• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Does colour rule in Venice?

John_Nevill

New member
Here's an early evening shot taken in March from the foot of the Rialto bridge, which I believe shows how the right light can add that "special something" to an image's colour. If it were taken an hour earlier it just wouldn't have worked.

Venice.jpg

EOS20D+EF-S 17-85mm, f6.3, 1/400sec at ISO 400

Feel free to comment or critique.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
John,

What a treat! I'm addicted to Venice and as you'll see soon, I appreciate anything Venetian.

However, perhaps 100,000 pictures of the canals are taken every summer and everyone admires even the worst of them. So anyone who shows off their Venice canal picture better have something special.

This picture is one of the most rermarkable I have seen.

The colors of the multistory mansions on the canal bank, are so rich in this evening golden light. It is like someone imported much of the sienna from Tuscany and red from China to make this picture.

Yes, the sky is not strong. However, should it be, it would, to my mind be a distraction. In fact, cropping down from the top it to the base of the 3rd roof antenna is more powerful to me. However, as is it works!

The gondola's face is in shadow, and I like that no attempt was made to alter that, as he is anonymous, part of the gondola, not meant to distract from the arc of the building, but rather to provide a compositonal anchor.

There is assymetry that causes tension. For a pretty postcard, one would add a corresponding length of canal-scape on the left, However, this picture, by fortune does not do that.

Further, it has no classic "setting sun reflected in the dark canal waters". Again, that would have been pretty, but "Kitsch", in my opinion. (Please don't remember that when you see my pictures.)

Interestingly, by the fact of the "missing" expected left side of the scene not being shown, we have to focus intimately on the partial arc of rich color. When we go back to the gondola as a reference, we realize that what we want to know, is just where the boat is heading.

That is my take on the picture: rich, interesting and I like it.

Now, my question, can this picture be as beautiful and interesting without color?

In fact, does color rule in Venice for showing its beauty? What do you think?

Asher
 
Last edited:

Gary Ayala

New member
I echo Asher's remarks and would like to add that a spot of darkening to the buildings would enrich the colors and make the gondola stand out just a bit more. (at least that's how it looks on my monitor)
 

Gary Ayala

New member
Okay the B&W

I took the liberty of a (quick) B&W conversion ... since this thread is color vs. B&W.

84598826-L.jpg


The gondola looks sinister, the water cold and the buildings are shabby. This photo still stirs feelings, but the absence of color in this photo takes me to a much different place than the color version. Looks much less inviting ... Interesting.
 

Tom Yi

New member
Don't know. There something simple and elegant about monotone.
I personally prefer the b/w version. I think it feels stronger to me. Really brings out the texture of the buildings.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
A very interesting effect Gary.

This has demonstrated the change of mood by draining something of blood.

Is it possible to make this B&W but with a less sinister mood?

Are we so subject to signals of pink skin, rich mountains and sunsets, that without the color, we have no reference to mood. After all, why do we consider John Nevilles original image in such a positive way?

Asher
 

John_Nevill

New member
Interesting B/W conversion, it does make it look heavy and timeless.
What surprises me. even without colour and with such a stark B/W contrast conversion, how the original light still helps to retain depth, detail and impact. In fact the bright sky is needed in this instance to broaden and equalise tonality.

Dare I try a sepia tone conversion? probably not, but I will try Gary's suggestion.
 

Ben Lifson

New member
Color and Black and White

One reason the Venice picture works in color is that it has organized its subject in terms of color and in relation to two of the primary colors, red and yellow (there's true yellow in the two posts to the far right and some of the orange passages tend toward yellow as opposed to red); there's also a lot of green scattered here and there. In other words, it's a rich palette picture and the many variations on each of the principal colors keeps the surface active: Every time the eye moves from one area to another it meets something new if not in shape then in hue or value.

The picture was conceived in color. This is one reason it doesn't work in black and white.

