NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: elsa hoffmann on April 25, 2016, 14:03:15
-
I am sure Annie Leibowitz doesn't do her own editing.
But I think someone needs a talking to. This is Queenie after all.
Can you see whats wrong with the image?
taken from here:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/queen-family-portrait-grandchildren-90th-birthday#img-1
-
I can not "see" what is wrong on first sight, but my feeling is that the "mirror in mirror" topic seems to be rather constructed, quite possibly as a cover up of the extensive lighting setup.
If the mirror can be see in the mirror the girl covering the mirror should be seen also.
-
Frank - for a start - yes - where is the girl's reflection in that mirror??
There are other issues as well with the editing - but not visible at this size unless you download and start looking.
The mirror being the most obvious issue though
-
There is a mess on the mirror , can't see anything else
I guess they like the greenish tint
-
At first glance it looks like a really nice portrait. And it is.
it just confused me when I really started looking at what they did.
I dont look at these images to crit them - I look to learn from them
-
Not wild about the color cast, glitches in the mirror. Interesting find.
-
Well, you are looking at copied fotos. Who knows what colour nuances might have gotten lost in these conversions. ;D
I love the lighting. My eye goes immediately to all those little faces.
-
Well, you are looking at copied fotos. Who knows what colour nuances might have gotten lost in these conversions. ;D
I love the lighting. My eye goes immediately to all those little faces.
This is not lighting this is Photoshop.......done badly!
-
The lighting on the face is coverd by pumped up micro contrast. This makes them ugly.
DIY: set "details" to 8+ in photo ninja.
Leibowitz works with painted backgrounds from Sara Oliphant in NYC. This might be one.
So the mirror might not be a mirror after all but the picture of a mirror.
-
When I open the picture in PS the colors are rich, skin tones pleasant and I honestly dont see anything wrong with the picture Elsa linked to. It´s decent family portrait that brings out every individuals character, IMHO. Any greenish tint or colorcast is due to the color space it is presented in. When critiquing a picture, at least state what is wrong with it. Pointing to Photoshop gone bad, is a worn out statement.
-
.......
I dont look at these images to crit them - I look to learn from them
Indeed, we all learn in our different ways. What is very disappointing is the usual super hyped Annie Leibowitz photography and this is a perfect example where her photography falls apart......the mind wonders if she can shoot at all or is it the same Steve Mccury syndrome where one image of the Afghan girl, which for the record is a posed image, catapulted him to the rank of master photographers......(insert rude expletive here).
Do you know that Steve shoots with his camera on Program and not Manual or Aperture or Shutter! I know, I shot with him!
And all his pics are processed by external studios.
To come back to Leibowitz and to this picture:
I appreciate that it is not comfortable and easy shooting the Queen and her grand children, but:
1- The camera plane is not parallel to the wall......yada yada yada.....she wanted it this way...Doh
It needs horizontal keystoning.
2- All faces have been retouched for a light porcelain effect......yada yada yada.....she wanted it this way...Doh
3- Artifacts abound and could have been solved before the shoot or in post.
4- The elder girl left foot has disappeared leaving a small toe presence which you have to look for it.
5- Since when are young royal boys allowed to put their hands in their pockets for an official picture?
6- The Mirrors have a heavy distortion. Either the retoucher screwed up or the frames are distorted in real life or Leibovitz knows jack about Perspective......banish the thought for her fan boys. Maybe she forgot that there something called a tilt and shit lens or camera........yada yada yada.....she wanted it this way...Doh
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv233%2FDuke_1%2FDistortion_zpsntzzggbn.jpg&hash=b2a3243ede200ec3abc083eddbc67e143b25518c)
7- Candelabra sticking from the Queen's head?
8- Nevermind any comments on the lighting which can be checked on the Queen shoes and nevermind on the green cast and never mind on reducing contrast and clarity.
This official picture sucks on all levels
-
ok you convinced me. now I hate the photo.
-
It has a TV fashionable serial color and contrast... Not so sure it's Windsor compatible ?
-
Almass, thank you for taking on the task of deconstructing the shot from the "great" Leibowitz. I have found that, in general, her photography hurts my eyes. Others will not agree.
-
Nice analyse, Almass.
The photos (there are others too on the page of the Guardian) have the 'odeur' of a wax-house...
-
If I remember correctly, a vampire isn't reflected in the mirror. :o :o :o
Almass' analysis is a bitter food for thought.
I feel all of three images in the linked article lifeless...
-
One can not dispute that this image will please many people - and I am sure Queenie included.
Everyone has his or her own style - and if this is Annie's style - its artistic license and so be it.
What isn't good style is the poor editing.
Almass is correct - its not bad lighting.
I don't however agree that her photography fell apart here (maybe she just was a bit lazy but who knows...) - for me it's seriously more a case of the editing falling apart.
The picture frames in the "mirror" are totally skewed - in my opinion - I wouldn't deliver work like that in a hurry....
My feeling is the mirror showed a mass of crap which had to be edited out.
I didn't notice the foot - good point.
Frank - I doubt if this is a painted backdrop.. see pics below
Børge - I specifically didn't post my comments as I wanted to see what YOU guys see. It's called "interaction" ;D
Andrea - I certainly don't hate the pic - lots I like about it - which is why I looked closer to see what was going on...
Believe me - not many on NG would have pulled this off. Firstly not many are family /portrait photographers - and secondly we have no idea how challenging the shoot was. We don't even know if they were so un-cooperative that more than one image had to be pasted together to get a decent result. We just don't know.
1. See the picture frame how it goes around the head of the boy - thats patched / edited in afterwords to eliminate what was there. no frame goes around a head in the background...
2. The chair back comes through the hair? impossible without PS
3. The Candelabra has a hole in it at the side and the frame has a huge mark which is also clearly due to editing.
Also - boy in red shorts has something peculiar between his knees.
It might not be mirrors - but glass. (which also reflects)
Quite possible that the Palace staff has their own ideas about where the pic should be taken yada yada yada - we will never know.
Or someone said - lets shoot and fix up the f*ck ups in PS. who knows
-
.......... for me it's seriously more a case of the editing falling apart.
........
At this level of photography or at any level, the responsibility of releasing a pic is first with the photographer. The PR people decide later based on the pic and other considerations whether to publish or not.
What I am saying is that the responsibility is directly Leybowitz's and not the editor or the colorist or the pastor....etc.
She is the photographer and it is her name on the pic. There is no chance in hell for her to defer the responsibility.
Leybowitz simply did not deliver at this level and proved to be incapable to deliver at such level.
This is not acceptable for someone of her stature. Questions on her photography are now being asked.
She can't light, she can't direct, she can't edit. Oh, she knows where the shutter button is on a PhasOne.
-
The girl with the handbag is precious, the greenish colourcast gives the scene a submerged feel.
-
I would not light a scene with hard shadows / gloden reflectors on the left and diffuse slightly underexposed
on the right.
I would not allow reflected green from surfaces in the room to cast color onto the scene. What has black cloth
been invented for?
Almass. Many of your comments are to the point. Thank you.
I like the model interaction. These guys look concentrated. Up to the task.
-
:) I wouldn't dear to judge these photos quality based on the small jpegs presented on the web. But I guess its because I`m a Leibowitz fanboy and I dont know jack shit about Photoshop. I know that I like the scenes, the poses and the overall look of the pictures. I respect that other have different opinions. I have seen far worse examples of royal portraits, that actually have produced a public outcry.
If the editing is beyond rescue on these small jpegs, think about how it will look on the large prints that certainly are going to produced from this shoot? Do you think a professional photographer of this caliber will risk his/her career on the kind of bad judgement you imply? And do you think the queen actually gives a shit about a few distorted lines in an old mirror? If I get to be 90, my only demand for the official pictures would be that they are not high resolution 3D ;)
-
Borge
I think if the editing / esp the clone stamp work can be seen in small size how much worse must it look on full size?
I love Leibowitz too, but this picture sucks big time.
-
I have enjoyed all who commented on this portrait, most particularly Almass and Elsa. It has been a teachable moment for me leading to questions about post-processing versus getting in right on set and in camera. Being someone who is woefully inadequate in dealing with the former, I am constrained by my need to achieve the latter. Needless to say, many of my photos end up on the cutting room floor.
My thoughts on the photo is Leibowitz was trying for something painterly approaching classical European portraiture which forced her hand and gives the final result of an artifact out of place and time except perhaps for the kid with his hands in his pocket (there be a modern-day Viscount). It is not really contemporary and certainly not an antique, but to my eye basically an affectation.
John Geerts comes close to how I feel about it, and here I paraphrase: the picture has the “odeur of a waxworks museum”.
-
I think y'all are really hard to please!!
OK, I get the technical errors pick-nitting. But who's to say that the PS errors won't be fixed before family prints are made?
Above Edit: 27 Apr 2016
I looked at this and thought it a charming, informal family portrait - well, "informal" given the context of Windsor palace. However strange it may seem to most of us, this is Grandma's home to those people. So yes it would appear classical & European & somewhat 19th century. But that's how they live. What would be truly strange would be to see such a group posed on the sofa of the typical tract home in the suburbs. Or all sitting on a studio bench with some kind of swirly muted backdrop.
