Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Terschelling  (Read 1665 times)
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 881


WWW
« on: June 13, 2011, 11:49:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all. I've been thinking a bit more about B&W this year. About how often colour really adds nothing to the image and what fun it is just to play around with shades of grey.
Anyway, here are 4 shots from earlier in the year in Terschelling, one of the West Frisian Islands in the northern Netherlands. Here was the first time I've found cranberries in the wild. Very nice too.
Thanks for looking.
Logged

EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2011, 01:27:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I like #2 very much, definitively my favorite; I like #1, too.
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3947



« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2011, 02:29:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Excellent evocation of atmosphere, which works well in B&W. Like Ed, I think #2 is the best but I find the close crop uncomfortable: I assume there were unsightly things further to the left.

Jeremy
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2011, 02:32:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, classic stuff, David.

Seldom get that sort of atmosphere in these parts - it all burns away so quickly. I believe your shots strengthen the argument about landscape being far more impressive in b/w than in colour. The ability to change weights of tonality adds a dimension that colour doesn't seem capable of doing without looking, well, forced.

The examples of lone/tiny figures are cases in point: in colour I think they would just vanish into insignificance rather than, as here, drawing the eye (and, hence, interest).

Rob C
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2011, 05:59:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm with Jeremy here about #2.
But I also like #1 particularly.
Good stuff.
~Chris
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6799


« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2011, 06:25:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm split between #1 and #2. Number 2 would be my favorite but,as Rob, wrote above, the close crop is a bit constraining.
Logged

Francois
Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2011, 01:22:26 PM »
ReplyReply

The caption in #4 disrupts its spare composition for me.  I think its frame needs to be isolated more.

Bruce
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6201



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2011, 03:49:11 PM »
ReplyReply

David, #2 is lovely. It ought to be a good seller if you're selling prints out of a gallery. But, in my opinion at least, #1 is the best of the bunch. It tells a story. I'm not sure what the story is, but that's exactly what you should be aiming for: ambiguity. I really like the way the haze diffuses the sun and makes it ominous. Bravo!
Logged

popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2011, 04:06:58 PM »
ReplyReply

#1 is a greeting card, but #2 is fine art. Well done.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6201



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2011, 04:31:24 PM »
ReplyReply

"Fine art" is a marketing term, and Pop's right: #2 probably would sell quite well from a tent in a "fine art" show.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7898



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2011, 07:51:03 PM »
ReplyReply

"Fine art" is a marketing term, and Pop's right: #2 probably would sell quite well from a tent in a "fine art" show.
The first is my top choice, too.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 881


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2011, 04:55:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you all very much for your comments.

I believe your shots strengthen the argument about landscape being far more impressive in b/w than in colour. The ability to change weights of tonality adds a dimension that colour doesn't seem capable of doing without looking, well, forced.

Rob C

I'm in two minds about black and white. I think you  are right that having only changing weights of tonality does something that colour can't do. But I'm not sure how much is our upbringing and how much is innate. I mean that in my formative years the images that affected me deeply were all black and white: as a child there was my set of edwardian encyclopaedias, and in my late teens the films of Bergman, John Ford, Fritz Lang and the rest. I look at a B&W print and my eye becomes rivetted and starts to wander around the image. Does this apply to B&W portraits as well? Does BB look better that way instead of in colour? I have an opinion but I'm not saying. I think it's now impossible to separate the training my eye has had from any sort of me as a spontaneous or natural viewer.
The whole landscape thing is interesting and a little peculiar. I think there has been some discussion on this (which I haven't read). I started on landscapes after a series on standing stones. Stones are easier because you can walk around them and find their individual “personality” and use the light and angle of shooting to bring that out. In other words I am doing portraiture. I find landscapes are much harder. On the one hand it gives me an excuse to get in a car and drive around a country as the whim takes me (trying the best cafes for lunch). On the other hand what are you supposed to do with some mountains and a bunch of trees in the foreground? My solution is to treat it as a portrait and see if I can jolly it along a bit until some “personality” comes out. It is easier of course if there are people in the frame as it gives perspective and naturally draws in the human eye. But what attracts folk to landscapes “in the wild”? And they are attracted to them. Well I guess sometimes people just like a “pretty picture”, but I think sometimes there is something there that resonates with a corresponding part of their own personality. A sort of darkness or mystery within. And B&W may fit that bill. I think there is  a strong argument there.
All I can say is that I quite liked the colour verson of Corfe Castle after rain below, but I haven't looked at it since starting to work on it in B&W. This has proved typical. (sigh)
Logged

Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1009


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2011, 07:38:05 AM »
ReplyReply

It must be me, but again I am sorry to say that I don't see the 'quality' in any of these images, yes #2 is interesting for a moment as your eye is led into the mist, but when you get there, there isn't anything much happening and so not enough detail to satisfy and make me want to come back. The other three (on my work monitor at least which is set up reasonably accurately) mainly look blown out with large dominant blocks of white with out detail.

So once again, I am sorry to be the "Harry Opposite" in this forum and differ from the rest of the reviews and reviewers, but I genuinely do not think these images are saleable, but I do wish you every luck and hope that you are able to sell them and prove me to be completely wrong.

Photobloke
Logged

Photography Tuition holidays on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2011, 11:29:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm in two minds about black and white.

I prefer not to generalize about the superiority of B&W over color or visa versa. I believe in going with whatever works for a particular image. I know for myself that I tend to compose for light and form, so I find myself gravitating more and more to B&W to emphasize those qualities. But these last two images of yours are both quite striking and I wouldn't change either of them.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2011, 02:44:48 PM »
ReplyReply

David

Just as I make a statement about a preference for B&W you post a colour one that I find beautiful. I'm not struck much by the non-colour version though; it seems to lack something that the first shape has.

BB. She may have looked better in colour - the dress was a pink Cardin number, if I remember correctly. But in those days, colour didn't get much room in my life; most of the commercial stuff I got was in mono, including the fashion, and it was into the 70s before I saw much demand for it. Even some of the calendars were b/white... guess that was economics rather than choice, though. Having said that, the series I shot for that Barbour Threads calendar that, perversely, is in The Biscit Tin gallery, wouldn't have had its kick in colour - too pretty instead of gritty. It was shot on HP3 on Nikon and most of it with a 2.8/35mm other than the one that was with my 4/200mm that was posted a day or so ago in connection with selective focus and shallow depth of field effects.

You refer to upbringing as a factor in how we see; I think we owe a hell of a lot to upbringing. It was my mother who took me to all the art galleries she could find, and an aunt who bought Vogue and Harpers Bazaar that lent me a Rollei with which I took my first considered photographs. Women have always had a huge influence on my mind, for better and for worse, I expect. Maybe that's why I love the nice, gentle ones as I do. I have little time for girls who want to be one of the boys; what a waste.

Rob C
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7898



WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2011, 02:51:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I prefer not to generalize about the superiority of B&W over color or visa versa. I believe in going with whatever works for a particular image. I know for myself that I tend to compose for light and form, so I find myself gravitating more and more to B&W to emphasize those qualities. But these last two images of yours are both quite striking and I wouldn't change either of them.
Amen! Right on!

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2011, 12:04:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting. For me it is precisely the close crop that makes #2 much the most interesting image, as it makes me think about what might be outside the frame.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2011, 03:54:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting. For me it is precisely the close crop that makes #2 much the most interesting image, as it makes me think about what might be outside the frame.



I have often thought that there's a lot to be said for the new old adage: less is sometimes more.

Rob C
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3947



« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2011, 04:09:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I have often thought that there's a lot to be said for the new old adage: less is sometimes more.
Although, as I once heard observed, "If less is more, just think how much more more would be".

Jeremy
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2011, 11:03:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Although, as I once heard observed, "If less is more, just think how much more more would be".

Jeremy



Jeremy, I have discovered that late working at the computer leads to confusion...

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad