W/NW B&W Landscapes

Freakscene said:
This is fantastic. It’s such a beautiful place.

There is one thing that is very apparent here that my digital monochrome cameras also do sometimes. To my eyes, there is something not quite right about the rock compared to what I see/have seen - I am still not sure if it is tonal (do I think it should be lighter or darker grey? Not sure there either!) or if there is less texture/comtrast than I perceive. Or both. But quite a few of my photos from India (western Rajasthan is basically light yellow/golden sandstone, both landscape and human constructions) are in the ‘still working on it’ folder because they still look slightly different to what I want. I used to think with film that the lack of resolution was doing it, but a 60mp digital sensor with a stopped down Leica asph lens put that idea in the ‘um, no’ theory pile. Maybe if I can put my finger on it I’ll be able to manage the photos better.

But long way to a short question, is it juts me? Does the tone/texture of the rock here bug you?
Click to expand...
And to specify, and @dourbalistar please let me know if showing the photo this way is a problem, the top two-thirds or so look great, but the bottom third has a tonality or texture, particularly in the rock, that for some reason doesn’t look quite right to me. But I’m still not sure why. Maybe it’s a lack of coarse structure contrast?
IMG_4035.jpeg
 
Freakscene said:
And to specify, and @dourbalistar please let me know if showing the photo this way is a problem, the top two-thirds or so look great, but the bottom third has a tonality or texture, particularly in the rock, that for some reason doesn’t look quite right to me. But I’m still not sure why. Maybe it’s a lack of coarse structure contrast?
View attachment 4829409
Click to expand...
@Freakscene, no problem at all, those annotations are both appropriate and totally hilarious at the same time. For what it's worth, the rock at Bryce is mostly reddish in tone, but the foreground rocks at the top of the canyon are much lighter, closer to dusty rose/pink. There was also a storm passing over the far side of the canyon, so that portion of the frame was darker. Those factors combined may contribute to the odd tonality?

At the end of the day, these are photos from a $29.99 toy camera with an acrylic lens. I use it as a fun secondary camera in grab and go situations. I point and shoot, and try not to overthink either the process or the results. 😁
 
Freakscene said:
And to specify, and @dourbalistar please let me know if showing the photo this way is a problem, the top two-thirds or so look great, but the bottom third has a tonality or texture, particularly in the rock, that for some reason doesn’t look quite right to me. But I’m still not sure why. Maybe it’s a lack of coarse structure contrast?
View attachment 4829409
Click to expand...
I can see what you mean. I can't put my finger on it either but I'm going to take a stab at it:
1. Usually the aerial perspective of landscapes cause tones closer to the ground and foreground to be darker, with the tones gradually lightening the higher up and farther away you look in the frame. Here, because of the cloud cover from the storm, it's kind of the opposite: the foreground rocks are lighter and the background rocks are darker.

2. The snow is creating points of contrast far away with the darker rocks and trees.

I think it might be worth trying a gradient mask above the line you drew and brightening it, while also lowering contrast, while inverting the mask and increasing local contrast a bit in the lower portion.

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I might download Dourbalistar's pic and play with it tomorrow in Capture One.
 
U82040.1701864940.0.jpg



M8 | Canon 50 1.2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom