| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2004 03:40:48 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by geewhy:
I understand what your saying and agree with it wholeheartedly.
However, I do feel that if by converting your image you give it more impact..then that`s a different matter. |
And, I understand what you are saying and agree with it wholeheartedly. :)
In fact, earlier in this thread I mentioned that I recently had a similar experience with one of my own photos. Only, instead of giving a good photo even more impact, I was trying to make the best of a bad situation. IOW, my colors sucked and I didn’t have time to re-shoot.
--Mick
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 03:55:22 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by geewhy:
I understand what your saying and agree with it wholeheartedly.
However, I do feel that if by converting your image you give it more impact..then that`s a different matter. |
And, I understand what you are saying and agree with it wholeheartedly. :)
In fact, earlier in this thread I mentioned that I recently had a similar experience with one of my own photos. Only, instead of giving a good photo even more impact, I was trying to make the best of a bad situation. IOW, my colors sucked and I didn’t have time to re-shoot.
--Mick |
Yep, been there too Mick :) |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 04:06:34 PM · #103 |
 
ok, so to all the "duotones suck" crowd:
You look at those two images, and tell me that the original image is better than the final version that ended up in 5th place.
Sometimes just sometimes maybe it really does make for a better image. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 04:12:56 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
ok, so to all the "duotones suck" crowd:
You look at those two images, and tell me that the original image is better than the final version that ended up in 5th place.
Sometimes just sometimes maybe it really does make for a better image. |
I`m going to court controversy here (judging from previous posts on the subject)and go for a mix of the two...ie...the one you submitted but with the yellow line left in. In my opinion, this type of situation is where partial desat can be very effective.
Gordon |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 04:14:12 PM · #105 |
Pedro - I have loved many of the photos here labeled duotone (although anything can be done badly or over-done). However, when I see them, I am not sure if I am seeing the difference between them and a B & W sometimes, and then there are also the B & W's with one item "colorized". Can you halp clarify this for me?
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 04:17:40 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
I thought this site was for the purpose of learning to take great photos, not necessarily to take a photo that fits within someone elses idea of a genre. The technical aspects of photography that all photography hold in common are sufficiently complex to warrant a site like this. What purpose these technical aspects are put to use toward are, for the most part, irrelevant to the purpose of the site as I understand it.
Oh, and I quite disagree with any statement that the technical aspects of photography are easily learned by a child (not picking on you frumoaznicul as I understand in the translation you were merely trying to indicate its simplicity). But any of the photos posted here can be improved by a more precise understanding and application of these technical aspects. Sure they are the basic tools of the trade, but they make the details, and the details in turn make a masterpiece what it is.
David |
There are plenty of technically excellent shots that are awful photographs, just as many of the photographs widely recognized as great photographs are far from perfection technically. Should DPC merely be a site devoted to mastering the technical aspects of photography? That's all well and good if all yopu want to do is catalog shots for supermarket weekly ads. What about creating an aesthetically pleasing image? Is that less important than having the "correct" aperture and shutter speed?
As far as a child being able to learn the technical aspects of photography, I would have to say that it depends on the child. I started taking photos when I was about 10, with a Canon FT that had a match needle light meter. While I certainly did not create great works of art, I was able to understand the principles of how the camera worked and used that camera quite well to document my world in technically well-executed photos. I even managed to successfully learn to use flash, which was quite a bit more work then than it is now with E-TTL and Auto everything.
Also of interest is Jacques Henri Lartigue, he started using his father's camera at the age of 6. Given the time, I'm sure his camera was even less advanced than my Canon FT.
While certainly, some of the more subtle technical points in photography are beyond the grasp of most children, they are also beyond the grasp of many adults.
Message edited by author 2004-05-25 16:28:14.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 04:36:13 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
Pedro - I have loved many of the photos here labeled duotone (although anything can be done badly or over-done). However, when I see them, I am not sure if I am seeing the difference between them and a B & W sometimes, and then there are also the B & W's with one item "colorized". Can you halp clarify this for me? |
A Duotone takes a monochrome grayscale image and allows you to take the tonal range (from lightest to darkest), and allocate a different colour to specific part of the tonal range. You can for example make the highlights red and the shadows green (though i have no idea why you'd want to ;)) Black and White IS a duotone; the tones are Black and White.
Mine is more of a deep blue/purple and white (actually light blue, not white). Tritones have three colours, quadtones have 4. make sense? |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 04:46:39 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by melismatica:
A lot of digital photography buffs seem to favor photos like those wretched duotone images. I think that's the term for the desaturated images with one area of color left in--- cheesy no matter how skillfully it is done. |
Actually the "one color left in" thing is probably more properly called selective desaturation. A duotone is simply a tinted B&W image; something like this:
 |
Thanks for the clarification. I actually enjoy well done duotone. I strongly dislike, selective desaturation.
Sorry to introduce the confusion. I'll try to get my terminology straight next time. :D
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 04:50:39 PM · #109 |
| I, too, may be confused between duotones and 'spot color' and the application thereof. Pedro's 'duotone' road shot is great. However, if everything were B&W except for, say, the yellow lines in the road...it would probably suck. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 04:57:10 PM · #110 |
I guess I don't have very good eyes or a bad monitor. So I would see a different overall tint to a duotone? Whereas the other type is when one part is obviously a stand out color on an otherwise gray-scale background?
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 05:05:14 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
I guess I don't have very good eyes or a bad monitor. So I would see a different overall tint to a duotone? Whereas the other type is when one part is obviously a stand out color on an otherwise gray-scale background? |
Right. a duotone actually replaces one of the tones throughout the whole image, rather than just in one specific spot. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 05:25:36 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Olympian:
I totally agree with you on this one coolhar! One of the best technical shots of a dandilion I've seen. Just gorgeous to look at. Well done!
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think ellamay's Just Dandy is underrated, it's far better than scrap.
She's my choice for Dandy Queen! |
|
Ellamay rocks!! |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 05:53:01 PM · #113 |
I like the duo tone better. I think the reason why it adds depth to the photo to an otherwise boring photo.
Originally posted by geewhy:
Originally posted by Pedro:
ok, so to all the "duotones suck" crowd:
You look at those two images, and tell me that the original image is better than the final version that ended up in 5th place.
Sometimes just sometimes maybe it really does make for a better image. |
I`m going to court controversy here (judging from previous posts on the subject)and go for a mix of the two...ie...the one you submitted but with the yellow line left in. In my opinion, this type of situation is where partial desat can be very effective.
Gordon |
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 05:59:17 PM · #114 |
here is my favorite from the centered group that was definitely underrated. in color and FANTASTIC!!
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 06:19:06 PM · #115 |
Daisy's pick reminded me of Sp00f's The Welder, which is one of my all time favorites.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 01:21:49 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by Kylie:
I guess I don't have very good eyes or a bad monitor. So I would see a different overall tint to a duotone? Whereas the other type is when one part is obviously a stand out color on an otherwise gray-scale background? |
Right. a duotone actually replaces one of the tones throughout the whole image, rather than just in one specific spot. |
not necessarily kylie. there are indeed some duo/tri/quadtones that you can easily pick out due to a more vibrant color using a toning such as as a shade of magenta, for example, that makes the general picture stand out. but there are many examples of duotoning--(which are essentially quadtones in my experience) that come close to mimicking the essence of black and white film--so you may or may not not detect the difference. i have no idea the specifics that go into that--i only know what i see, and so far my eye has been good to me. ;)
the other situation that (which i am not particularily fond of personally) you mentioned is simply desaturation which is just another technique, and up to the photographer whether or not they duotone the shot to begin with.
i personally never consider one of my B&W shots done until it is properly 'duotoned' by my own recipe, but that's just me. |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 01:33:17 AM · #117 |
Black and white is a Monotone, not a Duotone; the paper/matrix/white doesn't count as a "color" -- remember these terms came mostly from the printing side of things, where you'd be applying two inks to the paper.
In photography, you'd essentially "stain" the white paper to a slightly different color after the image was developed.
Photoshop too would only recognize the white as a "color" if you picked it in the Duotone Mode setup box; printing with white ink is rare (and a good thing 'cause it's a PAIN!). |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 02:12:13 AM · #118 |
this is true general, and i certainly wont debate the specifics--all i know is what i see. and to me--with my own B&W shots, i dont even bother with channel mixing and certainly never leave a shot at greyscale--if i were to use those--it would only be the beginning--prior to my duotoning (whatever) step, where what to my eye-- B&W should look like.
so it does end up that what i call B&W, are in effect, toned. and im cool with that. :) |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 03:41:12 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I like the duo tone better. I think the reason why it adds depth to the photo to an otherwise boring photo.
Originally posted by geewhy:
Originally posted by Pedro:
ok, so to all the "duotones suck" crowd:
You look at those two images, and tell me that the original image is better than the final version that ended up in 5th place.
Sometimes just sometimes maybe it really does make for a better image. |
I`m going to court controversy here (judging from previous posts on the subject)and go for a mix of the two...ie...the one you submitted but with the yellow line left in. In my opinion, this type of situation is where partial desat can be very effective.
