not sure which processing I prefer..

lynnb

lynnb

Veteran
Local time
5:22 PM
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
11,027
The picture below is part of a series on tracks. For me tracks have emotional associations of childhood: adventure/exploring, mystery, sometimes happy (beach tracks) and sometimes scary (not knowing who or what one will meet).

I like them both, the dark for its mood and the light for its tones. Interested in your thoughts. Don't be bashful - please share your opinion!

Which do you prefer, and why?

If you think either or both of them suck for any reason: please feel welcome to share your reasons - I have a thick skin! Honesty is preferable to tact :)

Thanks in advance,
Lynn

11854074146_2e3b9547ab_o.jpg


11854075286_cb801832dd_o.jpg

by lynnb on flickr
 
The second for me ... more detail in the grasses ... very beautiful! :)

I don't think the particular scene suits the high contrast of your first example.
 
Hi Lynn
I'd be ok with either provided I know what you want to say with it. If mysterious/scary then the second one would not work for me but the first one would do the trick. The second one to me is a bit bland (while technically entirely correct with good detail rendition in the shadows and no blown highlights etc) because I am wondering what it means. Also, because of the low contrast the farthest visible point of the track in the top right corner doesn't stand out as well. I prefer the first one, thus. But the second one could work provided it's given context by what you wish to say with it.

Cheers
philip
 
At the moment, I prefer the drama of the first one.

EDIT: but it really depends on what emotions you are trying to evoke and the intended viewer. Is this a scary pathway in a children's book? Or a pleasant garden path in a magazine?
 
I like the contrast between the dark grass and light path in the first photo; I find the second a little too bland for my tastes.
 
thanks Philip. At the moment I'm leaning towards the dark one as it reminds me of children's scary fairytale books. But I wasn't sure about the crushed blacks. Maybe I can put some detail in there and still retain the dark mood.

The light one appealed to me with its gentle tones. A different mood altogether.

What I'm not very good at is judging which pictures will have broader appeal. So all thoughts and comments are appreciated. It's quite likely my own preference will change with time of day and mood!

Kind regards,
Lynn

Edit: thanks Dave and Ruby.Monkey. All comments much appreciated!
 
I personally prefer the lighter version. It shows far more detail in the grass and that works for me with this image.

(Generally I also tend to prefer less contrasty images with greater tonal range)
 
The second picture is more faithful to the idea, that a B&W photographer should take opportunity of the full spectrum of tonal values in the photographs. The first, is more faithful to the idea, that you can represent the world graphically, in pure black and white, like it is the case in the engravings or cut outs. I normally go with the full tonality.
 
Somewhere inbetween would do it for me Lynn. The path stands out wonderfully in the first one which draws the eye nicely through the scene. However the two large clumps of darkness are a little too overpowering IMO.

The second one retains far more detail which is often a more popular approach with natural subjects but does lack a wee bit of bite, again my opinion and you probably know I'm just a big old drama queen when it comes to my mono pics so take the above with a doctors recommendation of just a pinch of salt :)

Lift the blacks a touch in the darkest areas of the first image and I think you'll have a great balance of detail and drama. Whether that leaves the image lacking either of the ideas you set out for is something for you to decide.
 
Number one for me, I think the amount of detail is less critical than giving the clear impression of a path.

Maybe as Simon suggests you might split the difference in the balance.

Randy
 
To me the first looks like night and the second like daylight. If it were my photo I would start with the second image and increase the contrast.
 
I´d go in between and leave just enough differentiation to keep the details in the grass visible. At the same time I´d make the sand as light as possible without loosing detail. Or would that be ... too mediocre?
 
Count me in as another 'inbetweener'. I think the subject of this photo is the path, therefore it should be emphasised subtly -- I dislike it when the subject is very obviously dramatised as in the first example. My preference would be to burn in the grass rather than to simply up the contrast throughout.
 
i always prefer a darker more contrasty image to a lighter more detailed image.
i think my own black and white images might suffer less popularity because of this but really, i shoot for my own gratification in the long run.
having all the tones and detail showing is like writing a musical score and including all the notes and chords there are…fine to do it but why?
 
A wonderful photo, Lynn. I agree fully with Simon's comment about something in between. I like the dark tones but the darker image looks like the darkest shadows are blocked up black. Just a little more shadow detail would be nice I think. - jim
 
I prefer the first, that is if you want to emphasise the paths or journey through the grass, it has more drama.
The second is a nice photo of some sharp, grey grass but lacks anything of interest like a focal point the darker image makes the path that point of interest.
Just my opinion-go with what you feel, I felt that after a couple of seconds image no 2 my eye lost interest and wandered over the grass; the first made me look at the patterns and held my eye for longer as well as making a feature of the path.
Regards
Mark Antony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom