Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: James Clark on July 19, 2017, 03:04:08 pm
-
My favorite from my recent weekend trip.
-
James, you're getting as gloomy as I've been for years.
Unfortunately, I think that the darker the pictures and sentiment, the more powerfully interesting they become. High-key seems to leave me absolutely cold. Perhaps it's just a reactionary protest against white paper rolls.
Rob
-
I'm with Rob on this. I like images that stress the emotional content, and that often means dark.
-
I love it! I've been rendering my own b&w pics darker too as of late. Had a look this past winter at some old prints, kept by a friend (I don't keep my old stuff), and realized I've been getting increasingly shadow averse as digital photo tech has iterated. Too much distracting detail.
-Dave-
-
The dark "theme" is just what this location needs.
It's a excellent and powerful rendition of this cemetery.
-
Interesting thoughts. Have any of you been to Bonaventure? The funny thing, to me at least, is that the overwhelming "feel" of the place to me wasn't gloomy or dark or creepy really, but something more vibrant. Not historic (though it's definitely that), and not so clinical as "historic" can imply. Maybe it's the tangled garden aspect of the place. It's overflowing with old southern trees, Spanish moss and the restless, heavy history that is the American south. Different in tone and feel than similar (in theme anyway) images I shot at Taos a few years ago for sure.
To the more general question of darkness in B&W work, I would concur with all of you in this thread that we've perhaps been too conditioned to expect shadow detail when there really need not be as much. I will say that I have had trouble with prints vs. screen though - sometimes a print that lacks shadow detail looks (to me at least) just a little too old fashioned,maybe. What works at screen size quickly can become crushing in its darkness in a print.
-
Interesting thoughts. Have any of you been to Bonaventure? The funny thing, to me at least, is that the overwhelming "feel" of the place to me wasn't gloomy or dark or creepy really, but something more vibrant. Not historic (though it's definitely that), and not so clinical as "historic" can imply. Maybe it's the tangled garden aspect of the place. It's overflowing with old southern trees, Spanish moss and the restless, heavy history that is the American south. Different in tone and feel than similar (in theme anyway) images I shot at Taos a few years ago for sure.
To the more general question of darkness in B&W work, I would concur with all of you in this thread that we've perhaps been too conditioned to expect shadow detail when there really need not be as much. I will say that I have had trouble with prints vs. screen though - sometimes a print that lacks shadow detail looks (to me at least) just a little too old fashioned,maybe. What works at screen size quickly can become crushing in its darkness in a print.
A classic quandry, not just of tonality but of image power/interest itself!
That said, I find that in my own case, I will try to look at all my stuff pretty much at about 800 pixels wide. It appears to me to be my magic number, the magnification at which I get the best overall sense or feelng of what I may have caught or missed. Any larger and I end up scanning, which destroys that sense. Scanning a larger image in detail is fine once you have determined just what the thing is actually all about. It is facile to say you should already know at the shooting stage; for me at least, the shooting stage is only a sort of trigger for my own recognition of whatever. The certainty of what's there or not there comes a little later when reality stares back.
Of course, I suppose that pixel number is but a function of my particular eyesight and comfortable proximity to the monitor, so probably is limited to my conditions. Proving yet again how pointless "advice" can be.
Rob
-
A classic quandry, not just of tonality but of image power/interest itself!
That said, I find that in my own case, I will try to look at all my stuff pretty much at about 800 pixels wide. It appears to me to be my magic number, the magnification at which I get the best overall sense or feelng of what I may have caught or missed. Any larger and I end up scanning, which destroys that sense. Scanning a larger image in detail is fine once you have determined just what the thing is actually all about. It is facile to say you should already know at the shooting stage; for me at least, the shooting stage is only a sort of trigger for my own recognition of whatever. The certainty of what's there or not there comes a little later when reality stares back.
Of course, I suppose that pixel number is but a function of my particular eyesight and comfortable proximity to the monitor, so probably is limited to my conditions. Proving yet again how pointless "advice" can be.
Rob
No advice given, if well-intended, is pointless. :)