Gordon |
|
I'd have to disagree with that.
I think upping the contrast and vignetting the photo helped it more than the duotone.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 03:50:31 AM · #120 |
What's really interesting is that 29 put Scrap in theyr favorites and only 13, the blue ribbon shot, 16 the red and 3??? for the yellow. Speaking of user's choice and votes I find this really interesting... But probably that's just me again...
PS. The yellow ribbon is a great shot, I'm sure most voted it because it's a clean insect macro with good details, but I don't even whant to see that, I see the perfect color composition. Let's make that 4 favorites.
Message edited by author 2004-05-26 04:04:20. |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 04:25:22 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by movieman:
I'd have to disagree with that.
I think upping the contrast and vignetting the photo helped it more than the duotone. |
Sorry, qupted the wrong part. |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 04:29:58 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Britannica:
I thought this site was for the purpose of learning to take great photos, not necessarily to take a photo that fits within someone elses idea of a genre. The technical aspects of photography that all photography hold in common are sufficiently complex to warrant a site like this. What purpose these technical aspects are put to use toward are, for the most part, irrelevant to the purpose of the site as I understand it.
Oh, and I quite disagree with any statement that the technical aspects of photography are easily learned by a child (not picking on you frumoaznicul as I understand in the translation you were merely trying to indicate its simplicity). But any of the photos posted here can be improved by a more precise understanding and application of these technical aspects. Sure they are the basic tools of the trade, but they make the details, and the details in turn make a masterpiece what it is.
David |
There are plenty of technically excellent shots that are awful photographs, just as many of the photographs widely recognized as great photographs are far from perfection technically. Should DPC merely be a site devoted to mastering the technical aspects of photography? That's all well and good if all yopu want to do is catalog shots for supermarket weekly ads. What about creating an aesthetically pleasing image? Is that less important than having the "correct" aperture and shutter speed? |
The aesthetically pleasing image is pleasing because of the mastery in the use of the technical aspects that went into its creation. Take engineering as an example; there are many examples of architectural works of art, but each and every one of them abide by the engineering principles of architecture (and the physical laws behind the principles). But, there are some that appear to ignore some of these principles, indeed some of them even appear to ignore the laws of physics. Such as the great vaulted ceilings and the suspension bridges that seem to defy gravity. They do not of course, the architects are simply showing their mastery of the basic technical aspects of their craft. An architectual work of art would fall to the ground in a pile of rubble if the architect ignored the technical aspects, no matter how beautifully conceived. Instead, they know the basics so well they can appear to ignore them; while in fact they are using these same technical aspects much more heavily. Instead of taking the obvious balance in the composition, these masters of their craft deemphasize one (or a few) of the technical aspects while using other technical aspects to compensate for the deemphasis. By spreading the compensation out over several of the other technical aspects, a subtlety is achieved.
(post size limit? ... continued in next post) |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 04:30:58 AM · #123 |
(continued from previous post)
The same is true of any activity ... the same is true of photography. The good photographers have mastered one or two of the technical aspects of photography to the degree their use is so subtle they appear to have been ignored completely, the greats have mastered a handful or more but the rare, true master of the craft has mastered them all.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke
Looking at the works of the masters, their 'sufficiently advanced' use of the technological aspects of their craft can be indistiquishable from magic (usually labelled 'talent'), but it is still there -- just as the laws are physics still apply to the great architectural masterpieces. This is great, but it can become a problem if someone decides they believe in magic, and try to continue on while neglecting to continue to build on the basic foundation that is supporting them. They very soon find they have hit a 'ceiling' of what their 'talent' will allow them to achieve, when in fact they have limited their own potential by neglecting to continue to expand upon the foundation of basics. Mastery of something is a measure of control, and it is the basic technical aspects that are being controlled. The mastery is in the subtlety of their use.
Aesthetics originates inside the individual, in their having something to say, not in the technical aspects of the craft they choose to say it with. The technical aspects of the craft can be learned and mastered, and once mastered the craft can be used to convey the aesthetics.
David
This is of course just my personal view; you are entitled to your own. |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 06:30:30 AM · #124 |
Very nice post David. Thankyou.
Ed
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 07:03:52 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
(post size limit? ... continued in next post) |
Just an FYI: although there is probably some post size limit, it is fairly large. But there is a Preview bug where only the beginning of your post is displayed. =] Known issue, on the list, might be fixed someday, etc. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 10:24:00 PM EDT.
