• 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!

B&W or colour? landscape

Daniel Harrison

pro member
Do you think landscapes ever look good in B&W? What about these two examples, which one do you prefer colour or B&W. Secondly I have included at 100% crop when this image is resized to about 5000x3000 pixels or 16x24" at 200 dpi, (with added grain - from 4mp 1D) Do you think it would print up OK?

Will be interested to hear your thoughts. If you would like to give any pointers for shots in the future feel free.
marysville.22-02.jpg



marysvillesmall.23-01.JPG



marysville.23-01crop.JPG
 

Mike Spinak

pro member
Hi, Daniel,

Do you think landscapes ever look good in B&W?

Yes, I do. I personally tend to have a preference for color in my own work, most of the time, because the world is in color, and I like strong verisimilitude. However, there are exceptions, when I think a picture of mine is better in black and white.

As an interesting note about this, I can usually tell, when looking at the scene, whether it would be best in B&W instead of color. It is difficult to explain, but it has to do with situations where the tonality is a strong source of a scene's beauty, and therefore, it is best emphasized by removing distractions. Below is an example, which (I hope) clarifies what I mean:

1963967-lg.jpg


In other people's work, I tend to like B&W landscapes as much as color, with no particular preference.

What about these two examples, which one do you prefer colour or B&W.

In your examples, here, I prefer the color version. To my eye, the greens add a sense of the verdure one would understand to be around a cascade. One can almost feel the pleasure of the soft, fuzzy moss, the rough rock, and the cool water, underfoot. In black and white, it becomes an under-detailed, dark mass at the top of the composition, taking up too much space without adding anything. The rich browns in the water also add to the visual interest, for me, and give me a sensory memory of grit particles rushing by my feet in cool water. For me, this is lost in the black and white version.

Do you think it would print up OK?

In regard to detail, it looks like it would print up adequately, but not well. However, detail is not everything. If the picture communicates as you want it to, then sharpness (or lack thereof) of the print may well be of little consequence.

Mike
 
Last edited:

Tom Yi

New member
Ansel Adams certainly did well with b/w landscapes. As for which way to go, I think it depends on your personal taste.
 

Daniel Harrison

pro member
Thanks Tom,
Good points. I was interested in the B&W version becuse it empahsized the movement of the water patterns. But at the same time I think what you say about the colour is very true. In your picture the B&W makes you look at details that when in colour would just be ignored. For instance the cloud patterns etc. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! And i think we can all agree that Ansel do do rather well with his B&W images :)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Guys,

The pictures are beautiful!

However, let me throw out this OT comment and question on something I see in your images.

The decision to use a slow shutter to get these blurry water effects. Almost everyone does it! However, IMHO, when one sees water, one also sees the drops! One also sees the burr too.

So why can't some people take a different tack than giving us this same look of water. How has it become a standard to show water so very burred to give this standardized impression of motion?

Asher
 

Roger Lambert

New member
I'll take a stab at your question, Asher.

I think we see so much of the time-blurred water effect because, well, there is something undeniably aesthetically pleasing about it.

And I think it is because the technique effects not only the abstract form, but it also presents the water in abstract time, if you will. We see, in the photo, the natural movement and patterns of nature that we cannot comprehend even as we see it in reality, and, cannot see at all when a short shutter speed captures a mere instant of time, frozen forever.

The best time-blurred water photos, IMO, reward us with much more revealed patterns and movement than a static fast-shutter image, and can produce much more than a simple blurring of individual rivulets.

Much as dusk/dawn/evening long-exposure photographs can delight us with the unexpected results of accumulated light, these long-exposure water photographs can delight us with accumulated movement.

I have never tried it - being a neophyte to this genre - but your point raises an interesting question ( well, interesting to me, anyway, but I am easily amused ;D ):

How effective would it be to combine a long-exposure (blurred) water picture with a short exposure frame, to see the effect of adding back water droplets?

:)
 
Roger,

I think you've nailed it in terms of why images like this are so appealing. I've often thought the same thing, with respect to my fascination with slow-motion or time-lapse video sequences. They give us a glimpse of a very real world which is out of the reach of our normal physical senses.

Another way of saying the same thing is that ordinary photography captures the world in 3 dimensions, while images like this also incorporate the 4th dimension, time.
 

Daniel Harrison

pro member
I also agree with Roger and Don.
I think we like to see somthing that is not often seen visually with our own eyes. I too would be interested to see the combination of both though my gut feeling is that it would look a bit nasty :)

I personally do not enjoy stopping motion with water - it does not show me much. One of the reasons that I enjoy the B&W version is because it draws my attention to the flow of the water and the patterns of travel it takes. That is what interest me most about the photo. Anyway...
 

