"Interpretation"

[BarbaraArmstrong]

Michael, your final image in "Interpretation" is both fascinating and memorable.  I feel I benefit greatly from pieces such as yours addressing aspects of post processing, giving effect to what we envisioned, or would like to communicate, in an image.  I did have a laugh early on, however.  While the women are, I suppose, "tenants" in their clothing, I think you meant religious "tenets."  On another much more important point, I look forward to reading and, hopefully, seeing, much more from your recent trip, and hope that you are both feeling and doing well.  All the best to you, Barbara

[Bryan Conner]

Thanks Michael. This essay was a very interesting and thought provoking read in a simplistic and refreshing way.  Thanks again for sharing.

[Schewe]

I feel I benefit greatly from pieces such as yours addressing aspects of post processing, giving effect to what we envisioned, or would like to communicate, in an image.

I agree, Mike is pretty good at dealing with the essence of an image although how he arrived at his final image is a bit skimpy...I know how he did it but a lot of people might not catch on to how he retained some of the colors which still giving it a vintage look. Care to share Mike?

[peterv]

Thanks for the essay Michael, interesting photo.

I agree with Jeff and I'd be interested in finding out how you arrived at the last version.

[knickerhawk]

I usually love the images that Michael posts, but this one doesn't work for me.  The subject is excellent and presents a good starting point for interpretation, I agree.  However, the final result feels too muddy (neither here nor there with the desaturation).  I was shocked when I saw that it was shot with a D800E.  At least at this reduced size for display on the web, it has lost all detail and tonal subtlty.  It also looks like there's a a lot of moire going on inside the truck at the right - e.g., down the side of the fan.  Hard to say why that would be happening though because there's no obvious pattern there.  Just looks off.  The crop also feels a little tight to me, with the sign cut off at the very bottom like that and the choice to not use the posts holding up the canopy as the outer frame.  I guess that's what "interpretation" is all about.  What works for one person doesn't resonate with another...

[Pete Berry]

I usually love the images that Michael posts, but this one doesn't work for me.  The subject is excellent and presents a good starting point for interpretation, I agree.  However, the final result feels too muddy (neither here nor there with the desaturation).  I was shocked when I saw that it was shot with a D800E.  At least at this reduced size for display on the web, it has lost all detail and tonal subtlty.  It also looks like there's a a lot of moire going on inside the truck at the right - e.g., down the side of the fan.  Hard to say why that would be happening though because there's no obvious pattern there.  Just looks off.  The crop also feels a little tight to me, with the sign cut off at the very bottom like that and the choice to not use the posts holding up the canopy as the outer frame.  I guess that's what "interpretation" is all about.  What works for one person doesn't resonate with another...

It's really impossible to tell a competent P&S from a D800 at this reprodution size with exposure chosen for the crop area and its limited shadowed DR. But I would have chosen to crop out the detracting truck interior on the right, particularly with the enigmatic vertical shadow bands seen better with the image slightly expanded. My eyes and brain spent way too much pointless time trying to suss these out rather than enjoying the delightful women's "poses" and the very appropriate tonalities chosen.

PB

[HSway]

It won’t enlarge when I click on the Home page. It’s quite small at this size. But lack of detail didn’t even cross my mind. It seems a spot on example of interpretation in the spirit of the article. including the colour and contrast. successful and witty actually. – It comes from someone who doesn’t particularly enjoy retro look kind of style (or vintage) and would prefer to see even historic photographs captured with today’s equipment. Or both if possible;-).

