Hi guys,
being locked down in my apartment near Paris, I'm browsing through pictures, and giving a second chance to some I may have overlooked. This one was a tough composition, but I think it's got something despite it's complexity. What I can't decide is B&W or color, I like both, what do you think ? The B&W is not straightforward, I was adjusting those sliders in Photoshop for quite a long time before going for this look. Thanks.
B & W or color ?
As presented here, I prefer the B&W, Nick. But this is largely because I find the emerald green in the colour version overpowering, and the whole image has a stark, cold look.
It may well have been cold, with cool light, but the image is a little jarring - for me.
I'd be inclined to warm it, and pull back saturation, especially on the green, a bit like this.
But - you were there, and it's your image!
Thanks for the feedback. It was like 10 am on a summer day, so the light was definitely not warm. Regarding the green it's too much on my TV but not too much on my laptop screen. I guess I should trust my TV colors more then =) Anyway, if the color is an issue, I guess the b & w makes more sense. The subject for me is supposed to be the depth and light in that dense quirky forest.
I agree about the depth and light, Nick - that's putting it well about the image's appeal for me too.
And for me, an admitted colour enthusiast, I think it's expressed better in colour, which for one thing allows the scene to be easier to "read". That dark, snaking trunk in the foreground is a bit confusing, and I understand that if you moved much, the full sun would be dazzling. For me, a colour rendition helps to untangle that, and allows me to revel in that soft, floating light.
Doesn't in any way nagate what you say. Just my own biases.
Really interesting image. In much of my writing about composition and creative landscape photography, I talk about transitions: tone, colour, luminosity, contrast and atmosphere. The colour version is easier to read. The consequence of this is that it is more accessible and harmonious.
The BW version is harder on the eye, as there is less obvious separation between the foreground tree and the background. I always ask myself, what are the consequences of these decisions we make. How you answer that yourself is clearly massively important, but as an external viewer, I would say the BW version is a little confused and dissonant. The colour version is easier on the eye, and the reason you pressed the shutter is easier to understand.
Hope that all makes sense! :-)
Thanks. It does make sense I think. In the color version, you can see three clear blocks of green foliage, a down pointing triangle that's pleasing in a composition sense, with the sun in the middle, and the young tree in the foreground guiding the eye towards the centre of that triangle. Also, the foliage isn't the same tone as the ground, unlike in the b&w version. I've tried another editing for the b&w where you can see that "triangle" better, it's just full infrared b&w conversion, it's a bit easier to "read" though I think still not as easy as the color version.
Hi Nick. For the present submissions, BW is catching more attention. However, I personally see more potential for colour with other possibilities of post processing. thanks
I think I agree with all comments in general. The color (although over-saturated as Chris points out) creates more depth for me. The B&W has such similar tones that it feels a bit flat, but definitely improved on your later version.
Of course as a fan of Alister's I may be being swayed by his opinion (or... does his match my own? - nah....)
At the end of the day the ultimate decision has to be that of the creator. I'd be interested in which you felt strongest at the outset and whether that was changed by these external influencers.