Black and white photography is strictly a form of monochrome drawing, part of that family of drawing that includes drawings in pencil, ink, charcoal, Conte crayon and chalk; it is also within that family of works on paper that includes monochrome engravings, etchings and lithographs.

The last half of the 18th century saw many important black and white etchings of Venice, the most notable being those of Canaletto, and beautiful drawings, especially Guardi's. But John Neville's color photograph, although it has much of Canaletto's solemnity and sense of ceremony and some of Guardi's occasional appreciation of the sole figure against the backdrop of the city, is not conceived in terms of lines and forms as much as it is in terms of masses and patches of color, relating to each other across the surface.

In other words, it falls within the realms of watercolor (drawing), multi-colored printmaking and painting.

Digital photography makes it too easy to work in color. With most digital cameras, photographers who review their pictures on the LCD shortly after they take them are forced to see them in color. Although converting large bodies of work (e.g. many days' pictures taken in a distant place, or a day's work for those who shoot 200 - 300 frames/day) is not difficult it is time consuming and tends to discourage working in black and white.

We might soon be in a situation in which photographers accept color as the default medium instead of what it should be, a conscious choice over black and white. This, in turn, will undermine any photographer who does not devote him/herself to the same long systematic study of color theory, of color composition, of the inter-action of colors, etc. -- subjects that all painters must master. It's a long haul. In most art schools, color is a major field of study, beginning with foundation courses in two- and three-dimensional design (first year) and continuing on through color theory and composition. Teachers of advanced undergraduate and of graduate painting courses assume a knowledge of color theory on the part of their students and bring it to bear always in the critique of their students' work.

Without devoting ourselves to a similar course of study, we photographers don't really stand much of a chance of accomplishing anything noteworthy in the field of color pictures.

There are many excellent books on the subject and many community colleges teach color theory courses.

Two digital cameras make it easy to work in black and white, for they display the monochrome image on their respective LCD screens and their software enables one to edit in black and white.

These are the Epson R-D1 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1PP or the Leica version of it, the D-Lux... Or D-Lux 2? I forget. I use the both the R-D1 and the Lumix in part because they let me shoot in black and white.

Because my R-D1 is being repaired, I just used the Lumix, together with the Canon 10D, during a 10-day photographic trip in the Philippines. For various reasons, I favored the Lumix and made an average of 150 black and white pictures with it per day, and about 200 on the flight home, starting with the 2-hour wait in the Manila International Airport and ending with the 2-hour wait, in Penn Station, New York, for the AmTrak to Connecticut.

Both the Manila-San Francisco and the San Francisco-JFK flights were at night. The Lumix did beautifully in the low cabin light. Image stabilization let me work at around 1/3 second and the small unobtrusive camera, which looks more like a point-and-shoot than a serious instrument, made people -- especially the filipinos -- just shrug their shoulders at the strange Western tourist who photographs everything, even to the extent that he walks up and down the aisles of his airplane at night, in his stocking feet, photographing his fellow passengers asleep or awake. Nobody so much as asked what I was doing, not on the planes and not in the baggage claim area, JFK, where I made about 50 exposures of mostly US fellow passengers.

It's a marvelous little camera. Glue an accessory or hot shoe from an old camera onto the top of it, use Voigtlander accessory optical finders; put it in manual focus mode to set the depth of field; count on the extremely deep depth of field even at wide apertures; and you can use it like a Leica with the lens set to hyperfocal settings.

And, of course, going back and forth between its color and monochrome modes you can begin to see whether your present talent is for black and white or for color, and develop it as such.

And no matter which medium you're working in, somewhere along the line you can use this same camera to begin your study of the other medium.

Given the Leitz lens and the three aspect ratios you can shoot in -- 2:3 (the standard 35mm frame); 3:4 (great for landscapes and portraits); and the near panoramic 6:19 (close to the aspect ratio of the contemporary wide movie screen) -- and the fact that it can be used in RAW, this is a great small camera, an extraordinary instrument for the serious photographer, and at a modest price to boot.
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Ben,

You more than live up to your reputation!

