As I have said previously and probably more than once, I tend to be an overall impression sort of guy, and frequently tend to not notice details. This is a general condition of mine, but at times I really become aware of this predilection when it comes to photography, and I often need a nudge to spot the difficulty.
Some days ago on Blogger, I posted this photo of Sue on the footbridge.
At the same time, I decided to convert to b&w because, as you know, I like doing that, particularly on portraits, so that's what I did. This ↓ is the result, which I thought was ok.
I uploaded both versions to Flickr.
By gosh and by golly, he was right, at least to some degree. I do find my eyes pulled more to the the background trees, I suppose because they are more contrasty.
I don't know why I can't see these things on my own. I suppose that I get too focused on one thing, which would be the general tonality in this case, that I overlook other things.
I also suppose that, in addition to my propensity to miss details, it is also partly a lack of experience with this type of photo.
The question is whether I will learn from this and be able to apply it to other photos on my own.
11 comments:
It is akin to the concept i speak of in class called biological camouflage. There is a classic study of the peppered moth and this concept of interested. But, basically, in this case the conversion to B&W had the tonal qualities of Sue blend too well with the rest of the environment, whereas in the color version, she was far more noticeable because she contrasted more with the environment.
PipeTobacco
I liked the colors in the first version.
Nice both ways but the first is stronger.
I like both photos, but prefer the black and white. By astute, do you mean picky? :)
No matter what, color is better.
I know I've mentioned this before ... but, my late husband said that he much preferred black and white photography to color. He found it much more of a challenge than color. That really shows up here. Sue stands out boldly in the color photo but actually seems to recede and almost be taken over by the trees in the background of the B&W. Could you play with the B&W and see if there is a way you could reverse that ??
I like the color photo marginally better. They are both quite lovely, to my eye. :-)
I prefer the colour photo too. I see the overall impression, not specifics.
Or not. Most of us won't hold it against you. Or even notice. I think the eye point of the black and white is the strong trees behind Sue.
I liked the colored one best because she is the focus and the shadows show up better. :)
We can't all see all things at all times. Focus only goes so far!
Scott and I will be driving along and he will ask if I saw the hawk or the deer or whatever, and he'll be surprised I didn't, because he DID.
But I was looking elsewhere, not in exactly the place he was looking.
It doesn't mean I was out to lunch. It means I wasn't looking where he was looking. Period.
On the plus side, he is great at museums for noticing details that I would otherwise skip on by.
-Kate
Post a Comment