I'm bored. Let's discuss this image.

Good image, but it's blown out in the upper left corner.

Yeah, but I think that is intentional. If you look at the light in the image. I think the flare was added in post. I think a lot of 'lighting' is not part of the original myself.

looks like skin was desaturated then brought back to life with a strong curve.

I think a lot of 'lighting' is not part of the original myself.
I'm going to agree. All along his left arm highlights were painted in, his right side of his face and ear - and since the highlight look a little painted in to me then the shadows were painted in too I'd bet. There's a lens flare orb down near the mixer and his hand but I don't know enough to say it's been added in post. The skin looks to have been given a harsh/high contrast treatment while the shirt's contrast was probably toned down/softened. I almost want to say the highlights down his cheek are off given the light source at the top left but I could be wrong.

I'm not sure what you want to discuss specifically but those are my initial thoughts.

What I get from this critique is that if you are gonna do something , do it and make it look intentional. At times being subtle goes against you. When we shot film, sometimes we would cross process, running neg through slide chemicals and visa-versa. Maybe something like this.

c

I'm going to agree. All along his left arm highlights were painted in, his right side of his face and ear - and since the highlight look a little painted in to me then the shadows were painted in too I'd bet. There's a lens flare orb down near the mixer and his hand but I don't know enough to say it's been added in post. The skin looks to have been given a harsh/high contrast treatment while the shirt's contrast was probably toned down/softened. I almost want to say the highlights down his cheek are off given the light source at the top left but I could be wrong.

I'm not sure what you want to discuss specifically but those are my initial thoughts.

I agree that the highlights and a lot of the light is painted in. Not sure of the shadows, at least in terms of shape to the subject, but darkening did occur I believe. To me, the jawline highlights work given the flare. I don't see anything particular to the shirt. I think the highlights on the arms could have been softened and have some fall-off to appear less painted on, but it didn't strike me right away.

I didn't want to discuss anything in particular. Just found the image.

Anyone know who this guy is? HINT: Remember C&C Music Factory?


Sweetlight, I think that looks like he is hosting Saturday Night Live. A bit too garish.

That's funny but it does look like SNL now that you say it:) Remember, I am an old man. When I think of spinners I think "mad skills" kinda rough and edgy. C and C music factory, I think they sung Puff the Magic Dragon??:)

Namaste'
c

Well blush, thought puff the magic dragon was a kid's song until I had teenagers of my own and that ben stiller movie

Cass,
I hope you have read enough of me to know that I am a smarty clown right?
The more I look at that image he is so RIGHT it's SNL, I think that's a compliment....... How many of you know what cross-processing is?

c

I know what CP is. I used to do it to neg film (shoot neg, process E6 - Portra 160 VC made some nice blue negs with great contrast and detail.) +2 dev. Reds suffered.

C&C is now M.V.P. http://mostvaluableplayas.com/

well sweetlight, I definately don't know the full boundaries of cross processing given that I am not photo processing savvy

I know of CP just from my photo lab experience but when I saw it it was almost never intentional. We'd sometimes be sent E-6 35mm that had been run through C-41 at a pharmacy or massive retail store chain... and be asked to fix it. The joys of being an outlab :) I wouldn't know for certain how to do it properly for someone that wanted it done... i.e. +/- temps and timings.