I like your evaluation of the composition and color distribution of the Venice picture. Does the picture work for you? You have answered yes. But perhaps John didn't work his way up through the courses given in art schools. I, myself, would love to take such courses to improve my appreciation and skills.

However, for myself, I simply visit the finest and most humble galleries and study the pictures. I use a WhiBal and take an image of an example of the artist's work. I then can further study the art on my Eizo screen in close to perfect color.

Your description of the the Euro guy in stocking feet stealing people's images, is mine too. I feel somewhat guilty, but do it all the same and to the nth. The people sleeping, eating, sitting on luggage, feeding etc.

Re planning in B&W or color, I learned photography with B&W film. Then in the darkroom, the technical difficulty in getting "perfect color", let me work with B&W without diversion.

Still, when I photograph, I look at the distribution of color. I then compose with one dominant color.

My belief is that some artists will reach competence in color by working with it intuitively and learn to do what pleases them the most and what spoils that. Of course this is as reliable as learning to fly by simply getting into a Piper one seater, getting to the air and after wobbling around, then thinking one could land.

School efficiently closes this gap.

When you say the Venice picture doesn't work in B&W, I interpret your judgement as meaning, "This is unlikely to put the Venice picture into a class reached by photographers competent in B&W".

O.K., that is the judgement based on everything classical about B&W photography, informerd by what is possible using film and expressed by the masters, several of whom you have listed.

However, I would pose this question. Now that we can remap/assign colors of the same tonality to different zones, we have a new route to B&W images, no different in principal from drawing with a pencil or charcoal or using lens filters in film photography.

The distinguishing facet of digital conversions from color to B&W is the immense possibilities in providing millions of departures from the representations delivered by film.

The RD-1 aand other cameras that show an LCD image in B&W are showing what conversion? Do you have achoice of films to mimic? Also, is the RAW degraded? My expectation is that a jpg would be converted according to a selectable choice of film looks, while the RAW data is not violated.

Still, if you do work with the RAW file, do you use standard film mimiicking technics or do you depart radically and change the assignement of colors to different tonalities as software permits.

If you do, then you are entering a new realm of B&W photography. O.K., now let's rewind the movie of your workflow from capture to print. Do you visualize and plan such radical tonal switches at the time of image capture?

Asher
 
Last edited:

Guy Tal

Editor at Large
Personally I much prefer the color version here. I have no inherent general bias - I work in both mediums myself.

The color version to me communicates more than just the graphic beauty of the scene but also the uniqueness of the specific moment in which it was captured.

The B&W looks like it could have been captured just about any time, which doesn't make it less compelling visually but to me it feels like it has less of a story to tell (think "here's a beautiful scene in Venice" vs. "on this day I was rewarded with the rare chance to see this beautiful scene in Venice, illuminated and glowing for but a few moments, the memory of which I will carry with me for the rest of my days".

Guy
 

John_Nevill

New member
Many thanks to you all for the comments and valuable insight to colour composition (Ben). The critique and evalution that one recieves on OPF is in a different league to any other forum i've encountered. It's very refreshing indeed.

As Asher correctly points out I've never studied art in an academic sense, but rather explored and learnt through trial / error and instinct. I'm now considering whether its worth going to nightschool in Sept to learn the basics, obviously from a photographic sense...if I can fond the right course.

Although I must confess that my grandfather dabbled in oils and use to sell still life paintings during 1920/30s.

Anyhow I digress...

I've since increased the contrast a little, mainly personal taste to add some drama and have submitted the image and others to Asher for OPF consideration.

Regards
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well John,

That's good to hear. Where in Hampshire are you and how far is it from London? The galleries there are of course outstanding and that is a good place to get ideas and inspiration.

Still, I must say, you gave me and others a dollop of pleasure!

I look forward for more of your pictures and experiences in your neck of the woods!

Asher
 
Top