I had the impression this photograph was the shot taken just after everyone relaxed a little bit from the first formal shot while waiting for the second formal shot. So right after that first formal pose, the little girl picks up Grandma's purse. The baby kicks up the edge of her dress. The oldest boy, relieved the first formal shot is over, puts his hands in his pockets. The little girl beside the queen leans forward. The two children on the right aren't quite sure what's happening so they are looking expectantly. No one appears lifeless. There are such a variety of expressions, pensive, expectant, uncertain, happy. There's the queen in a pink cardigan, so casual, no crown. She looks real for once, like a great-grandmother who is trying to hold a wiggly great-grandchild.
Oh well.
-
I think y'all are really hard to please!!
OK, I get the pick-nitting. But who's to say that the PS errors won't be fixed before family prints are made?
This is not nitpicking but genuine critique and assessment.
This pic is the official pic released to the media and there are too many flagrant mistakes to count and I do not have the time to keep looking. It is all very well to elevate a photographer to excellence and it makes the fall even harder.
Leibovitz diva attitude is a common attitude among similar photographers where they loose track of their photography and think that all they need to do is click the shutter. You have no idea how commercial shoots at this level are made. Every single detail is planned in advance and it is not planned by the photographer but by whomever commercial entity who hires the photographer.
These big name photographers are not hired for their type of photography but hired for their name and the PR that ensues.
This is the Queen and the future King "Prince George of Cambridge" (God Bless) with her. Princess Charlotte face is blurred. All faces are soft except the Queen's face which has been sharpened. They have retouched the Queen face and softened all others. This is a cardinal mistake in retouching. All faces should have the same and seamless treatment.
It is the penultimate photo for generations and we are not discussing the location or pose but the photographic rendering.
There are too many inconsistencies in this pic and I would say that this pic is a composite.........done badly.
The big boy liquified head, his stance, clothes and looking away from the camera leaves many question marks.
You will note in the following pics which are at a higher res, that the position of his foot on the carpet is awkward unless he either have a bad foot or it is a composite. (BTW you can see 2 lights in the catchlights).
He is looking away and beyond the camera in comparison with the other people's eyes.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv233%2FDuke_1%2FBoy3_zpsb049j2tl.jpg&hash=a9e25de1f929b708ab1f502a930e9334c220023d)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv233%2FDuke_1%2FBoy1_zps0njpddfu.jpg&hash=ca77fde348acf6cb4d4a3917fa1f7012927b50b6)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv233%2FDuke_1%2FBoy2_zps4mgbpi8t.jpg&hash=e4e3548fa6844056a2f1ddfdba60967a7c10a823)
I noticed another mistake in the mirror pic for your enjoyment.......
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv233%2FDuke_1%2FMirror1_zpsjb2jtvjb.jpg&hash=2ad6dd176bef26e5a3ba8d95a1bb5f98d0ff3883)
-
thank you Almass - you explain it a lot better than I do. You got it spot on.
OK, I get the pick-nitting. But who's to say that the PS errors won't be fixed before family prints are made?
Andrea - You think that?
This is not about nit picking for me. It is about learning. I learn from comments too. Annie Leibovitz has made more money and is more famous than any one of us. Like her or not, is not the issue. It's not a popularity contest.
-
Thank you for posting this Elsa and thanks everyone - especially Almass - for a thorough analysis. I learned a lot from it (what to be aware of when taking a (group) portrait).
I noticed the distortion, the porcelain (although not the word thank you Almass) faces and liquified face of the boy but that was about it.
It makes me wonder why it was published and why it was so heavily processed. To make up for bad lighting and careless preparation? I can't imagine that would happen for a photo of the Royal family. So - after reading the analysis -, for a moment I thought it was fabricated in PS but apparently it is an official photo. Or maybe it was just because they like it this way. ;-)
As said, I learned a lot, also about my own preferences.
Thank you.
-
Thank you Almass. Very good teardown.
-
Nearly all remarks are to the point. I am not a Leibowitz fan. Nevertheless, the pictures are excellent, if not outstanding.
-
Ok, points above well made.
And I rescind my pick-nitting comment to be replaced with "I get the technical errors".
There is no question that I look at photographs like this with a naive eye for technical details. I just read the photo for the impressions and feelings it gave me. Presented with a naturescape, I could pick out everything wrong with it technically. Presented with the Queenie and the lovely children my mind goes elsewhere. "-)
I enjoy the discussion.
-
Ok, points above well made.
