# Some B&W's to Share



## freixas (Feb 2, 2019)

Hi,

I've been taking doing photography for a long time. Occasionally, I challenge myself to take photos outside my comfort zone. I'm presenting a few of these here and would love to hear your thoughts. I'm less interested in knowing whether you like or dislike these as I am in knowing _why _you like/dislike them. I myself don't think that any of these is flawless, but I do find them all interesting.






Reed College Great Lawn, Winter. 





 Trees with Crow.



 

Leeks for Sale.





Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, OR.


----------



## Designer (Feb 3, 2019)

The monochrome treatment to the upper two might be o.k., but the bottom two probably should have been left in color.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 3, 2019)

B&W tends to look better with blacker blacks and whiter whites.
A little crop and some changes to the curve adding contrast


----------



## freixas (Feb 3, 2019)

dxqcanada said:


> B&W tends to look better with blacker blacks and whiter whites.
> A little crop and some changes to the curve adding contrast



Actually, I agree with the comments on contrast. But I had a problem with the effect higher contrast had on the leeks and it shows up on your version as well (it's not just because you had a lower-quality image to start from). I tried various approaches and never got a result I was happy with.

Although I don't care for your crop, it does "highlight" (pun, get it?) the problems with the upper-left box. I don't know how I missed the washed out highlights there; probably because I was paying too much attention elsewhere. Thanks!

I remain intrigued by this photo, probably because of the composition and textures, but it probably needs to go into my "better luck next time" pile.

Thanks for your time!


----------



## freixas (Feb 3, 2019)

Designer said:


> The monochrome treatment to the upper two might be o.k., but the bottom two probably should have been left in color.



OK. Why? I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I can even think of some reasons why you might say that, but I'd rather not assume anything.


----------



## Designer (Feb 3, 2019)

freixas said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > The monochrome treatment to the upper two might be o.k., but the bottom two probably should have been left in color.
> ...


Some subject material is inherently more well-suited to monochrome, and others to color.  In the foggy forest scene; I will guess that the colors are muted already, so going with monochrome did not hurt it and perhaps helped it.

The tree against the sky (please number your shots) also is basically two (main) colors, so wiping out all color does not hurt it.  What really hurts it is having the crow so near the edge that it is nearly out of the frame entirely.  That little spot of dark draws one's eye.  

The leeks in boxes have a good color contrast and range of colors, and as such would be a very beautiful photo in color.  

Same for the street scene.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Feb 3, 2019)

This is just personal, but the only one I find remotely interesting is the first one. To me, the composition just doesn't capture my attention in the other 3, whether they were color or BW. The last one has no clear subject. You cut most of the legs off the nearest person and everything else just seems to be haphazardly in the scene. The second is just uninteresting limbs on a tree that have no special significance. The placement of the bird does nothing. I could not tell that those were leeks as I do not see the bulbs. Again, these are all just personal observations. I am not a professional nor do I ever intend to be, so my opinion only matters to me, lol.


----------



## freixas (Feb 3, 2019)

Designer said:


> Some subject material is inherently more well-suited to monochrome, and others to color.  In the foggy forest scene; I will guess that the colors are muted already, so going with monochrome did not hurt it and perhaps helped it.



The question as to what makes a good B&W vs. color shot is an interesting one. I started with B&W many moons ago. I'm working more in color now. Some shots clearly work better one way than another; some shots result in spectacular images either way. I'm not sure I would use muted colors as the criteria for going to B&W, but I'm happy to hear the criteria people used to decide.

Thanks for taking the time to explain!


----------



## freixas (Feb 3, 2019)

Dean_Gretsch said:


> This is just personal, but the only one I find remotely interesting is the first one. To me, the composition just doesn't capture my attention in the other 3, whether they were color or BW. The last one has no clear subject. You cut most of the legs off the nearest person and everything else just seems to be haphazardly in the scene. The second is just uninteresting limbs on a tree that have no special significance. The placement of the bird does nothing. I could not tell that those were leeks as I do not see the bulbs. Again, these are all just personal observations. I am not a professional nor do I ever intend to be, so my opinion only matters to me, lol.



I appreciate your observations and your time.


----------



## Designer (Feb 3, 2019)

freixas said:


> I'm not sure I would use muted colors as the criteria for going to B&W,


I have failed again.  

To adequately explain something.

Contrary to what you think I wrote, I use many criteria to decide if a shot would benefit from a monochrome conversion.


----------



## freixas (Feb 3, 2019)

Designer said:


> freixas said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I would use muted colors as the criteria for going to B&W,
> ...



Hey, no biggie. I would ask you what your criteria are except that I would expect the answer to be "It depends..." Also, it would be unfair to ask you to elaborate further as I have not posted the original color versions of the images for you to evaluate.


