Tulips - B&WModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Tulips - B&WI have gone for tulips for my project. These are shot on 4x5 Tri-X 320, developed in Rodinal, scanned with the D200 and then inverted and adjusted in PS.
I would appreciate your comments on both the image in absolute terms and then between the two in relative terms. The difference is only a very slight blur to soften. The first has no blur (if it is not obvious). Largely, these digital files are more for observance of the composition, lighting, exposure and development of the image rather than critical assessment. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Tulips - B&WThe changes are subtle, i find the first much more enjoyable, if that counts for anything.
gerry's photography journey
No amount of processing will fix bad composition - trust me i have tried.
Re: Tulips - B&WThe first - the blur in the second is distracting - I actually looked at the pictures first and then read your text btw - so I'd already decided I liked the first better and why before reading that you'd blurred the second (I figured you'd just had a slight breeze or camera shake or too slow a shutter in the second)
D600, D7000, Nikon/Sigma/Tamron Lenses, Nikon Flashes, Sirui/Manfrotto/Benro Sticks
Rodney - My Photo Blog Want: Fast Wide (14|20|24)
Re: Tulips - B&WThanks guys, looks like no blur.
I am particularly keen on opinions in absolute terms, about whether the picture works and, if not, why. I have invested a lot into this in the context of: new and old gear (based on previous "Am I correct" thread), adapting processes to this gear, developing 4x5 negs, etc. Because the process 'worked' for me, I may be biased towards the image. These images will lead to an entry in a photo comp, and therefore, I want to produce the absolute best I can. Given this, an independent review of the image in and of itself is appreciated. Incidentally, the above do not represent the final scans or crops - once I have the negs I am happy with, I will get them drum scanned at a much higher resolution. So, I wish to concentrate on: subject matter, lighting and exposure. I do have another tulip bud that looks more aesthetic than this one, but I am not 100% sure it will open or at least open in time. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Tulips - B&WI too prefer the first without the blur. Compositionally I would suggest a little more room above the flower head, I would aslo be inclined to try adding more negative space on the left hand side.
Fuji X-Pro1 | X-E1 | X-T1 | XF14 | XF23 | XF27 | XF35 | XF56 | XF60 | XF10-24 | XF18-55 | XF55-200 | MCEX-11
http://gmarshall.zenfolio.com http://xtographer.weebly.com
Re: Tulips - B&WPatrick
The image does not work for me...it has a number of problems...little seperation from the background. Background too fussy. No obvious point of major interest, (what first catches the eye?). The top of the tulip bud is too close to the top of the frame. Lack of definite contrast between foreground and background. No hook that grabs the eye and stops it. Having said all that, I can see where you are going with this technique and I think you are on the right track. The tones and graduations are beautiful. I think you need a flower on the stalk...with some soft backlighting coming through the petals to create the major point of interest. Perhaps a little backlight on the stalk. You are in the ball park so don't walk away from this one. Crack it! Regards
Matt. K
Re: Tulips - B&WI appreciate the comments.
Matt, I can see the validity in your comments. What is worth understanding, which may not change the view on this image, is that this will be part 1 of a 3 part series. The series will document the three primary stages of the flower from bud, to flower, to, I guess, death. In isolation, this bud doesn't have much going for it. Together with the other two, I am hoping it has greater impact. This is a similar image of another flower that I posted the other day, which I believe has some of the elements you suggest. The reason I went for the tulip was because it is going to flower sooner - I have a deadline of mid September to complete the series and I am concerned the flower below won't. I personally believe this composition and lighting works better - particularly given your comments regarding the background. Thoughts? Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Tulips - B&WHere are 2 of the final 3 (the third is yet to be developed).
Excuse the dust - the perspex I used to keep the neg flat was dustier than I thought. This was taken handheld with the D4, so more unsharp than the real neg. The contact print I took from these is far superior to these scans. But, interested in comments on lighting. The 'glow' is largely due to the yellow filter I used. The final image is of the decaying flower. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Tulips - B&WPatrick, tulips have to be in colour, at least that's the way my feeble mind works.
President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Re: Tulips - B&W
1. These photos are for a B&W competition 2. I was only able to use B&W 4x5 film (given what I had on stock) 3. The tulip in all 3 forms (2 of which are shown here) offered the simplicity I was after. Granted, the colours of the tulips were beautiful, but principally relating to point 1 above, they were shot in B&W. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Tulips - B&W
Ah, I see. Point taken. Nice photos in any case. Using B&W film does make colour photography problematic... President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Re: Tulips - B&WI think the first has possibility but i find the one you posted with the leaf (bulb not flowered) more pleasing and balanced. Maybe flipping so space is on right might workfor this one- as we tend to look left to right due to how we read i guess.
In some ways B&W is just about tone and contrast- i wonder if either increasing contrast of the bulb, or coversely darkening the background (of the first for eg) to increase apparent contrast with the bulb might help. I thik this is a little too stark on the second image you posted but the first could move more that way with a darker background. sounds like a good project and as you say with the 3 parts it is contributing to the whole- not just as a stand alone. nice work! robert Robert
EOS 5D Mk II, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200f4 IS, 50 f1.8, 100 macro, 300D (IR Mod)
Re: Tulips - B&WThanks guys
Robert, I am having the negs drum-scanned at the moment, so once I have 'proper' files, I will work on the images to, firstly, attain consistent contrast and, secondly, have all three images present. I think you are right about the contrast in the first and will try to find the middle ground. I will also be applying some 'texture' to them and see where that takes me. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Previous topic • Next topic
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|