Country Road: Digital Color and/or Film B&W?

Digital color image:



Film B&W

Neither. My favourite part of the image in both examples is the ridge along the left side of the road. Has kind of an HP5 look in the black and white example.

The problem with the colour example is the red truck. Otherwise it looks a lot like Ektar. If I were to guess I would say that it is Ektar overexposed. The orange in the hill is too much. If the composition was a bit different I would go with the colour image.

I would concentrate on composition, both of them are messy and look like they were taken with out much thought. Whats the point of intrest ? You havent used the colours very well in the first and although it looks like an interesting setting in the second you haven't worked it well. Need to work your foregrounds, mid grounds and back grounds better, need to work the lines, you have the road, but miss the fence and telegraph poles. The horses, fence post or telegraph pole would work in the foreground, perhaps some colour in the foreground in the first. Landscapes are difficult to do well, I tend to keep them simple work your 3's and 3rds, when you get better you can be more elaborate.....bend your knees.

I really like the color version, everything about it, even the twisty utility line that you can barely see. The composition and colors really give me a sense of place, and while Paul didn't like the red truck, I think it is great ( sense of place, material culture &c ). It looks like a film still...

Thanks for the feedback. I was playing with B&W and filtration involving the superbloom flowers (mainly yellow and orange). Color definitely makes sense, but B&W also can be interesting too. I was shooting digital (color + B&W after RAW processing) and B&W film. Here is a sampling:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=superbloom

I might be wrong but the B&W looks a little "too white" i.e. there isn't quite enough detail in the highlight areas for my taste. A slightly shorter exposure under the enlarger and possibly a slight increase in contrast filter would do the trick. Largely speaking colour doesn't have the problem of contrast as does B&W and in certain scenes it can be critical. I know nothing of scanning but I am sure my reference to enlarger exposure and print contrast can be turned into their scanning equivalents

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

I might be wrong but the B&W looks a little "too white" i.e. there isn't quite enough detail in the highlight areas for my taste. A slightly shorter exposure under the enlarger and possibly a slight increase in contrast filter would do the trick. Largely speaking colour doesn't have the problem of contrast as does B&W and in certain scenes it can be critical. I know nothing of scanning but I am sure my reference to enlarger exposure and print contrast can be turned into their scanning equivalents

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

With digital, I do have more control. This is a similar situation using digital:

Poppy Covered Hills by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Yes quite a bit better but the river still lacks detail to the extent that only a close look made me decide that it was a river and not a "light dirt road We may, of course, have different views on what constitutes good highlight detail

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Yes quite a bit better but the river still lacks detail to the extent that only a close look made me decide that it was a river and not a "light dirt road We may, of course, have different views on what constitutes good highlight detail

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

You are challenging me here ! Always a good thing.

Looks better. In terms of B&W contrast I'd still darken the river. A lot would depend on how much more exposure the river requires compared to the hills. In my view, even the hills could take an increased exposure so the extra exposure then needed for the river might then be quite small but even if there was some appreciable burning of the river was required then a shaped dodger for the rest of the picture would not be that difficult to make.

Of course if you are a hybrid worker then in practical terms what I am advising is irrelevant except in how you translate this into instructions to the computer

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Looks better. In terms of B&W contrast I'd still darken the river. A lot would depend on how much more exposure the river requires compared to the hills. In my view, even the hills could take an increased exposure so the extra exposure then needed for the river might then be quite small but even if there was some appreciable burning of the river was required then a shaped dodger for the rest of the picture would not be that difficult to make.

Of course if you are a hybrid worker then in practical terms what I am advising is irrelevant except in how you translate this into instructions to the computer

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

This one is digital only. I do have a lot of control. I wonder how much depends on monitor settings. My monitor is turned way down in terms of brightness (to look closer to a print).