----------



## Designer (Feb 3, 2019)

freixas said:


> Hey, no biggie. I would ask you what your criteria are except that *I would expect the answer to be "It depends..."*


You're coming off as being very antagonistic, and for no good reason.

My answer to your question:

The usual; line, form, texture, chiaroscuro, value variation, and possibly others.


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 3, 2019)

I like the first one except for the black tree on the right.  It detracts and pulls my eyes away from the soft main subject of the trees in the background.  If you moved up before taking the shot you would have eliminated the dark tree.  I would still keep the shadows in front of the trees.


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 3, 2019)

Something like this.


----------



## freixas (Feb 4, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> I like the first one except for the black tree on the right.  It detracts and pulls my eyes away from the soft main subject of the trees in the background.  If you moved up before taking the shot you would have eliminated the dark tree.  I would still keep the shadows in front of the trees.



Thanks, Alan!


----------



## Compaq (Feb 5, 2019)

In #1 I find the tree at the right edge _very_ distracting. I wish it was not there. The shadows of the trees drag you nicely toward the trees, but perhaps you could have made the shadows darker to make the effect stronger.


----------



## freixas (Feb 5, 2019)

Compaq said:


> In #1 I find the tree at the right edge _very_ distracting. I wish it was not there. The shadows of the trees drag you nicely toward the trees, but perhaps you could have made the shadows darker to make the effect stronger.



Thanks, Compaq! I appreciate your taking the time to give me your thoughts.


----------



## DigiFilm (Feb 5, 2019)

I'm surprised no one has commented on the second one. That's a very good shot with the exception of the crow. It's so near the edge it and indistinguishable it drags my eyes off the photo and away from the real stars of the show, which are those fantastic trees against the darker sky. I'd be tempted to crop it down to just above the top of the shorter tree on the left. 

I like 1 and 3, but agree 4 should be left in color. It's just too happy a scene for B&W.


----------



## freixas (Feb 5, 2019)

DigiFilm said:


> I'm surprised no one has commented on the second one. That's a very good shot with the exception of the crow. It's so near the edge it and indistinguishable it drags my eyes off the photo and away from the real stars of the show, which are those fantastic trees against the darker sky. I'd be tempted to crop it down to just above the top of the shorter tree on the left.
> 
> I like 1 and 3, but agree 4 should be left in color. It's just too happy a scene for B&W.



Ah...that damned crow—he just spoils everything!  

I appreciate your time and everyone's. I have my own opinion of all these, of course. My opinions aren't all positive, or negative, or in agreement with the majority opinions given here. But your comments (plural "you") have clarified why I like or dislike the various pictures, so they've been very helpful.


----------



## Studio7Four (Feb 6, 2019)

C&C per request:

*Reed College Great Lawn, Winter*
I like this shot and the treatment.  I don't find the dark tree to the right to be too distracting; I think it's darkness helps establish the depth of the scene (the trees in the background are much lighter, the trees in the mid-ground - the focal point of the image - are in mid-tones relatively). 

I don't know that you need that much foreground in the image.  For one, it places the "horizon" very close to the midline of the image.  I don't mind breaking the rule against centering the horizon when doing so adds to the image but I don't see that it does here.  Also, if you crop from the bottom you can remove the cluster of...whatever it is...in the bottom left corner which does try to draw my eye a bit.

*Trees with Crow*
I like the composition of the trees, how their trunks come from the bottom right corner and the trees expand into the rest of the frame.  I'm not a fan of the crow.  Between the title of the image and the fact that the crow is centered along the top edge it seems like an intended feature of the shot, but being so small in the frame, so close to the edge, and so tonally different it looks more like a distracting afterthought.

I'm on the fence about the monochrome treatment in this one.  To me this image is more about the lines and forms of the bare tree limbs against each other and against the sky and works well as an almost abstract monochrome, it's just that the particular color cast isn't sitting right with me.  I personally think a cooler cast would be more appropriate for this one (just my preference).

*Leeks for Sale*
What I would have loved to see from this is a wider shot.  Obviously I don't know what a wider shot would have looked like, but I see the potential for a great geometrically-driven shot here.  If you had the full extents of the open crates, letting their edges form the boundary of your shot (not too worried about the closed crate in the bottom left), particularly if the sizes worked to get that small cardboard box centered, it would have been a cool windmill pattern.

While I agree that often more dynamic range and more contrast makes for a stronger B&W image, I think your treatment here works just fine.  Leeks, though they have visual striations, are fairly smooth, and your muted version also imparts a worn, weathered feel to the crates.  The suggested edit also works, it just tells a different story to me.
*
Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, OR*
Setting aside the color vs B&W question, this one doesn't do much for me.  There doesn't seem to be one particular point of interest in the image.  Even the "main character" has her back to the camera.  The dark jacket on the left competes with the dark food truck on the right to draw my eye to one side or the other.


