Sunday, January 10, 2010

dark pictures... (and bright ones)

I went against my education here, and just killed all the detail in the shadows in Photoshop. It's not "right" technically, but it made the pictures more interesting, to me.
I quite like these now, actually. As straight photos, they were quite boring. Perhaps I have something to learn about going past Correct Technique.







And here are some you might call the "opposite":


These look interesting on a white background, so most of the edge disappears.

(Canon 5D2, 24mm F:1.4, set at 8.0 and ISO 640. Though these pretty much could be taken with any camera. At least until/if they are printed big.)

I've taken many photos of the snow in the past couple weeks, find them on my blog.

16 comments:

Charles said...

Nice use of contrast.

Rules can only take you so far...

eolake said...

Yes, there's that.
And also, the rules of the craft are different than rules of the art. The former are very tight, and the latter are so loose that they're hardly there.

If you want to make good documentation of something, photographs need to have good details and correct colors. But art can express anything, and who's to say what colors are "correct" and what details are needed.

Claudia said...

Eolake, These are nice photos. Two of them seem to have a retro feel, maybe because of the technique of eliminating shadows and the
rusty color of the background.

Suzannah said...

Great pics, Eeolake. Terrific contrast.  I hear almost of England has been covered with snow this past week.  We have it here in Gettysburg, too.
Stay warm, Suzannah

Anna said...

I thought F: 1,4 would give you only a little part of the picture clear... Did you take these pics with F:1,4 ?

I like the black ones, and the cars :-)

eolake said...

Thank you. I really like the dark ones also. It's funny, I have *never* had the balls to break the tech like this before.

I have now clarified the post: the pics were taken at 8.0, not at full aperture. Although since it's a very wide lens, the blur would not have been dramatic anyway. Not at all like the blur you get with a telelens.

Firebird said...

Unusual. Intruiging. They remind me of those early photographs that had almost no contrast. Good settings for gothic tales.

neeraj said...

I don't find the right words to express the atmosphere I'm feeling about the "dark trees", but anyway I like them.

I suppose to go beyond limits defined by "technically correct" is one essential aspect of art.

eolake said...

Thank you very much.

The bridge seems to have the most impact, judging by my emails. But the Trees was the first I made, and I have it sitting on my desktop now. And I do think it might be the deepest of them.

Although yesterday I printed the one with the fence in high-rez. It looks beautiful in print.

eolake said...

... You inspired me to print "Trees" also. (In a slightly more blue version.) I really like it.

If I'd presented them in my old photo club (or almost any club, I'm sure), I'd be bound to get comments on the lack of shadow details.
It's such a road to learn the technique, that most of us get stuck on that road.

Kevin said...

Of course, the rules provide us with a solid starting point and are important in that respect, a foundation to build airy fairy skyscrapers or launch ourselves into space to plunge to our doom haha

My best friend and roommate in college was an abstract artist, much to his family's dismay, but he could knock out classic still lifes and so on like you wouldn't believe! Once when his Mother asked him why he couldn't paint something 'nice' like a rose, so he did 'How to paint a Rose, Lesson #1' which started in the classic mode and quickly transformed into some sort of nightmarish fantasy of Rose-ness!

Interesting you should mention color (which is of course entirely subjective - numerous fascinating studies done rg our perception and memory of color) since I find the cool tones most appealing here (photos # 2 & 3 being among my favorites) and feel like they add to the starkness of the winter scenes. I've often wondered why monochromatic images are so appealing to me, any thoughts on that?

eolake said...

Good question.
My theory is that in a monochrome picture, while you have no colors, also you don't have any *clashing* colors.

neeraj said...

My theory is that in a monochrome picture, while you have no colors, also you don't have any *clashing* colors.

That's not just a little pet theory, it is based on the "Weber-Fechner Law" in biophysics, which tells quantitatively how our senses work: The more stimuli you have as background, the less you perceive differences, which results in a logarithmic sensitivity characteristic.

As an clear example: When you lit a match outside on a sunny day, you don't see much difference in the perception of this little additional light, but if you do the same in a dark room, a match is an explosion of light.

So, if you have no colors in a picture, you can see much better the differences in the greyscale.

neeraj said...

Addendum: There are artists doing monochromatic paintings - that's also an extreme example, where you get able to see the slightest changings within the color ...

Anonymous said...

I came here via 1001cameras, but none of these images strike me as worthwhile.

eolake said...

Sorry.