Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Terry Breedlove on October 21, 2009, 11:43:34 am
-
I have been working to recording hopefully in an artistic way the land here at home in black and white. Lately I have really enjoyed focusing in on the trees and water. I live in a temperate rain forest here in the Pacific Northwest so both of those are in abundance. I am very interested to hear what you think of my style so please be honest even if it is brutal.
Camera Nikon D2x
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Terry-Breedlove/_DSC1201.jpg)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Terry-Breedlove/beach%20balls/_DSC6050.jpg)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Terry-Breedlove/beach%20balls/_DSC6019.jpg)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Terry-Breedlove/rock.jpg)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Terry-Breedlove/trees-1.jpg)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Terry-Breedlove/trees2.jpg)
-
I have been working to recording hopefully in an artistic way the land here at home in black and white. Lately I have really enjoyed focusing in on the trees and water. I live in a temperate rain forest here in the Pacific Northwest so both of those are in abundance. I am very interested to hear what you think of my style so please be honest even if it is brutal.
Camera Nikon D2x
I like the first a lot. The second has far, far too much boring sky (the only thing I can see in it is some rather nasty-looking banding, which I assume is jpeg artifact). The others don't strike a chord with me, but I don't dislike them.
FWIW
Jeremy
-
I like the abstract quality of the first image, and the movement suggested in the third. The others don't do much for me, though. But hey, everyone gets an opinion!
Mike.
-
Just adding to the other comments:
I always found that b/w has this great opportunity to play around with the dynamic range. Images that would be far too saturated, contrasty and/or brilliant in color can actually work very nicely when converted to b/w.
The downside of using b/w is that the image can look flat, even if the actual subject was very colorful. If there is no light, or contrast to make up for that flatness, I would like to see something else to draw me into the picture - something for my eyes to focus on, be it a blur or movement, a twinkle, a hint of light or another nice point to focus on.
Most subjects work well in b/w and color (even things like flowers etc), but b/w needs extra work to create the oomph.
The image of the aspen for example I think can be easily turned into something nice and attractive with some dodging / burning and contrast localisation. Get those leaves off the background and make them sparkle. Same with the stone in the water. I don't think at all that these images are dead - they just need to be watered.
Mark
-
I like the texture of the first one ... but I really like the last one ... a lot ... as it has 3 separate "layers" of nature to it and all of them are interesting and compelling to me.
I think the second photo could have been compelling if you would have framed it "all trees" and no (or very little) sky ... possibly from a "looking-up" perspective ... but as it is there is more dead sky than interesting trees. The other photos don't do anything for me.
But I would bet that the last image looks very impressive when enlarged and I like it very much.
Jack
.
-
My favorites are #1 and #4, mainly because they are subjects that i like to photograph, too.
Eric