I'm curious about your very first impression of this pic. Do you immediately think that it is a poorly taken pic? Grainy, low light, high ISO, etc. Or do you get the "mood" of an old newspaper pic? I think/hope this discussion can lead to tips that make sure when someone makes a mood picture, it makes the proper first impression. So, comments that are more general than specific to this pic are welcome.
I get the mood of an old photo. High grain and low light are to be embraced, not avoided. Converting this to a sepia-toned b&w adds to the vintage feel of the image, as well. First impressions, as you say, are very important in setting the mood of the composition, and in a case like this, the grain is an excellent tool.
hmmm... excellent question... i think i would draw the distinction based on composition, focus, lighting and alignment rather than the graininess... so if you've got those elements, the processing would say "yesteryear" to me... whereas without them, i might think sloppy...
i think this image works nicely for "yesteryear"... although it would have been a bit better in terms of comp if you could have avoided the gentleman in the checkered shirt on the right as he is not part of the comp and i find for my eye distracts a bit from the overall story being told by the shot...
am i making any sense at all? (i am feeling sluggish and inarticulate tonight!)...
@northy - OH!, you make perfect sense and I felt that way as I tried a dozen crops. The problem is essentially that the pic was taken as a quick snapshot of a fun scene as I sat in a booth ... and I took zero consideration of it as something "good". Then I got home and thought "Heck, this is a pretty fun shot". ... but darn him .. he was still sitting there. The good part is that I am sure this is a very ongoing meeting and I can go back for a better shot.
Since it's hard to do grainy without film, I'm going to think you did this on purpose for mood. I think it's a great picture of real life. I started out in newspapers with B&W film, so this is more what I am used too. Some of the newer HDR camera are just too sharp and clear for me. I haven't gotten used to that kind of quality yet, I guess.
I like the grainy, tones idea but have to agree on the checked shirt guy. His hair on the back of his head is right where the standing guys chest is. Very distracting. Also the group seems to be looking up at the guy standing where I would prefer a deep table discussion. My first impressions anyway were aged mood.
Even though it's in sepia, it doesn't give me a completely vintage feel. Just because there are older people in the shot, it doesn't automatically read "yesteryear". For me, it's because the lighting and decor is obviously modern (In a retro diner those large square blocks on the wall would be an art deco stainless steel embellishment). It does look like a fun candid shot- one of those sneaky peaks you pretend you're not taking but pull off when no one is really noticing you. The body language of the fellow who is standing makes you wonder what they are discussing but the composition really tells the story- it was a quick shot that you didn't have the luxury to set up.
For me it has the mood of an old snapshot, but with no clear point of focus, it's just a snapshot. Definitaly an interesting group worth going back for another "shot" at it. If this is a place you hang out too, once you get your candid, you might even approach these guys and ask if they mind you being a "fly on the wall" in the future. If they agree and "catch" you photographing them later, they wont' think it's rude.
it kinda doesn't work for me, it doesn't look old , it just looks grainy, and that the editing has been done to try and hide maybe a bad indoor lighting shot. the sepia doesn't make me think old either, maybe if there was a further daguerreotype type edit or ambrotype edit on it then yes
It looks modern to me - the clothes, the decor, the general air of the photo. If you were aiming for the newspaper look, black and white would have been the way to go. With black and white you could get away with it possibly being as early as the 70s, but no older than that. It does look like a snapshot, with no clear focal point, and the tones are mostly fairly similar. The sepia does it no favours: it needs the contrast boosted a bit to catch the eye.
Nothing wrong with a snapshot - but the sepia doesn't work. Pure and contrasty B&W may have rendered this more appealing. Maybe cropping out the guys on the right?
First Impression was "Looks like a first attempt at getting color balancing"... Then I read what you said about the old newspaper look, and I can agree. I suppose it depends whatever context you place it into.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
i think this image works nicely for "yesteryear"... although it would have been a bit better in terms of comp if you could have avoided the gentleman in the checkered shirt on the right as he is not part of the comp and i find for my eye distracts a bit from the overall story being told by the shot...
am i making any sense at all? (i am feeling sluggish and inarticulate tonight!)...
What stops if from being vintage printable, to vintage throw-away is the composition.
The chairs, the table, the guy on the right all take this from a great photo to one that is just a little too distracting.