Do you guys think this is too dark or just right

[Ko.Fe.]

It is too darkward for guy on the left. Amount of white is not going to help it. He is alienated by photog.

 

[ndwgolf]

It is too darkward for guy on the left. Amount of white is not going to help it. He is alienated by photog.

You've lost me with that comment

 

[Truzi]

Only a true friend would let you burn his head, lol.

I think your adjustments work very well, I really like your final version.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I offered a photoshoot (family portrait) for a charity event and the family that bought it are friends of mine. I used my Chamonix 8x10 with ilford HP5+. After taking the picture and scanning it with my Epson V850 I was really happy with the results.
After bringing it into Photoshop I just used ACR to correct the exposure and touch up some dust spots

I printed it on Epson Hot Press Natural paper and to me it looks a tad dark but my wife seems to think it is perfect, so I am throwing it out to the gang to see what you think?

My mate hasn't seen it yet but his plan is to have it printed 60 x 44 inches as he has a large wall at his house to hang it. Photoshop says to print at that size it would have a PPI of 259 which I think will be plenty.
View attachment 262156
Comments remarks very welcome

Neil

a tad dark but nothing to worry about

 

[Kino]

Very nice.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well as we are giving our opinions, I now feel that the alterations that have been made results in strange looking white blotches on the kid's cheeks especially but to a lesser extent on those of the lady's and the man's face either side of the kid

pentaxuser

 

[Kino]

In many respects, Photrio is a great place to ask opinions of aesthetic problems because no one can agree on anything.

This is a valuable life lesson; do it the way you want and everyone else can do the same...

 

[jeffreyg]

Last version is definitely better. If you want some nit picking, there is a brighter area in the background sort of a sideways "V" to the right of the lady that may be rather noticeable in a large print. I would burn that to match the rest of the trees.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The second version is better. The first was too dark. Nice shot; nice family.

 

[pentaxuser]

The second version is better. The first was too dark.

So Alan, in terms of "How dark? Should the newspaper headlines looking to turn this into a contest for increased circulation read: "The first print version: While Klein says nein, pentaxuser is the schmoozer"

pentaxuser

 

[ced]

I think the 2nd go is an improvement, offer it for approval & good luck!

 

[ndwgolf]

I think the 2nd go is an improvement, offer it for approval & good luck!

I will give him both A3+ prints. If he decides to go for the 60 x 44 inch then he can decide which variation he prefers with the option to also go somewhere in-between
It was a lot of fun for me taking the picture as well as developing and post processing................Thanks for everyone input

Neil

 

[removed account4]

you might consider making 3 different versions of this print for your self. this one, one a little lighter and one a little bit lighter even...
you want to print it down enough that their whites of their eyes are white . don't under developer and pull the print at 2 minutes ( FB ) if you can't get a good view of the whites of their eyes its also when the highlights vanish and appear when you take it in and out of the developer .. probably not much help if I was there I'd show you ..
John

 

[grain elevator]

Good point, that the whites of the subjects eyes are grey doesn't look good. It's due to lighting, their eye sockets are also too dark. Not sure if that can be improved in post with reasonable effort. Something to keep in mind for next time - avoid that the light comes from above like that, or at least use some sort of reflector if you can't; and very bright clothing also makes your job harder (you could have given more exposure in taking or increased global brightness otherwise).

 

[Ron789]

Great family portrait! The adjustments you made look good.
Just one thing.... Is the lady from Asia? Please note that in some Asian cultures (Thailand) showing the bottom of feet is considered very disrespectful. You may want to check before giving the photo to your friend.

 

[jtk]

If mine I'd print on a warmer tone matte paper with printing ink set to light coffee tone. In other words I would avoid "cold" and attempt at "neutral".

 

[gone]

I'm looking at a monitor, so who knows, but if the print looks like it does on my PC, you're fine. Keep in mind that there IS no such thing as too light or too dark w/ this sort of thing. Everything optical depends on what sort of lighting you plan on displaying it in. Just pick up your print and give it a tour of your place, see what it looks like in one room, in natural light, try different types of store bought lighting.

Ideally w/ a picture that good, you want to make 100% sure the lighting is right. I've been thrown by this many times as a painter and finally gave it up. It's not possible to know what anything actually looks like. There is no native, inherent look to anything, it all depends on what light it's in. Nothing out there is really as we see it, it's just as it appears to be. You can see this for yourself by sitting under a tree for a while and watching the leaves and tree itself change contrast, value, and color as the sunlight changes. What does that tree REALLY look like? It doesn't really look like anything, it just looks like it does today at this particular moment in time. Wait a while and it will look different.

However, now I have to get mad at you because if I want a shot like you took (and who doesn't?), I'll have to go back to shooting a big LF camera. Nah, it probably wouldn't work anyway, the person behind that camera is the one who made that shot.

 

[faberryman]

I wouldn't wager a guess since we undoubtedly are looking at a scan of the negative. Has everybody here calibrated their monitors to the same brightness and contrast levels as the OP's monitor?

Does anyone else think that 60" x 44" is a tad large for a family portrait? How big is the room where it will be displayed? The optimum viewing distance for an image that size would be in the range of 108" to 144" (9' to 12'). Of course, if that is what the customer wants that is what the customer gets. How do you plan to mount and hang it?

 

[wiltw]

Ideally w/ a picture that good, you want to make 100% sure the lighting is right. I've been thrown by this many times as a painter and finally gave it up. It's not possible to know what anything actually looks like. There is no native, inherent look to anything, it all depends on what light it's in.

We DO know precisely what an 18% grey card should look like...in the MIDDLE of the entire gamut between extremes of black at one end and white on the other!
And that is a reason why pros meter with incident meter (to measure light falling on the scene) and include an 18% grey card in the scene to judge the final print against that mid-tone. From there you are free to dodge highlights and burn shadows, to keep more detail in the extremes of brightness range, but you know the middle tone is portrayed precisely right...at its inherent brightness!