Author Topic: The Queen's editing  (Read 12097 times)

elsa hoffmann

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3822
  • Cape Town, South Africa
    • Elsa Hoffmann
The Queen's editing
« 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
"You don’t take a photograph – you make it” – Ansel Adams. Thats why I use photoshop.
www.phototourscapetown.com
www.elsa.co.za. www.intimateimages.co.za

Frank Fremerey

  • engineering art
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12389
  • Bonn, Germany
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2016, 15:23:16 »
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.
You are out there. You and your camera. You can shoot or not shoot as you please. Discover the world, Your world. Show it to us. Or we might never see it.

Me: https://youpic.com/photographer/frankfremerey/

elsa hoffmann

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3822
  • Cape Town, South Africa
    • Elsa Hoffmann
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2016, 15:38:01 »
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
"You don’t take a photograph – you make it” – Ansel Adams. Thats why I use photoshop.
www.phototourscapetown.com
www.elsa.co.za. www.intimateimages.co.za

armando_m

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 3548
  • Guadalajara México
    • http://armando-m.smugmug.com/
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2016, 15:46:58 »
There is a mess on the mirror , can't see anything else

I guess they like the greenish tint
Armando Morales
D800, Nikon 1 V1, Fuji X-T3

elsa hoffmann

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3822
  • Cape Town, South Africa
    • Elsa Hoffmann
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2016, 15:54:13 »
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
"You don’t take a photograph – you make it” – Ansel Adams. Thats why I use photoshop.
www.phototourscapetown.com
www.elsa.co.za. www.intimateimages.co.za

Ron Scubadiver

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1245
  • Renegade Street Photographer
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2016, 16:49:17 »
Not wild about the color cast, glitches in the mirror.  Interesting find.

Andrea B.

  • Technical Adviser
  • *
  • Posts: 1671
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2016, 16:58:08 »
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.

Almass

  • Guest
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2016, 17:06:11 »
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!

Frank Fremerey

  • engineering art
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12389
  • Bonn, Germany
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2016, 17:49:15 »
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.
You are out there. You and your camera. You can shoot or not shoot as you please. Discover the world, Your world. Show it to us. Or we might never see it.

Me: https://youpic.com/photographer/frankfremerey/

BW

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 864
  • You ARE NikonGear
    • Børge Wahl-Photography
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2016, 17:49:33 »
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.

Almass

  • Guest
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2016, 17:51:15 »
.......
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



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


Andrea B.

  • Technical Adviser
  • *
  • Posts: 1671
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2016, 18:05:53 »
ok you convinced me. now I hate the photo.

Jacques Pochoy

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 964
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2016, 18:56:52 »
It has a TV fashionable serial color and contrast... Not so sure it's Windsor compatible ?
“A photograph is a moral decision taken in one eighth of a second. ” ― Salman Rushdie, The Ground Beneath Her Feet.

pluton

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2613
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2016, 19:13:49 »
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.
Keith B., Santa Monica, CA, USA

John Geerts

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 9157
  • Photojournalist in Tilburg, Netherlands
    • Tilburgers
Re: The Queen's editing
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2016, 19:18:37 »
Nice analyse, Almass.

The photos (there are others too on the page of the Guardian) have the 'odeur' of a wax-house...