Dierk Haasis
pro member
How about a little controversy, the forum lately bacame a bit "homely" to my taste:
B/W is the easy choice to make a dull (or even bad) photo interesting. People are used to colour, most of us see in colour, most published and taken pictures are in colour, this b/w captures us simply be being different. There are uses to desaturation - personally I like portraits in contrasty b/w - but most of the time it's just a way for a surefire contest place.
Curiously two of the more creative entries I have seen lately in a DOP contest were two b/w photos, one showed a puffin [no, it was not by Russell Brown] with the beak left in colour, the other was a picture of the word 'red'. Of course, the contest's theme was Red.
And then there's the current b/w entries for the LightZone contest ... (see*)
Special effects are another of my pet hates in photography; perhaps it is just because my forming years lay in the 70s but ... seriously starbursts, shines, oversaturation, almost anything added to Photoshop's filter menu is only worth it for graphic designers working on unsubstantial photos trying to create uncontroversial advertising material.
Any photo taken - not every frame! - was taken because it meant something to the photographer. The more a photographer has learned or experienced the more personal and universal his images will be. Which is actually the essence of art: Exhibiting ones personal view of universals. It's the difference between 'Look, that's my niece; isn't she cute?' and 'You really have grabbed the playfulness of 10-year olds!'
With the throwaways of amateurs the point often is to find what originally incurred pressing the shutter. The difference between pros and amateurs - on the content level [the formal level is simple: one has to pay his rent by taking pictures, the other not] - is that the pro has to deliver good photos every day all year round. The amateur, as the name tells, will photograph only what he likes - and when he likes.
Dierk
* To be sure, they don't come near the two mentioned images of which only one I found really good.
9/11/06, A postscript by A.K. on moving this and the following post to start this new thread.
Yes, indeed, the age of full Color Digital is here right now.
No struggles and disappointmets with the darkroom processing that always needed further tweaking of the filter dials.
No hunting for the very best color shop and getting to know your favorite technician.
Today, color photography processing and printing is just a service and with a calibrated workflow, perfection whatever that is, is prety well close to be assured even for the dedicated enthusiast.
So why the interest by perfectly capable photographers in Black and White when color is what we see?
I will not answer this yet, but this and the following posts in the discussion on Rainer's B&W vacation photos opened a debate that I couldn't believe was occuring. So the posts were moved here from the original thread,
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=856&page=2
Asher
Dierk
B/W is the easy choice to make a dull (or even bad) photo interesting. People are used to colour, most of us see in colour, most published and taken pictures are in colour, this b/w captures us simply be being different. There are uses to desaturation - personally I like portraits in contrasty b/w - but most of the time it's just a way for a surefire contest place.
Curiously two of the more creative entries I have seen lately in a DOP contest were two b/w photos, one showed a puffin [no, it was not by Russell Brown] with the beak left in colour, the other was a picture of the word 'red'. Of course, the contest's theme was Red.
And then there's the current b/w entries for the LightZone contest ... (see*)
Special effects are another of my pet hates in photography; perhaps it is just because my forming years lay in the 70s but ... seriously starbursts, shines, oversaturation, almost anything added to Photoshop's filter menu is only worth it for graphic designers working on unsubstantial photos trying to create uncontroversial advertising material.
Any photo taken - not every frame! - was taken because it meant something to the photographer. The more a photographer has learned or experienced the more personal and universal his images will be. Which is actually the essence of art: Exhibiting ones personal view of universals. It's the difference between 'Look, that's my niece; isn't she cute?' and 'You really have grabbed the playfulness of 10-year olds!'
With the throwaways of amateurs the point often is to find what originally incurred pressing the shutter. The difference between pros and amateurs - on the content level [the formal level is simple: one has to pay his rent by taking pictures, the other not] - is that the pro has to deliver good photos every day all year round. The amateur, as the name tells, will photograph only what he likes - and when he likes.
Dierk
* To be sure, they don't come near the two mentioned images of which only one I found really good.
9/11/06, A postscript by A.K. on moving this and the following post to start this new thread.
Yes, indeed, the age of full Color Digital is here right now.
No struggles and disappointmets with the darkroom processing that always needed further tweaking of the filter dials.
No hunting for the very best color shop and getting to know your favorite technician.
Today, color photography processing and printing is just a service and with a calibrated workflow, perfection whatever that is, is prety well close to be assured even for the dedicated enthusiast.
So why the interest by perfectly capable photographers in Black and White when color is what we see?
I will not answer this yet, but this and the following posts in the discussion on Rainer's B&W vacation photos opened a debate that I couldn't believe was occuring. So the posts were moved here from the original thread,
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=856&page=2
Asher
Dierk
Last edited by a moderator: