Palouse B/W Repost
by Marylynne Diggs
Hi Folks,
I've been lurking a bit, posting feedback occasionally, but generally in a bit of a photographic funk for the better part of a year now. I figured it might help to return to images from my last truly rewarding photography excursion and look for missed opportunities. This is my first effort at that, a black and white conversion (using Silver Efex Pro) of a Palouse landscape. While this location is typically rendered in color to exploit the greens, I'm returning to my love for black and white for a while.
Let me know what you think and as always, feel free to offer suggestions for further processing.
Canon 5D3 with 100-400mm at 120 mm
ISO 200, 1/1000s, f/9
Comments
12 commentsGreat take from the Palouse; I think the b&w here works wonderfully. Can't say I've ever seen a b&w rendition from this area. Kudos for holding back on the color.
I think there's great balance between the textured rolling hills, the gentle curves and layers, and the terrific sky. Great set of clouds. At first, and from a distance, I thought the cluster of trees on the left was a butte or some rock formation - say from Monument Valley or something; but of course they're trees - And I think well placed in the frame and adds nice interest.
For me, I think the tonal range between the top sky and the sky below the clouds to be a little wide. The clouds aren't influencing that much and from distance and perspective I wouldn't think the top area would be so dark. Now, I love the contrast and these clouds are perfect for b&w. But just for experimentation sake you might play around with lightening to tones up top - in combination with darker and more contrast below the big cloud line. Just a thought and one person's opinion.
Lon
I would crop a bit off the bottom, enough so that the triangular shadow area on the left merges with the bottom frame edge a little more than halfway through the scene. I think this small crop places even more emphasis on the stands of trees and the textures in the fields. And I agree with Lon, the tonality difference in the sky above vs. below the clouds just doesn't look right. I think the sky tonality below the clouds, and the clouds themselves, are good. But the sky above the clouds is too dark to my taste, I would lighten it a bit.
--P
I'm still debating on the crop. I like the idea of diagonals for the foreground shadows, but I also like the way the lines cup the scene as is, so please: chime in with your thoughts on a crop from the bottom and whether that should scooch the trees to the right or left in the frame to keep the aspect ratio the same (or make it 12x20 instead of 4x6).
Thanks as always for your invaluable assistance in helping me get perspective.
ML
Craig: I debated that thin wisp of cloud. Without the wisps, I felt like the clear sky became too semi-circular and drew the eye too much, whereas the wisps functioned like a vignette and pulled the eye back from the edge. I might be overthinking it though, and the fact the you noticed this and I debated it suggests there is a distraction there. I'll keep thinking about how to handle that.
Thanks again to all. I cannot do this without feedback, and I appreciate all suggestions and feedback every time I post.
ML