And I rescind my pick-nitting comment to be replaced with "I get the technical errors".
There is no question that I look at photographs like this with a naive eye for technical details. I just read the photo for the impressions and feelings it gave me. Presented with a naturescape, I could pick out everything wrong with it technically. Presented with the Queenie and the lovely children my mind goes elsewhere. "-)
I enjoy the discussion.
Thats the way these kind of photographs should be viewed. I'm shure this will come out as an excellent print. Imagine if this discussion was about a renaissance painting? This picture will be enjoyed for its content and as a historical document. Not like the thousands of model pictures that flash before your eyes every day. Sorry, but nit picking has no place in this context, as far as I'm conserned.
-
I for one am more curious about what the handbag contains ;D
-
But Børge, as was pointed out - and to which I conceded and now agree - this is not nit-picking to the photographers here in the thread making the technical comments because this is the type of photography that is their profession. Almass and Elsa and others immediately "read" the photograph differently from the way I would or the way a casual viewer would. They naturally see the technical errors in away which I would not (being myself not a professional portrait & lighting photographer).
Critique - as a formal art itself - is applied on all levels: technical, historical, artistic, contextual, subjective and so forth. I offered a subjective reading about the content of the photograph. Not knowing anything much about the history of formal photographic portraiture, I cannot comment on that. And I did not even see the technical errors. ;D
I think the discussion is all very interesting.
-
It is a nice picture, but that does not excuse sloppy and unprofessional editing.
-
Let me make it clear - again - The only reason why I looked at this image, was to learn. Not because I am trying to be funny or think I am better - I am certainly not better than Ms Leibovitz. I have also made it clear that I don't think Annie is at fault. This is a photography forum and we are not normal viewers of images. We share things on NG to show off - and to learn. Both equally important. One doesn't put this kind of thing on Facebook and tear it apart.
-
Elsa, I am on you side my dear :)
We should all be able to comment and learn from photos that are published.
Almass helped us a great deal in determining what was wrong with the image.
Whether you like the photo or not or whether you like the photographer or not is totally irrelevant to our collective process of learning :)
Thorough analysis or "nitpicking" is of course crucial to our proper understanding of what went wrong and what we should in the future try to avoid if we were to make some images.
So my thanks goes to the "nitpickers" because I have learned from your comments. I am not certain what I have gained from the worshipers :)
-
There are things to dislike about the photo and there are things to like about the photo.
We learn from both types of comments.
We learn from the 'worshippers' to perhaps see differently or to see less critically. We try to see what they see in order to hone our own visions and to either add to or delete from our ideas of what makes a good photograph.
We learn from the professionals how to improve things. Always important.
-
A true detective might at least check if some of the "editing mistakes" might be ordinary optical effects before he draws conclusions. When one conclusion (that I am able to verify) is wrong, I might be inclined to dismiss the whole testimony ;) But I get the idea of a discussion on a technical basis.
-
An ad hominem attack comment was just removed by me in accordance with NG rules. This discussion can be carried out with respect for differing opinions. Geez. It's so embarassing when some member veers off the rails like that. ???
-
A true detective might at least check if some of the "editing mistakes" might be ordinary optical effects before he draws conclusions. When one conclusion (that I am able to verify) is wrong, I might be inclined to dismiss the whole testimony ;) But I get the idea of a discussion on a technical basis.
1- Could you clarify which: "editing mistakes" might be ordinary optical effects"?
2- Could you clarify which: "When one conclusion (that I am able to verify) is wrong"?
We would love to be enlightened and corrected and fess up to our mistakes....would'nt you?
-
The alternating reflections form two opposing mirrors are no editing mistake. And if we want to learn something from this "editing disaster" we might just wait until we get to dissect the full size version of the images before we cast our verdict. So I think I rest my case :)
-
I'm still here you two. You are both under edit until I am happy you can discuss and not attack. Make me happy please.
You've both made me feel bad that I removed my Boffin Hat to participate in a thread wearing my Member Hat. Geez. I will have to return to staying out of threads.
-
I really learnt a lot from the discussion here. When I first saw the picture I had this weird feeling there was something "wrong" with the picture, without being able to say exactly what. OK, part of it was probably the somewhat strange atmosphere it conveys, but there was more.
And what the discussion did was to point me to some of the reasons why the picture felt "wrong". It still does, but now I understand better why.
Hermann
-
I'm still here you two. You are both under edit until I am happy you can discuss and not attack. Make me happy please.
I solemnly swear to behave :)
-
Tempers are getting hot here. Obviously it is time to take a break.
I lock the thread for a while until normalcy is returning.