Ray West

New member
I tend to agree with Asher, I prefer a shorter shutter speed.

dscn0061.jpg


This snapshot was taken at 1/560 shutter, and It has, by chance, got the right balance, imho, between motion and blur, but that is about all its got going for it.
icon8.gif


I suspect, as for 'the 2/3 rule for composition, there are 'rules' for motion blurr, but rules can be broken, of course.

What length time exposure on yours, Daniel? I think the black and white may be better, but I would want more detail in the shadows - or it may be a monitor thing.

Being a believer in qimage, I think you could upsize it OK. If I wanted to, I wouldn't hesitate to print it at a3+ (13*19), either a crop , or as is.

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Mike Spinak

pro member
Hi, Asher,

So why can't some people take a different tack than giving us this same look of water. How has it become a standard to show water so very burred to give this standardized impression of motion?

I also am largely in agreement with Roger's explanation. However, I have a few additional comments:

Firstly, I think that split-second waterfall/cascade pictures with the instant frozen sharply in time are also common. I think the notion that there aren't some people taking this tack is, in part, selective perception.

Consciously created photographs involve awareness and participation on the photographer's part, to include the elements the photographer wants, the way the photographer wants them. (I know you are already all aware of this; I am just making reference to this, to build my argument.) Different photographic waterfall compositions are chosen, when possible, based upon the intent of the photographer for the individual photo. Each case is unique, and thus, the reasons behind different choices of how to represent moving water vary.

Here's an example of a conscious choice to photograph a waterfall's moving water with a fast shutter speed, along with an explanation of the reasoning, below:

S5388_yosemitefallspines.jpg


In this picture, among other aspects I was trying to communicate, I wanted to show the awesome size, power, and grandeur of the waterfall. I juxtaposed the waterfall against large pine trees, which look insignificantly small by comparison, so as to give the waterfall a sense of gigantic scale. I chose a time of day and position which created a lighting situation of luminous intensity and stark contrast. And in this picture, I wanted a very brief shutter speed, to separately show the individual torrents coming down, because I felt this increased the appearance of thunderous power, which would be missing if the waterfall looked like a blurred, white cone.

I must also note that the shutter speed decisions of how to photograph waterfalls are often made for primarily technical reasons. If the waterfall or cascade is in deep shadow, as is often the case, then there may be little choice but to use a long shutter speed. On the other hand, if you want to photograph a waterfall/cascade with a substantial rainbow, you are likely to be forced to use a very short shutter speed (because you will probably need to be in the middle of heavy mist, and you will only have a split-second of facing the waterfall before your lens is coated with droplets.)

Mike

www.mikespinak.com
 

JimCollum

pro member
Here's a different type of wave/motion artifact. It's probably a better represention of the passage of time.


waves.jpg



(the original image is 6000x58,000 pixels...)


jim
 

Jan Luursema

New member
The funny thing is, generally I don't really have a preference for color or black and white, but when I was preparing for my exhibition I found out most of the landscape images I liked were black and white (or duotone)!
So maybe I have a preference for black and white after all, or my color landscapes aren't as good? Truth is the natural landscape here in The Netherlands isn't that colorful (there's color, but you really have to look for it), so that might have something to do with it.

In contrast when I shoot concerts I almost always use color, often the color (from the stagelights) really adds to the image.
 

Roger Lambert

New member
JimCollum said:
Here's a different type of wave/motion artifact. It's probably a better represention of the passage of time.


waves.jpg



(the original image is 6000x58,000 pixels...)


jim


What an amazing image!


As Ricky Ricardo would say, " Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"

Is this Dali-esque seascape a simple panorama with the waveforms expertly woven together with Photoshop? I suspect it is much more - please tell us the secret to your technique. I am totally intrigued. Thanks. :)
 

JimCollum

pro member
I shot with a Betterlight scanning back and their pano adapter. the scan back goes into the film holder on my 4x5, and that is mounted on a heavy duty platform with a precision stepping motor. the platform and back are tied together and controled via a tethered computer (in which you enter focal length, etc). the scan array is 6000 pixels tall , and you can pan up to 64,000 pixels across.

First, the color. the Betterlight sensor is very IR sensitive. for normal images, you shoot through a filter that blocks most IR light. For this image, i shot without the filter, which allows both visible and IR light to be exposed (that's the color mood).

