the wall down because it is white, and was brightly lit.

Anyway, excellent points.

[bdcolen]

I think the shot is somewhere between the two versions you've posted.

That's possible. I'll look at the original color image again, and perhaps fiddle further. Maybe I'll even go so far as posting an unaltered jpg of the raw original - and you'll see that all the people are really underexposed, as the meter and I got fooled by the wall. Or, maybe I won't. :rofl:ivar

[Richard]

Hmm...I guess I like it when an image smacks me on the nose. :lol3. I think you accomplished everything you set out to do with the revision, but given the choice, I prefer the original. Jenn may be right about seeking a middle ground, dunno. In the revised version, my attention was drawn more to the two paintings on the wall than to the couple. The sharp lines there stand out in contrast to the rest. The clear focus on the couple doesn't seem to be quite enough to compete without some sort of spotlight effect. But, yeah, maybe take it down just a tad.

[redleash]

For the pure purpose of looking at something I like, I prefer the original version because it puts attention on the couple. I like how they are surrounded by darkness in front, including the people who look like they are in shadow, and the bright wall almost seems to be the source of the lighting on the couple--It bounces my eye from the bright wall first, to the next brightest area, which is the couple. I liked this shot a lot when you first posted and I sitll do.

In the revision, I find I am drawn to the two women in front because I can now see their faces instead of silhouettes in shadow. I also don't find the couple demand much of my attention in this version.

Lauren

[lizzard_nyc]

ha! I had it in my head wrong. I thought your revised version was the brighter one and I found myself liking the darker one better.


EDIT:I went back a couple more times and you know, I am in agreement w/ Jenn, I think the mix of the two would be best. Not so in your face bright "hey look at me" and not quite so subtle either.

But of the two you posted, I like the darker one best.

BTW. I really really love this photograph. What a look you captured on her face! Real moments like this are rarely captured. It's quite beautiful.