King of Beasts: Results


Dan Margulis
 

I’ve posted the results of the King of Beasts exercise, the sixth in a series of 11 case studies.

Reviewing: This image from the San Diego Zoo is our final trip to the MIT study.
We have 35 entries. Most people also submitted a list of their steps, thanks very much. I haven’t read these, because I’d rather get a sense of who was successful and who wasn’t before investigating why.

The files don’t have people’s names on them, and were random-generator numbered from #601 to #635. As with past studies, we also have a “par” version, #636. To get it, I chose five that I thought were among the best entrants, and averaged them, each one weighted 20%. This often creates a version that is superior to most if not all of its parents.

Normally I don't comment on results for two days after they're posted. Meanwhile, if you’d like to know how your own version stacked up, download the par version and compare the two directly. Do you think you got the same kind of quality? If not, I hope you’ll find further discussion useful.

The Folder is in the group's Photos section, 2021 Case Study: King of Beasts,
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/album?id=261306

I also have zipped all 36 entries and uploaded a file to our Files section,
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/files/
Search for 030821_King-of-Beasts_entries.zip
If you are going to study these versions I strongly encourage you to download these files. Many of these entrants vary only in a minor way and it is hard to see the impact of a change without toggling back and forth between them.

I look forward to your comments.

Dan Margulis

P.S. When I posted the Hotel Lobby source files, I remarked that I thought it was one of the two easiest ones we would be doing. The other, as you may have guessed, was this lion exercise. But never fear, you'll have plenty to make up for it in our next case study, which will be announced today in a separate post.


Kent Sutorius
 

Disappointed with my result (#602) compared to others. I thought I had nice rich accurate colors and it is darker than most of the others.

Kent Sutorius

On 3/8/2021 7:06 AM, Dan Margulis via groups.io wrote:
I’ve posted the results of the King of Beasts exercise, the sixth in a series of 11 case studies.

Reviewing: This image from the San Diego Zoo is our final trip to the MIT study.
We have 35 entries. Most people also submitted a list of their steps, thanks very much. I haven’t read these, because I’d rather get a sense of who was successful and who wasn’t before investigating why.
The files don’t have people’s names on them, and were random-generator numbered from #601 to #635. As with past studies, we also have a “par” version, #636. To get it, I chose five that I thought were among the best entrants, and averaged them, each one weighted 20%. This often creates a version that is superior to most if not all of its parents.

Normally I don't comment on results for two days after they're posted. Meanwhile, if you’d like to know how your own version stacked up, download the par version and compare the two directly. Do you think you got the same kind of quality? If not, I hope you’ll find further discussion useful.
The Folder is in the group's Photos section, 2021 Case Study: King of Beasts,
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/album?id=261306
I also have zipped all 36 entries and uploaded a file to our Files section,
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/files/
Search for 030821_King-of-Beasts_entries.zip
If you are going to study these versions I strongly encourage you to download these files. Many of these entrants vary only in a minor way and it is hard to see the impact of a change without toggling back and forth between them.
I look forward to your comments.
Dan Margulis
P.S. When I posted the Hotel Lobby source files, I remarked that I thought it was one of the two easiest ones we would be doing. The other, as you may have guessed, was this lion exercise. But never fear, you'll have plenty to make up for it in our next case study, which will be announced today in a separate post.



Bill Theis
 

mine was 612

The biggest thing I missed IMHO was keeping the eyes bright when I did the channel blends!  But there are other things:  With no strong shadows, I felt the lion was in deep shade and so had an image much darker than par.  Adding Levels with center slider at 1.24 fixes it.  Also I should have been more liberal with the red-headed beast and allowed his mane to saturate quite a bit more.  Sorry, forgot that lions look this way.  Went on the internet to look at images and they were no help since they were all over the place. So 3 bad judgment calls.

It is always good to know one's shortcomings and this is a great learning experience.  Again.

As to a comment on the others:  There was a considerable variation with alot of dark ones, darker than mine, and contrasty.  I did a selection of 10 and blended to something that I liked more than PAR from (in order from the top layer down) 632 (color blend 50%), 633 (color ), 624 (lighter color-nice eyes), 615 (normal 30%) all atop 604. 


Gerald Bakker
 

Mine is 621. I think it belongs to the better half this time, but I missed at least one thing: the more saturated, orange manes. In the original the color difference is clearly visible, but somewhere during my processing (probably blend-if on a color boost layer) this got lost. Well, always something to learn.

