Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on December 11, 2016, 10:01:14 am
-
A few months ago I read a comment on here, where someone was referring to images like this as "Landscape Porn".
Dave
-
Whatever the reference, I like it!
:)
-
Better than Street Porn, or most other kinds of porn.
-
... someone was referring to images like this as "Landscape Porn".
You mean scenes and images that make us all excited and wanting to erect our tripods and go find those glorious tripod holes everyone is talking about? ;)
-
Thanks guys ;)
Exact same image, but worked to a mono - so, is it still "Landscape Porn" do you think? Or simply because I have removed all the colour information, is it now better described as "Classic" or even, dare I suggest. "Art"?
Dave
-
Now that you've placed a fig leaf on it, I'd say the B&W version is a very nice image. I might even call it, er..., what was that word again? Art?
-
Now that you've placed a fig leaf on it, I'd say the B&W version is a very nice image. I might even call it, er..., what was that word again? Art?
Thanks Eric.
I would never dream of printing the colour version, it's just a bit too in-your-face for me and also I think it would be quite difficult to print correctly, yet after running the file through a basic B&W conversion tool, I find myself going back to the B&W version and thinking, you know what I am really starting to like it, so I think I might put a print on the wall to see if it keeps me interested.
Dave
-
Hi Dave, There's no comparison between the color version and the B&W. The color version is just a nice tourist picture -- good enough to bore your dinner guests with. But the B&W has power -- mainly because the whole thing is an exercise in graphics. To the color version: "pfft." To the B&W: Bravo!
-
Lovely image. The B&W version is much more powerful. It has weight. The color version is very pleasant.
As far as landscape porn goes as a reference, could be a take off from the Earthporn subreddits:
http://reddit.com/r/earthporn
Which is almost exclusively landscapes.
-
Hi Dave, There's no comparison between the color version and the B&W. The color version is just a nice tourist picture -- good enough to bore your dinner guests with. But the B&W has power -- mainly because the whole thing is an exercise in graphics. To the color version: "pfft." To the B&W: Bravo!
I entirely agree with you Russ, one has all the eye catching colour attraction but longevity of Candy Floss, whereas the other has a highly graphical appeal - perhaps the lesson learned here, is that if you want to make a highly graphic B&W image, then first you need to capture a highly saturated scene with which to base it on.
Mmm, food for thought there Russ ;)
Lovely image. The B&W version is much more powerful. It has weight. The color version is very pleasant.
As far as landscape porn goes as a reference, could be a take off from the Earthporn subreddits:
http://reddit.com/r/earthporn
Which is almost exclusively landscapes.
Thanks Peter :)
-
It's a fine image either way. FWIW, I think you can get away with the bright sun in the colour version because it's yellow; but in the monochrome it just looks blown, so the shot would benefit from a judicious crop on the left.
Jeremy
-
It's a fine image either way. FWIW, I think you can get away with the bright sun in the colour version because it's yellow; but in the monochrome it just looks blown, so the shot would benefit from a judicious crop on the left.
Jeremy
OK Jeremy, your wish is my command and so just for you, I have come up with a combined version of the two above images.
Have I gone from "Landscape Porn" to "Art" and then back to "Landscape Porn" again do you think?
Dave ;D
-
If you had used 30 sec exposure it would be landscape porn, this is not quite there yet.
-
To me it's even more porn than the first post.
B&W is Art! :)
-
Yellow version: YUK!!!!
-
That's the kind of porn you can only find on the Deep Web :D
-
I really like the image. The color version is maybe a bit over the top and the mono version looks great. I think there is probably room for a great looking color version too, maybe just toned down a bit.
Nice photo regardless!
-
I really like the image. The color version is maybe a bit over the top and the mono version looks great. I think there is probably room for a great looking color version too, maybe just toned down a bit.
Nice photo regardless!
OK guys, here are the last two versions (honest!) and from the input from you all helping me to decide which way to go with this image in its various forms, here are the final other two versions - possibly :D
I like the straight B&W version above and I also like the blown out aspect of it, which isn't truly blown out to 255 except in the sun area, I like it because it harks back and reminds me of the film days, where skies were often blown out, but which was seen as more acceptable and more unavoidable back then.
Firstly there is the toned down version to add a bit of reality back into the scene and then a combo of them all into a sort of mono and warm tone type of composite.
Thanks for all your help people ;)
-
I like the straight B&W version above and I also like the blown out aspect of it, which isn't truly blown out to 255 except in the sun area, I like it because it harks back and reminds me of the film days, where skies were often blown out, but which was seen as more acceptable and more unavoidable back then.
Yes! Go B&W! Mono wins in a landslide!
For me, even in the most subdued of the color versions the color is a distraction from the beauty that comes across clearly in the mono version.
I really like the B&W version! Of course, I spent many years in "film days" doing black and white, so I may be prejudiced.
-Eric
-
I like that more muted color rendition more than the brighter one but I have to agree for this image mono wins.