From a while ago... playing with some old files. I didn't recognize the potential of this shot until looking at it again, and now I'm kicking myself for having shot it as a 'test' composition at f/4.. now I have to go back and reshoot for more detail in the background. At the web size you can hardly tell, but in print it'll make a big difference.
I realize there is a very strong contrast, which may not appeal to all, but I think that's what is so interesting. Also I've found with B&W's that I like to make sure I've got a pure white and a pure black in the image, darkening that section would take out the whiteness and make it pop less. I assure you that the highlights are not clipped (they're close), and the near pure white on the top of the dune is like that because, well, it was very bright and there wasn't much detail. At 100% you can still some very faint sparkles and sand shapes. Of course, I'd like to hear what you think too
Very cool, very graphic. I'd say it's too contrasty, only because there's almost no detail in the whites of the LLC. I'm sure it looks great in print though. Where is this? It looks like you jammed together death valley and painted hills
ajkessler wrote:
Very cool, very graphic. I'd say it's too contrasty, only because there's almost no detail in the whites of the LLC. I'm sure it looks great in print though. Where is this? It looks like you jammed together death valley and painted hills
Thanks
Having just set up my brand new epson 7880 I made this the first test run for fun. And the whites are most certainly a touch gray, so I think it looks pretty good in print (especially with the touch of noise I like to add).
You free next march? I plan to revisit then... I'll take you there if you like
No doubt it works as a print with more discernible detail in the bright area, but for web presentation; too much too bright - maybe if the bright was less so, or not such a large area? Actually, my first thought was 'two triangular images' - the lower left half and the upper right half .
Wonderful abstract feel. The high contrast (FG) doesn't bother me at all, there remain plenty of ripple textures in that dune. I would perhaps try for a more symmetric image, a diagonal line bissecting the image in two triangles of roughly similar size, bright dune below, the rest in the shadows above.
No doubt it works as a print with more discernible detail in the bright area, but for web presentation; too much too bright - maybe if the bright was less so, or not such a large area? Actually, my first thought was 'two triangular images' - the lower left half and the upper right half .
hugh
Thanks Hugh - out of curiosity do you (and others?) process for the print, or the screen, or do you process separately for each? I've been working on training myself to see the print in the screen, and process as such. No time to process for both
Interesting indeed. I think I like the imperfections in the sand - for me at least, they take the image just slightly away from being a pure abstract towards a sense of an actual place.
Syntacs wrote:
Interesting indeed. I think I like the imperfections in the sand - for me at least, they take the image just slightly away from being a pure abstract towards a sense of an actual place.
Thanks - I knew I wanted to keep them in, just because while at small sizes they might be distracting, when printed its those little imperfections that give it the authenticity - and as you said, a sense of a real place. Dust bunnies aren't welcome, but little twigs are
.