 |
I am trying to work out which images work in B&W and which are better left in colour.
It seems to me that B&W requires strong lines and the fewer details the better. Like, I don't think this one works. The colour - minimal though it be - adds to the image. Whereas the previous post works well.
I would value your opinion.
 |
4 comments:
My 2p:
Hm, for me the only problem with this photo is the sky. Sky in b/w needs contrasts, big fat white clouds, a moon, dark clouds lightened by sunrays, some birds' silhouettes and the like. Otherwise the sky often seems "wischiwaschi" (might translate as "washed-out"). Architecture usually works fine with b/w.
With this photo I would highten the gamma and the contrast as well.
I don't think b/w needs less details, think of portraits ... .
But as I said: just my 2p. :-D
I think one emphasises the strength of the architecture and the other shows the delicate nature of the light (especially that little pinkie flush in the background).
The first one seems kinda bleak - reminds me of scotland.
The second one i'd probably crop out the silo'y building and focus on the pink light.
That's not really much help, is it?
I'm going to be mean and say I don't like either of them much ... I don't know where to focus ... too much going on ... though I like the light in the colour one.
Now being a beginner with B&W my understanding is that you have to look for greater contrasts. I am thinking of running a series of black and white people shots as my next burst of activity in BMJ ... then you'll see what a beginner I am :-)
No no ... I wanted thoughts from each of you.
I can understand the problem that the sky poses. When I mean less detail, I mean fewer elements in the image. As Joan said, this is a junky image. So each element can be detailed, but reduce the number of images. I think this could be what both Letitia and Joan were saying.
Up the contrast (during and after) and reduce the junkiness. This is what I take from your comments.
Thank you ...
Post a Comment