Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Great taste, or less filling?  (Read 8599 times)

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Great taste, or less filling?
« on: September 15, 2007, 04:00:34 pm »

I'm torn between the color and B&W versions of this photo:

[attachment=3253:attachment] [attachment=3254:attachment]

C&C on the photo itself welcome as usual, but your color/BW preference and why you like one or the other would be appreciated.
Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2007, 07:53:59 pm »

My $0.02 would be that the strengths of this photo are more in the tones and textures, shapes and shadows.  I don't think the colour adds anything so I'd go with the B&W.

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

Lisa Nikodym

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/lisa_pictures.html
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2007, 07:56:06 pm »

Definitely the color one.  The B&W one has so much fine detail with a fairly narrow range of brightnesses for most of it that it looks visually messy, hard to tell one thing from another.  The color makes it more coherent, easier to parse, for the eye and brain.

I would have preferred an image with a couple of isolated trees, though.  The solid band of trees makes the eye wander in search of a focal point, which it never finds.

Lisa
Logged
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lis

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2007, 09:35:10 am »

Thank you. Interesting that it's split evenly so far. Anyone else care to jump in?
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22813
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2007, 10:03:54 am »

I hate to disagree with Lisa       , but I prefer the B&W. The color doesn't seem to add anything for me.

In either one, I would like to see the shadows opened up a little bit more. At least on the web (and of course I always use the web to examine MF and LF images       ), I can't get into the shadows as I would like.

Now let's have someone else put in a vote for the color.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2007, 02:20:54 pm »

So, Lisa... PC or Mac?  

Just kidding!!!!


Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2007, 04:01:15 pm »

Univac, of course...
Logged

Digiteyesed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 159
    • http://www.neutralhillsstills.ca/
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2007, 04:48:12 pm »

Would I get in trouble for saying that I'm not overly enamored with either image? Both versions just seem to lack...impact...to me. Sorry, and no disrespect intended.
Logged

kaelaria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2223
    • http://www.bgpictures.com
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2007, 08:11:30 pm »

Like the color, but it's not essencial to the image to me - love the BW!
Logged

Lisa Nikodym

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/lisa_pictures.html
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2007, 10:49:40 pm »

Quote
So, Lisa... PC or Mac?

Give me a unix workstation with a good sys admin!  (Yes, I'm weird.)  Unless I'm doing photo processing (since Gimp isn't ready for prime time) or web surfing, in which case I'll grit my teeth and reluctantly deal with a PC...

Lisa

P.S.  Perhaps I should clarify for Jonathan - I still prefer the color one, but I don't think either version is up to your usual standards.  Just not as interesting as many past ones of yours.
Logged
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lis

Jack Varney

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
    • http://
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2007, 11:23:21 pm »

Normally I prefer B&W but here I like the color. The reflections come alive in the color by comparison and the color version has a greater sense of three diminsionality or depth.
Logged
Jack Varney

alainbriot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 796
  • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
    • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2007, 03:09:25 am »

Definitly the B&W version but the contrast bothers me.  The highlights are just too strong.
Logged
Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2007, 05:23:40 pm »

Alain, are you referring to the tree trunks?
Logged

alainbriot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 796
  • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
    • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2007, 05:55:30 pm »

Quote
Alain, are you referring to the tree trunks?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Essentially, because they are the largest area of highlights, but the other highlight areas are also too bright for me.

It's an issue of contrast.  Basically: too much contrast.  I can't tell if it comes from the light conditions or the processing.  Light can be harsh, but it can be toned down through processing or through HDR.  On the other hand contrast can be over-increased in processing resulting in harsh lighting effects, such as what I see in your image. Certain types of sharpening can do that as well, in particular USM because it works on the edges of objects, reinforcing the contrast essentially, which could very well have resulted in the excessive contrast here.  

What's interesting about excessive contrast is that it is bothersome in small areas (such as the outline of objects) as well as in large areas (such as the tree trunks). That is because our eyes go to the areas of highest contrast first when looking at an image.  When several areas have high contrast, our eye keeps jumping from one area to the next, making the image very tiring to look at. That is how I feel with this image (B&W version).  Fixing the contrast problem is the first step in working towards an image that we can then evaluate for further work.  Until that is done there is little that can be done about deciding "what else to do" because the contrast prevents a deeper analysis of the image.
Logged
Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2007, 06:13:13 pm »

Gut response.  Neither speak to me.  Is that snow on the trees? Frost? what season is it?  I am kind of a jumble about the shots.

I agree with the person who said it isn't as good as your stuff normally is.  (that is coming from a lurker)
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

jpjespersen

  • Guest
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2007, 10:32:04 pm »

Neither.
Try going back when the light is actually good.  This image doesn't deserve one second of thought.  In fact it should have been deleted while looking at it on the digi cam.  Of course this is just my opinion, not meant to offend.

http://www.JPJespersen.com
« Last Edit: September 21, 2007, 10:32:20 pm by jpjespersen »
Logged

I CHNGE

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2007, 05:02:07 am »

Quote
Neither.
Try going back when the light is actually good.  This image doesn't deserve one second of thought.  In fact it should have been deleted while looking at it on the digi cam. Of course this is just my opinion, not meant to offend.


Couldn't have said it better myself...

The photos on your WebSite are far more interesting...both the color and B&W hurt my eyes...

The subject is boring unless the image is to document the degradation of a once pristine pond and it's surrounding landscape for a Newprint or Tabloid article...

My 0.02 and not meant to offend either, though you are thick skinned enough to begin with...
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2007, 02:56:41 pm »

I find these images surprising from you Jonathan as they look like badly oversharpened images from a low res point and shoot. Not at all what I would expect after reading your posts.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Fred Ragland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
    • http://
Great taste, or less filling?
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2007, 03:14:43 pm »

Quote
I find these images surprising from you Jonathan...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We all have our off days.  I suspect you came to us with these images on one of those days.  

You have done some truly excellent work.  I'm thinking of your Texas images from south of San Antonio.  Show us your best and let us help make it better.

Best wishes,

Fred
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up