A naughty little bunny...
Nov 28, 2011
Reaction score
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
On my way back from checking the mail the sun was streaming through the trees so I took one of the pathways back to the house, I had my 100-400 on because there were some feathered and furry things on the move today. No critters cooperated so I checked out some branches for my black and white flower/foliage series, I quite like how this one turned out.

Would love to hear your thoughts, thanks for taking a look!

I like this. No, I love it! :thumbup::thumbup: Its perfect, don't change a thing. :)
not a fan of B&W but this is somehow compelling. Is there a colour version, pretty please?
honestly, it looks like there is something smeared on the lens. my eyes just cant seem to focus on anything. just not digging this one.
Thanks all :)

So a home run, a swing and a miss and a request to see the replay ;)
Baturn, yep I have the colour version, I process a colour file first for my B&W conversions, I'll post it when I'm on the computer in a bit.
I have to agree with pixmedic.
Thanks Chris.

I got to the computer sooner than I thought I would (waiting for the kettle to boil, need... coffee!)
Here is the colour version :

I like the color version much better. I feel like there is actually something in the picture to focus on.
That's super nice.

I *just* wrote a review of an old book collecting the photos from "Camera Work" and wrapped up by mentioning that the pictures in that book look nothing like anything we see today, and, here we are with a classic Pictorialist look, BOOM!

You obtained the look with OOF foreground elements rather than smashing up a gum bichromate print with your hands, but the look is very similar. This reads as an abstract to me, I like the interplay of soft moosh with the sharp branches behind, and the layout of the lines is quite nice.

If it were my picture, I would probably burn and dodge a bit to clarify and bring out a nice diagonal trend from darker tones upper left to lighter tones lower right. This is "Breadth" in the classic art world, and it's a nice thing.

There is slight problem with hierarchy here, you might also spend a little time burning and dodging to make one visual area more prominent, more dominant, and push the others down a bit, You have a couple of bright/sharp branches which are competing a little for my attention. If one was dominant and the others subordinate, I think this would make a little more visual sense. This is not a big deal, I quite like this as-is.
Are you guys playin' me? I hate to admit it, but I prefer the B&W.
Andrew, gotta love coincidences like that ;) Thanks for the insight, I may mess around a bit with the image and see what I come up with, I tried to enhance the light to dark with the colours in post but think I got it as far as I could that way.

I'm glad the image is tweaking interest whether it be in the colour or black and white version, it tells me I'm hitting marks and that is cool :)
I have the book 'Camera Work' and I don't really see the connection from this photo to that; this doesn't particularly seem like pictorialism.
I like the idea of this photo, seeing the pattern of the branches thru the out of focus foreground that frames it, but as mentioned already it's like trying to see thru smears - I don't think it works because there's not much of the photo that the viewer can actually see. I think this idea could work with the leaves softened or out of focus but not to the point that it feels like wanting to clean off something that's smeared to try to see it.

The photos in "Camera Work' taken from the published magazines of the early 1900s were photogravures. I don't know a lot about that process but it's different than doing darkroom prints in wet chemistry; it was apparently a way of printing where the image was etched into a printing plate. What Is Photogravure? | Follow the Stories | Antiques Roadshow | PBS Other photos in the book are halftones which were used in newspapers and consisted of small dots - David Cycleback references an article about the process on his website. (Cycleback) News Service, Wire Photos: a brief history

I think those techniques give the pictures in Camera Work a different quality than a direct photographic print from a negative.
The method used to create the softness is quite different, the impression of a sharp-ish image buried inside of an indistinct one is the best known of the Pictorialist idioms, though. If you don't see the visual connection to Pictorialism, well, that's ok with me. I see it, though.
Well damn, now I have to look up the book(s) and see for myself ;)

Most reactions

New Topics