@ knickerhawk I am getting sense of the added space from the fig3 colour frame (on the left and at the bottom) and have to say that the 'tight version' works best for me. – It’s (called) Three Double Scoops Please. So the frame goes straight after the point, extracting it out of what doesn’t, or what’s weakening it. It feels exactly so. Also, I do expect problems when cutting a feature at the bottom or 'deciding its end'. These cuts are sometimes necessary and don’t always pose a problem, I mean distraction. The art is to see when it does.
Agree with your ending of course.
Hynek

[knickerhawk]

It won’t enlarge when I click on the Home page. It’s quite small at this size. But lack of detail didn’t even cross my mind. It seems a spot on example of interpretation in the spirit of the article. including the colour and contrast. successful and witty actually. – It comes from someone who doesn’t particularly enjoy retro look kind of style (or vintage) and would prefer to see even historic photographs captured with today’s equipment. Or both if possible;-).

@ knickerhawk I am getting sense of the added space from the fig3 colour frame (on the left and at the bottom) and have to say that the 'tight version' works best for me. – It’s (called) Three Double Scoops Please. So the frame goes straight after the point, extracting it out of what doesn’t, or what’s weakening it. It feels exactly so. Also, I do expect problems when cutting a feature at the bottom or 'deciding its end'. These cuts are sometimes necessary and don’t always pose a problem, I mean distraction. The art is to see when it does.
Agree with your ending of course.
Hynek

I think the final rendering (Fig #1) where everything is desaturated and tonally pushed to the middle (compared to Fig #4) results in a tired look.  It reminds me of pictures that have yellowed and faded.  I assume that's what Michael wanted and, to that extent, it is a success, but I would question the point of such a rendering.  The subject is quite interesting on its own and doesn't need a somewhat obvious and hackneyed "aging" look to succeed.

As for the cropping, I think Figure #4 works better than Figure #1 because there's enough breathing room on the left and the "OPEN" reads as "OPEN" instead of "OPFN".  Personally, I would have considered shifting the crop to the left to include the menu sign and exclude the open door.  That would have a created a signage balance on either side of the women and a nice diagonal movement from top left to bottom right.  Especially if you could read what's on the sign on the left (hey, it's a D800E for chrissakes...), this recropping would provide additional context and detail.  Just my 2 cents...

[LesPalenik]

It's really impossible to tell a competent P&S from a D800 at this reprodution size with exposure chosen for the crop area and its limited shadowed DR.

It's not so much about selection of the camera or what tint you prefer, but more about seeing the subject, recognizing the opportunity, and seizing the moment. In situations like this, you have indeed only seconds to get the shot. You compose it in your mind while you turn around to grab the closest camera and shoot. If the subject stays put, you can try more compositions.

If you do the first part right, you can take your sweet time and apply personal preferences for post-processing.
 

[RobbieV]

I agree, Mike is pretty good at dealing with the essence of an image although how he arrived at his final image is a bit skimpy...I know how he did it but a lot of people might not catch on to how he retained some of the colors which still giving it a vintage look. Care to share Mike?

I would be very interested in this aspect of it as well. 

[Pete Berry]

It's not so much about selection of the camera or what tint you prefer, but more about seeing the subject, recognizing the opportunity, and seizing the moment. In situations like this, you have indeed only seconds to get the shot. You compose it in your mind while you turn around to grab the closest camera and shoot. If the subject stays put, you can try more compositions.

If you do the first part right, you can take your sweet time and apply personal preferences for post-processing.

 
Well of course - Michael had grabbed only a single, reflexive frame with the only immediately available camera before the composition disintegrated.
 
My point about camera selection was in response to Knickerhawk, who felt the final image reflected poorly on the D800's capabilities: that the image, at the small size presented, could have been taken by any halfway decent camera.

PB

[JFR]

I can see the appeal of keeping classic processes alive and the beauty of faded prints, but technology has moved on now and I don't see the point in recreating defects digitally. A photograph then becomes kitsch to me. Fun for snapshots and family albums, not for serious work.

I personally only use photoshop and it's siblings only to overcome problems of the digital age (washed out and clinical looking color, the long toe and shoulder etc.)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I was shocked when I saw that it was shot with a D800E.  At least at this reduced size for display on the web, it has lost all detail ...

Processed in LR5 and exported at less than 1/3 original size?