The waves. The waves here were coming into shore (straight at the camera. the adapter was panning from right to left. each time it moves a pixel to the left, the waves are a little closer into shore... so what you're seeing is the progression of waves moving onto the beach, over a period of time (about 6 minutes).

jim
 

Jan Luursema

New member
Daniel, I think I prefer the black and white. Especially since there's not a lot of color to begin with. The image is a little dark though.
 

Daniel Harrison

pro member
And Mike,
Great explanation about the motion of water. I definitely agree that for that shot stopped motion was the way to go. That really was a massive water fall, and you captured it's Majesty and size really well.
Thanks!
 

JimCollum

pro member
Daniel Harrison said:
Thanks Jan,
I think you are right about the dark, I over did curves :) Thanks for your input!

i also think the b/w treatment is better, motion comes out better there


another technique that works well in images like this, is to use a vividlight layer (or an overlay, soft, or hard light, depending on the strength of the burn /dodge desired), and use that as a dodge burn mask.

this mask


marysville.22-02-bw-dodge.jpg



gives this image to a basic green channel b/w conversion

marysville.22-02-bw.jpg



(hope you don't mind me posting the example)

jim
 
Last edited:

Bob Prichard

New member
As to whether color or B&W is better for landscape, I always ask myself this question: does the color add something to the picture? Are the colors, in and of themselves, attractive or interesting?

In you example, I would have to say no. The color of the water is a kind of muddy brown and the rocks are an unappealing color. Even the green moss in the background is a kind of muddy green.

On the other hand, the pattern of the movement of the water through the photo, coming in from the top right, flowing to the left, and then flowing out to the bottom right, is appealing. This pattern is emphasized in the B&W version.

In this photo, the color takes away from the appealing part of the image.

The pattern of the water in the B&W photo could be emphasized by some judicious dodging of the water.

I shoot and print mostly in color. But when there is a strong pattern in the photo, I often print it in B&W as well. In some cases, the B&W evokes more of the appeal I felt when originally viewing the scene.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Bob Prichard said:
As to whether color or B&W is better for landscape, I always ask myself this question: does the color add something to the picture? Are the colors, in and of themselves, attractive or interesting?

In you example, I would have to say no. The color of the water is a kind of muddy brown and the rocks are an unappealing color. Even the green moss in the background is a kind of muddy green.............................
I shoot and print mostly in color. But when there is a strong pattern in the photo, I often print it in B&W as well. In some cases, the B&W evokes more of the appeal I felt when originally viewing the scene.

I like your comments, Bob, but I would go further.

If the tonal scale of the picture is a rich array of shades from the darkest blacks all the way to bright whites, I think of B&W. This is, IMHO, the most demanding of a picture's and one's technic. Often a pretty pictures will become anemic when drained of color. Only technically perfectly exposed & developed images reach perfection in B&W, and then color would probably offer very little.

Of course, one could use a hybrid technic with a colored subject on a monochrome b.g. or vica vace.

B&W offers the opportunity today to map colors of the same luminosity as different tonalities so we have extra capabilities of improving B&W from the simple desaturation technics.

Moreover, we can also use some part of the IR spectrum by special filters or by an adapted camera.

To my mind, B&W, at it's best, is the hardest to perfect and deliver as a museum quality print, but perhaps the most rewarding.

Color of course is a separate challenge, but the prettyness of color can hide what the starkeness of B&W exposes in missing tones and detail.

Asher
 

Guy Tal

Editor at Large
To me some landscapes work only on color, only in BW, or in some rare cases both. I like to let the image drive the ultimate decision - what is it that makes the most impact? If it's more about lines, textures, patterns, contrast, tone etc. rather than color than more often than not it will work better as a B&W.

Oddly I find myself seeing/visualizing a certain way on a given outing. Usually I will come back from a given trip with mostly color or mostly B&W, but never an even mix. I'll let someone else analyze the psychological aspect here.

To your questions - in this example B&W works better to my eye. Color doesn't add much, and B&W puts the emphasis on patterns, lines, and tones which are the stronger elements in this composition. As for print size - I think the 16x24 will work for most viewers. Keep in mind photographers have an almost insatiable fascination with technique and specifications so they may fault you for the loss of detail or for the grainly look. Most people, however will appreciate the composition as a whole - form, light, emotional appeal etc. before ever noticing minor technical imperfections, if they even enter their minds at all. And yes - this is coming from a Large Format photographer :)

Guy
 
Top