----------



## freixas (Feb 6, 2019)

Studio7Four said:


> C&C per request:
> 
> *Reed College Great Lawn, Winter*
> I like this shot and the treatment.  I don't find the dark tree to the right to be too distracting; I think it's darkness helps establish the depth of the scene (the trees in the background are much lighter, the trees in the mid-ground - the focal point of the image - are in mid-tones relatively).
> ...



Wow! Thank you so much for taking the time to make such detailed comments on my experimental photos. I enjoy hearing the differing opinions.

I don't really expect anyone besides me to like the Pioneer Courthouse Square photo, although it remains my favorite (which will probably leave people puzzled). When I first posted the images, I knew it wouldn't be popular but couldn't quite articulate why or when I liked it so much. I have a clearer idea now, so the post and comments have been very productive.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 9, 2019)

While I try to shoot and print with the full range of black to white, some times a little less on each end looks better to me.

I have chased my tail more than once vacillating over proper contrast. My solution in the end, is to ask my wife. She know nothing about photography but definitely knows what she prefers. Not very scientific but amazingly accurate.

As for the OPs picture I am a fan of the woods so it is hard to go wrong. I find the bird picture particularly interesting, because at first you see just a pleasant tree, clouds and sky shot, than "pop" you notice the bird perched in the tree top. The sepia is an interesting touch. 

As for the last two they strike me as typical 1950 - 60s photos, there is nothing wrong with them; but because of the content, I think they would be better served in color.


----------



## freixas (Feb 9, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> While I try to shoot and print with the full range of black to white, some times a little less on each end looks better to me.
> 
> I have chased my tail more than once vacillating over proper contrast. My solution in the end, is to ask my wife. She know nothing about photography but definitely knows what she prefers. Not very scientific but amazingly accurate.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Ron!


----------



## freixas (Feb 9, 2019)

The comments have died down, so it’s time for me to contribute my own thoughts.

The main thing I got from the thread was some clarity on why I might some of these where others don’t. It’s mainly because I understand what I was trying to do and everyone else is left guessing. Had I, for example, created 20 photos in a particular style, you might have understood where I was coming from.

Shouldn’t a single photo be able to stand on its own? Well, if it’s a single photo in a particular tradition, such as the typical beautiful landscape, you have an existing context in which to judge an image. When someone tries something different, it’s another story.

Let’s just talk about the images:

*Image 1, Reed College Great Lawn, Winter*, was an attempt to create an image reminiscent of some of the romantic images that emerged in the early days of photography, when people started thinking about photography as art—thus the sepia toning and somewhat dreamy atmosphere.  For whatever reason, the rightmost tree doesn’t bother me, but the photo might be better framed with a matching tree on the left. I could have made the shadows more constrasty, but I deliberately reduced the contrast for the effect I was trying to achieve. The image does fall somewhat into the landscape tradition, so I think it’s an easy one to digest.

*Image 2, Trees with Crow*. Ansel Adams has a ton of fantastic images, but I was at the library, flipping through a book that he wrote, and I was surprised at some of the rather mundane images there.  Perhaps it was an early book. I may have seen or imagined seeing an image somewhat like this one, but without the crow. OK, he wouldn’t have used a sepia tone. Anyway, I like crows, and I deliberately put this crow right at the edge of the image. It’s supposed to be playful—you have a classically beautiful tree/sky image, with a crow positioned to distract you from all that classical beauty. If I had created 20 of these, with crows photo-bombing otherwise pretty scenes, the idea might have gone from irritating to amusing. With a single photo, it’s easy to assume it’s a beginner’s mistake. I’d like to do 20 of these, but have no idea how I could arrange to have a crow show up in just the right place. 

*Image 3, Leeks for Sale.* This one is a pretty straight-forward attempt at creating a nice image. I was perhaps attempting to combine a Mondrian composition with a Edward Weston vegetable still life. As someone noted, the photo would do better with higher contrast, but I could never get that to work with the leeks. The upper-right was a mistake I didn’t see—it’s too bright and pulls my eye out of the photo. Anyway, it’s one of those photos that I have to admit will never work well, even if the ideas are interesting.

Some people thought a color version would be better. I think you need a color version before you can make a judgment, otherwise you are just comparing this picture to some imaginary photo that may not exist. I didn’t care for this image in color—I thought it was pretty dull.

*Image 4, Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, OR*. This is one the one that most excites me and that probably most illustrates the very personal context from which I view this. In my youth, I saw a number of Fellini films (along with a lot of other Italian cinema). This is not Fellini, but it reminds me of scenes in which he was various characters doing strange things in the background. I tend to view this photo cinematically. A woman walks into the scene and turns her head right. I look where she’s looking (the awning helps direct my eye as well) and see the food cart. There are a bunch of diagonals there leading my eye back to the left and down the steps, where I start seeing other characters engaged in various activities.

