50 against the day

[Bill Allsopp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M9 and 50mm Summarit this time.

 

[ATTACH]349500[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]349502[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]349501[/ATTACH]

[J_Thompson]

My choice is your second image. Nice qualities.

[erl]

Bill, here is my feedback. I like backlight, it is my preferred style so your pics 'speak' to me, but I feel you images as presented are a bit too 'heavy'. IMO the would benefit from being 'opened up' a bit. My experience with such light situations is that it is very bright and one needs to squint to see into the scene ahead. With your pics I want to turn the lights on a bit more!

 

In the displayed images, too much detail is presented. It is not representative of a real situation, IMO. I think you have shown what detail your equipment can deliver when in your hands but it is not how the normal 'joe' sees such things.

 

Of course, you may be well aware of this and decided to show what is not normally seen by an observer. That is totally fine. OTOH, you may be totally happy with your representation, and it is yours, not mine, so feel free to disregard my comments because they are only my opinion, not gospel.

[Bill Allsopp]

Thanks for your comments and taking the time to reply comprehensively Erl. It was a conscious decision to open the shadows to this point. I do agree however this is more detail than my eye could see at the time; as you can imagine t it was so bright I could not look into the sun without shading my eyes.

[stuny]

Bill -

 

A terrific set, with #1 my favorite.

[pauledell]

Bill,

 

I find this series to be excellent as they stand using the back lighting and still having detail in the shaded areas as well as the tall shadows. My favorite is the second for its content and balance.

 

Paul

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice B&W conversion............silver efex pro ??

[Bill Allsopp]

Nice B&W conversion............silver efex pro ??

No, Lightroom 4 only!

(and no grads or brushes used).

[roguewave]

No, Lightroom 4 only!

(and no grads or brushes used).

 

Bill I appreciate your willingness to experiment & stretch out. There's a lot to look at and the details are exceptional. It's a good start, especially for someone that has already mastered a different idiom & style with your divine landscapes. Here is where I think some additional processing, which requires a more in depth understanding, if not real facility with Photoshop, not just LR, comes into play.

 

You have a wonderful eye and when I view your landscapes I am driven to the locus of the story by your ability to tell the story, which includes the periphery, as a tool to support your central subject, story, or theme.

 

Here, there isn't the subtlety that allows the viewer to swim around, guided by your interpretation of the "event". Here it comes like the force of a hurricane or blast radius that knocks you out.

 

Somewhere, if you are at all interested, there is a method and modality to weave it all together, as you really intended to. Photoshop has the tools & I can only imagine all the delight that Forum members will delight in, if you embrace that challenge.

 

The LR brushes are a reasonable beginning, but aren't fine enough tools for an artist of your stature.

 

There's wonderful & simple book that LUF member William Palank suggested to me that changed everything for me. It is Scott Kelby's 7 Point System. It's like a bible for serious work in Photoshop. I can only dream of the hours of pleasure I would enjoy when viewing new images from you with the additional skill set & paradigm. Love your work.

[Bill Allsopp]

...... Scott Kelby's 7 Point System........ Love your work.

Ben,

 

Thank you for your comments and a detailed and helpful reply. I have experience of one of Scott Kelby's books, an excellent starting point for Photoshop so I will search out the book you recommend.

 

As you are interested in image development and B&W you may find my own brief article of interest DIGITAL MONOCHROME METHODS and I would certainly recommend George DeWolfe's books "Digital Photography Fine Print Workshop" and to a lesser extent "B&W Printing." Nowhere near as easy a read as Scott Kelby but full of good info.

[roguewave]

Bill, I appreciate the references. I had a copy of De Wolfe's Fine Print Workshop, which I ended up forwarding to a close friend. Very fine exposition. I read your article sometime back. Very informative.

Here's my methodology: I never use any presets. I underscore the word NEVER.

 

I try my best to approach every image with a fresh view. I experiment with all the tools available until it feels "right'. What does that mean? Honestly, it's not based on logic, but what seems to be the best representation that conjures up the feeling and experience I remember when I let the shutter fall. I know it's not accurate nor repeatable, but it rings the bell for me.

 

I get my best B&W by converting to the LAB colorspace. It's very clean & exacting. It's also easy to reference against other images. One can calibrate the range of "blacks" numerically. Not to reuse but to help to understand the emotional - affective shades that drive parts of the image. I only wish that the Photoshop wizards would develop a direct B&W conversion within the LAB space. There are very subtle changes when you convert back to the Adobe colorspace.

 

I have found that there's often a world of difference between an "accurate" color and the color needed to make the conversion to B&W drive the image to the place I want it. To accomplish this, one often has to reconstruct the colors (via various methods) so as to create a separation between the most important elements of the B&W & what supports it.

 

Thanks again for your responding to my comments. I always learn something when viewing your work, as well enjoying it.

 

If I may, I'd like to demonstrate what I mean with a color & B&W version of a portrait processed in LAB.

 

[ATTACH]349661[/ATTACH]

 

 

[ATTACH]349662[/ATTACH]

[allamande]

Bill, a great set.

And Ben, thanks for your comments and discussion which I find very informative.

 

Ece

[Bill Allsopp]

I only wish that the Photoshop wizards would develop a direct B&W conversion within the LAB space.

 

 

Ben

 

Thanks for the further input, very much appreciated.

 

At least one LAB conversion method exists, it is the Gorman-Holbert (or Carr) Method of conversion, which is easy to set up as an action (I note you NEVER use them but when I record an action I do so with stops so I can change elements as I proceed and I will almost always want to have some further input at the end). I actions as a base to start from.

 

I have ordered the book you suggested.

 

Bill

[Bill Allsopp]

This is your colour portrait converted using the Gorman-Holbert method.

 

[ATTACH]349672[/ATTACH]

 

I hope you don't object.

[roguewave]

This is your colour portrait converted using the Gorman-Holbert method.

 

[ATTACH]349672[/ATTACH]

 

I hope you don't object.

 

Not at all. I do see some subtle differences. I think we would need the full file to flesh out all the subtle grades of tone to see the real results. I appreciate the dialog with you and this is what is so rich about the LUF. Thanks so much. Ben