I think this is a typical PPW image. There is a strong blue cast that must be fixed. A green blend works well to bring out detail. Color boost as the original is way too dull. I didn't do not much local correction this time. As Dan says, it's one of the easier exercises.

Among my favorites are 603, 609, 617, 626 and the par. But there are many more good versions.
--
Gerald Bakker
https://geraldbakker.nl


john c.
 

Mine is 624 and my goal was to bring attention to the eyes, nose and whiskers. I purposely subdued the grass and the bright yellow in the background to help bring attention to the face and mouth. Other than that, I wanted a natural look with nothing else exaggerated so that the viewer would gravitate to the lion's facial expression of contentment about lounging in the warm sun. After seeing the par, I guess I might've gone for more contrast and a brighter look, but I think the greenery is too distracting in the par. I liked 609 for a snappier result and I believe it works very well when blended in luminosity mode with mine. 


Said Nuseibeh
 

Well, mine is 616. I wasn't thinking Happy Hour as many others here were, just dappled light. I pulled the cyan out of the body and, especially, the face but left it in the environment... reading it as open shade bouncing a blue sky.

Post-Bellagio, I did enjoy pitching the warmth of the lion's mane against a contrasting cooler surround.

With the benefit of hindsight and this august assembly, I was clearly too damn judicious because the cyan sticks out like pee on snow. Oh, and I neglected to review my endpoints before converting to JPEG.


Hang down my head Tom Dooley


John Furnes
 

Mine is 607

 

I obviously overdid ”get rid of the cyan”-thing, and it became more magenta and yellow than perhaps a lion is.

However I was content at the time, and even though my third attempt was more like the par is, I chose No.1

I need to learn more about the Blend If possibility as I tried to reduce the yellow patch to the right of the animal, but gave it up as more than the patch were affected.

 

So..

 

John Furnes

 

 


Paco
 

Mine is 617. I went for the "golden hour" type of mood. After seeing the Par version, I now see I put too much gold into the "golden hour" mood.

I was very happy with mine, seeing it in isolation but once I compared it to the Par I can see how far from the "true" light of the original I ended up with.

I still like mine but not as much as I like the Par version.

All the best!

Paco


Edward Bateman
 

Hello everyone - been really enjoying this - and studying more with each challenge.

Mine was number 618. Some of my goals were to have no blue in the logs and good texture in the lion.

One of the things I wanted to accomplish was a greater sense of spatial depth by darkening the foreground and background. Cool (and dark) colors often seem to somewhat recede while warm (and light) colors seem to somewhat advance (or so I believe). So by darkening especially the foreground, I wanted to put more visual focus on the lion. While at first glance, my lion seems a bit dark (and perhaps it is), it is only about (an average) 5-6 points (measured in Lab) darker than the par. So I still think the par looks a bit spatially flatter than mine. A quick check shows that I like about 40% of par blended into mine.

I also used a small bit of an old darkroom trick - lightning the face just a small bit to put more visual focus on the lion’s face. One thing I often look at: I’ll squint at the image to see contrast - is my primary visual focus the area with strongest (within reason) contrast? (Since eyes seem to focus on areas with the best contrast). In this sense, I like mine better than the par- the lion face has better contrast when compared to the overall image in the par.

And just FYI - number 635 was created by a small group of students in one of my classes. Dan was kind enough to allow its submission, and they were very interested today to see how they efforts stacked up! I personally don’t know any other university level teachers who teach any of Dan’s techniques, aside from me. And I have to say, I’m proud of what they are doing - we all recognize that their critical color skills and ability to see more precisely has already made huge strides this semester. They themselves are rather surprised at how different they are seeing things. So thank you for letting them play along! And I too really appreciate the challenge from so many smart people! Thanks Dan!

-Edward Bateman


John Gillespie
 

Mine is 608.

I have achieved a bright, sunny look - if you assume that the beast has been sent on loan to the Zoological Gardens here in London. In December.

The colour and weight of the par are very nice, although it is perhaps a little soft for what is after all an apex predator (albeit a notoriously indolent one). Mixing in a little of the luminosity from one of the harsher versions (such as my own) improves it I think.





.


Robert S Baldassano
 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

My entry was 619. Compared to PAR 636, it appears my colors were close to par but the differed in L with par being much brighter. While I can see that my version could be brighter, I am not sure if I would like it as bright as par, perhaps blending with par at about 50% to 70% in luminosity. I had commented to Dan that I had created 3 versions the other 2 were much darker, and that if I was in a hurry the auto version might even fit the bill. It seems  so far my entries are all a bit to dark. I do think I am slowly improving.

 

Robert S Baldassano