This is pretty much what one experiences when entering the square in real life. It’s a big area, and the more you look, the more you see. Anyway, it’s how I see it and it always makes me smile, but again, without context, it could be a dull, cluttered image.

Referencing classic photographers, I had Henri Cartier-Bresson in mind when I took this photo. Actually, if I wanted to do a Cartier-Bresson, I probably need more contrast, a shorter depth of field and maybe a slower shutter speed. Anyway, it's not at all a Cartier-Bresson.

*To sum up*: these were all experiments. This thread helped me understand better on why the ones I like aren’t going to work for others. (I knew they wouldn't work for others, but I wasn't able to explain exactly why). I do have plenty of the pretty, straight-forward shots, but sometimes I want to do something different. My philosophy is that if you aren’t failing, you aren’t learning.

*My background*: I have a Bachelor in Fine Arts from the 70s, where I started photography in the film and darkroom era. My career was a software engineer, but I also worked as a graphic designer. I was happy to leave enter the digital age of cameras—I waited a long time for the quality to reach acceptable levels. I retired a few years ago and just now I have my first photo exhibit through a gallery. 

Here’s a photo of my wife admiring one of the landscape shots in my first show:




 

I mention this just to emphasize that I didn't start doing this yesterday. I know the photos I put up might leave some doubt. 

Once more, I appreciate all the time you folks took in commenting on my experiments. Some of  you went above and beyond—thanks!


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 10, 2019)

At the end of the day you have to be comfortable with your own work.  It's OK to do things for different treasons.  Of course the viewer comes from their own background and will either like it or not.  They don;t know the reason you shot it the way you did.  And don't care.  The image stands on its own.  Also, there's nothing wrong with being playful.  When someone started a thread for posting iconic buildings, I posted this of the Flatiron BLdg in NYC.  It doesn't matter if no one else gets it or knows what the rat is about.    Nice job on your first exhibit.  Do you have a link where we can see all the pictures?



Flatiron District under attack. by Alan Klein, on Flickr


----------



## Designer (Feb 10, 2019)

freixas said:


> I have my first photo exhibit through a gallery.


So you're trolling us.  Good to know.


----------



## SquarePeg (Feb 10, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> At the end of the day you have to be comfortable with your own work.  It's OK to do things for different treasons.  Of course the viewer comes from their own background and will either like it or not.  They don;t know the reason you shot it the way you did.  And don't care.  The image stands on its own.  Also, there's nothing wrong with being playful.  When someone started a thread for posting iconic buildings, I posted this of the Flatiron BLdg in NYC.  It doesn't matter if no one else gets it or knows what the rat is about.    Nice job on your first exhibit.  Do you have a link where we can see all the pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> Flatiron District under attack. by Alan Klein, on Flickr



I know what the rat is about.  Pretty sure that’s the IBEW rat “ Scabby”.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 10, 2019)

I don't know what the rat is about but it made for a heckuva picture! I like the perspective, sort of like King Kong rat v. the Flatiron building.

Back to the photos, the first two seem almost more sepia than B&W, and I particularly like the first one (but I may be somewhat biased because it reminds me a little of a sepia Polaroid I did of tree shadows in the snow - great minds??). I think the second one might have been a bit better with the crow not so close to the edge of the frame. I might think about a crop to the bottom part of the tree so it might bring the bird into the composition more, but it's probably a judgement call.

I like the crates with the geometric patterns, and I think it's a little light. I see what looks like a 'white white' along a couple of interior edges of the crates. I thought at first it might be paint but wondered if it might be sunlight? I've found I often need to adjust for white somewhere else in a photo rather than reflections or highlights. I see almost a 'black black' but it looks like it could be a bit darker. Most of the photo is light or medium tones so it looks like it should be mostly shades of gray.

The last one to me works the least because it's such a wide shot and takes in a lot. The person to the left doesn't add much to the photo as much as being a visual distraction that kept me from noticing the cart to the right and other interesting things in the scene. Being so close to the camera that person makes for a larger dark shape that seems out of balance to the rest of the composition. I've found this type of event takes a good bit of waiting and watching and adjusting vantage points as needed to get people in the composition in a way that works.

That's really cool that you had a solo exhibit, congratulations on that. I've done submissions to juried exhibits and some have gotten accepted and others haven't, but it's a great feeling when I've had one of my prints hanging on a wall somewhere, so a solo exhibit is quite an acknowledgement.


----------



## razashaikh (Feb 12, 2019)

First two are great. But the last two should be more attractive. Last two are a good one but need more clarity as well as some texture.


----------

