Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: shaunw on January 13, 2013, 06:27:16 am
-
A 4 frame stitch pano from Lac Blanc Chamonix Alps. One of those images that for me work 's equally well in colour or mono...thoughts opinions welcomed. Does it just come down to personal perference of colour or mono or is there something inherant that makes one sing louder than the other? thanks Shaun.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8497/8373054950_985605de30_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skwalby/8373054950/)
Mountain Dawn...Lac Blanc 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skwalby/8373054950/) by shaun-walby photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/skwalby/), on Flickr
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8494/8328420741_d2d121fcb9_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skwalby/8328420741/)
Lac Blanc (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skwalby/8328420741/) by shaun-walby photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/skwalby/), on Flickr
-
Both work equally well. Nicely done.
-
thoughts opinions welcomed.
Why have you chosen such a moody rendition?
imo the B&W is too dark and contrasty, which results in too little separation of the cabin and the background. I suppose that cabin is somewhat of a poi in the image. I would use a blue filter to separate the two, and get a more subtle rendition in the mountains. (see attached).
The color versions seems overly yellow / greenish. Is there a reason for this?
ps. also the foreground element might be useful to create a sense of depth, but I feel a considerable urge to crop it off. But I don't know if Russ is watching, so I will not, but still...
-
Thanks Bill and opgr
Bill..
opgr...why the moody rendition, its been processed to were i like it and were i think it looks its best, obviously it could be made a lot darker or lighter...personal subjective taste territory i think. Your version for me looks very flat, it has taken on a monotonal appearance with mid-tones predominating with very little separation of tonal values across the whole image, the sky particularly has suffer and lost a lot of its impact. I agree the comp does invite you to crop if you look back through my previous posts from Lac Blanc you'll see ive done just that...hence here ive kept the FG in.
umm re yellow/green not seeing a lot of that myself have to say, are you viewing on calibrated monitor? iam seeing blue tones mainly but the rocks out right were catching the morning light which did give them a nice orange hue, incidentally this side of the valley is know as the Aiguilles Roughes.
cheers Guys
-
Very nice indeed! However I prefer the color image
Paolo
-
opgr...why the moody rendition, its been processed to were i like it and were i think it looks its best, obviously it could be made a lot darker or lighter...personal subjective taste territory i think. Your version for me looks very flat, it has taken on a monotonal appearance with mid-tones predominating with very little separation of tonal values across the whole image, the sky particularly has suffer and lost a lot of its impact.
The sky has no interest in it whatsoever, creating excessive contrast doesn't create that interest and just makes the transition look odd and unconvincing. And yes, sure, we are all entitled to our differences in taste, but that wasn't the question and primarily kills conversation.
Obviously you think this conversion makes it look best, otherwise you wouldn't post it. The question is *why* do you think it is? What in particular did you try to accomplish? For example, I can imagine that being there, that those clean deep blue skies are very impactful and something that might be remembered and taken home. So, at home, doing a B&W conversion, one could choose to make the sky more "impactful", and the cabin is of less interest so you don't mind it to blend in with the background.
umm re yellow/green not seeing a lot of that myself have to say, are you viewing on calibrated monitor?
Yes, i am viewing on a calibrated monitor. Considering I see a lot of stuff in the darktones that most people either don't see or don't care about, i have to conclude that IF my monitor is off, it is most likely showing too light. And both of these images look too dark to me, and the lake, instead of icy cyan, looks cobalt-blue.
But there is no substitute for measuring, so if you're interested you might measure the RGB values in the red circles depicted in the attached image and then check back and see what other people make of it. The colorbalance in this image looks wacky to me, in the same sense that the colorbalance can be thrown off by a UV cut filter. Plus the colortemperature may not be optimal simply because it is very hard to define a proper whitebalance for early and late light shady environments like these. The colortemperatures required to correct for these are in the 20K range.
-
Both work well; on balance, I think I prefer the colour version. The B&W, at least in the conversion you've used, has lost the effect of that rather lovely light on the right-hand mountains.
Jeremy
-
Paolo thanks... that the colour nose ahead
opgr
The sky...i said impact re the way you've processed the mono...your edit has significantly less than mine and i do not regard it as ''odd and unconvincing'' as you do.
You ask why ive chosen to edit the image the way i have, very probably due to the very same reason you've chosen to edit the mono as you have....you think it looks best that way, i certainly dont agree with you....in fact your version is exactly what i try to avoid doing to mono ...making them flat and grey. Of course lets not forget i was there, well in fact i slept the night there.....that is exactly how i want to portray/process my image.
The colour version...you disagree with the colour balance considering it to be ''wacky'' ...lol thanks ill look into it, and i'll make sure i measure it.
-
Jeremy
Yes the light in the mountains right is more distinct/obvious in the colour.
thanks Shaun
-
I like the color one. But then I don't much care for digital B&W. As an old zone system type, I just prefer the faint orange glow and the smell of acetic acid. I have seen very little digital B&W that moves me like a nicely shot and printed traditional darkroom image that just seems to draw you down into the paper. I would just rather have digital be color and B&W be film (but not 35mm).
-
I prefer the colour one, for the warmth in the rocks on the righ handside.
-
The color version also gets my vote, without contest.
-
Me too.
The B/W is nice, but too much contrast for my taste.
Thierry
-
rgs Paulo Francois Thierry...thanks for comments, looks as though the colours the winner here. rgs...i intend to shoot some film later this year, i good friend is a dedicated mono film shooter he's using Ebony RSW 4x5" film Large format field camera , some of his scanned negatives are very impressive.
Shaun
-
Very beautiful and serene landscape photography.
-
Thanks MGTFrender.
Shaun
-
I'm born in Chamonix. I would say that the colour shoot suit the place at his best. Gratz :)
-
Hulyss...lucky you, whe i win the lotto iam having a chalet built there....lol
-
To my eyes, the rocks in the foreground in the colour image look slightly "grungy" in that the lake moss that is grey green detracts from the image. However, a foreground element really helps with depth perception. Therefore, to me anyway, the black and white is the strong image.
That being said, did you happen to make another exposure with less sky and more foreground? That would drive the far shoreline upwards to be off-centre creating less of a "tennis match dynamic" (back-and-forth or up-and-down) and more of circular dynamic.
Lastly, use some Fill Light / Shadows to brighten the shadows on the far shore to perhaps provide a little more tonal separation. It doesn't have to be very much to open up the shadows a bit.