Durdle Door, B&W

[Vieri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Next week I'll be again working in Dorset, and this image (taken there during a Workshop One-on-One last December) came to my mind. This is the famous Durdle Door, but the sky that evening inspired me to go for a very long exposure, 200 seconds for a very dramatic B&W. Leica SL, Voigtlander 15mm Super-Wide-Heliar and Formatt-Hitech Firecrest filters.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Thank you for viewing, best regards

Vieri

[stuny]

Beautiful, dreamy.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[A miller]

indeed, I like the B&W conversions form the SL.  The colors from the long exposures and use of ND filters leave a lot to be desired, me thinks.

[Vieri]

On 11/15/2018 at 1:52 PM, stuny said:

Beautiful, dreamy.

Thank you very much indeed, Stuart!

On 11/18/2018 at 12:41 AM, A miller said:

indeed, I like the B&W conversions form the SL.  The colors from the long exposures and use of ND filters leave a lot to be desired, me thinks.

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it! About the colour images with LE, I don't find that they lack anything - perhaps you'd like to expand a bit?

Best regards,

Vieri

[Michael Hiles]

Impressive picture – a beautiful area. Walking is great all along the Dorset coast.

[A miller]

4 hours ago, Vieri said:

Thank you very much indeed, Stuart!

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it! About the colour images with LE, I don't find that they lack anything - perhaps you'd like to expand a bit?

Best regards,

Vieri

I am very much not a fan of the way the colors from the SL sensor are rendered in the long exposures.  The earth tones look plastic and sterile and the colors from the morning or evening sky are generally not luscious like they are (or at least like they can be) on film.  To me, nothing beats film with these long exposures.  My eyes have been sensitized in this way.  For many others, it is the opposite.  

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, A miller said:

 My eyes have been sensitized in this way.  For many others, it is the opposite.  

Therein lies the issue with all the subjective views about long exposure images, particularly at sunrise/sunset......

In low light levels the human eye progressively loses sensitivity to colour .... so images can often look very over-saturated in comparison if exposed 'correctly'...... or with a different colour palette as illumination is often reflected light off clouds etc. 

I doubt that film or digital sensors will produce images that look 'natural' in these circumstances ..... it's all then just a matter of taste.

Very long daylight exposures on the SL - with colour neutral ND filters - have a colour profile that is the same as short exposures ..... in my experience anyway.

There are similar issues with the milky way in astrophotography and aurora ....... none of the processed images remotely resemble what the human eye actually sees.... 

Edited November 30, 2018 by thighslapper

[pedaes]

11 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

Therein lies the issue with all the subjective views about long exposure images, particularly at sunrise/sunset......

In low light levels the human eye progressively loses sensitivity to colour .... so images can often look very over-saturated in comparison if exposed 'correctly'...... or with a different colour palette as illumination is often reflected light off clouds etc. 

I doubt that film or digital sensors will produce images that look 'natural' in these circumstances ..... it's all then just a matter of taste.

Very long daylight exposures on the SL - with colour neutral ND filters - have a colour profile that is the same as short exposures ..... in my experience anyway.

There are similar issues with the milky way in astrophotography and aurora ....... none of the processed images remotely resemble what the human eye actually sees.... 

So true. I don't think many would be pleased with their aurora images if they reproduced what the human eye renders.

[A miller]

9 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

Therein lies the issue with all the subjective views about long exposure images, particularly at sunrise/sunset......

In low light levels the human eye progressively loses sensitivity to colour .... so images can often look very over-saturated in comparison if exposed 'correctly'...... or with a different colour palette as illumination is often reflected light off clouds etc. 

I doubt that film or digital sensors will produce images that look 'natural' in these circumstances ..... it's all then just a matter of taste.

Very long daylight exposures on the SL - with colour neutral ND filters - have a colour profile that is the same as short exposures ..... in my experience anyway.

There are similar issues with the milky way in astrophotography and aurora ....... none of the processed images remotely resemble what the human eye actually sees.... 

Yes indeed, subjective it is.  And then there is emotional investment that people have in their expensive gear.  This has a tendency to get in the way of objectivity.  But please don't misunderstand where I am coming from or what I said.  I never suggested that shooting long exposures with film produces more natural colors.  This is most certainly not the case and I don't believe this.  Difference film stocks will produce different color palettes, which will range from real to very surreal.  Very surreal can be stunningly beautiful.  

I just don't get the same aesthetic beauty from these SL files.  There is something about the transition between the tones, the sterile colors (even when the photo is very colorful, if that makes any sense) and the one dimension aspect. 

Again, very subjective and I am speaking only for myself, who wouldn't know what do with a digital camera if I had a gun to my head.  But I do a LOT of viewing here and elsewhere of both film and digital files..

 

[fotografr]

Beautiful image and powerful as b&w. Looking at it, I have no desire to even see the color version. Great work.

[thighslapper]

On 11/30/2018 at 5:49 PM, A miller said:

Yes indeed, subjective it is.  And then there is emotional investment that people have in their expensive gear.  This has a tendency to get in the way of objectivity.  But please don't misunderstand where I am coming from or what I said.  I never suggested that shooting long exposures with film produces more natural colors.  This is most certainly not the case and I don't believe this.  Difference film stocks will produce different color palettes, which will range from real to very surreal.  Very surreal can be stunningly beautiful.  

I just don't get the same aesthetic beauty from these SL files.  There is something about the transition between the tones, the sterile colors (even when the photo is very colorful, if that makes any sense) and the one dimension aspect. 

Again, very subjective and I am speaking only for myself, who wouldn't know what do with a digital camera if I had a gun to my head.  But I do a LOT of viewing here and elsewhere of both film and digital files..

 

Ah ...... the hoary old chestnuts ....... objectivity and subjectivity ...... and the unfortunate human tendency for one to drift into the other 

I think perhaps we should all stick to statements of the 'I prefer' rather than 'is better than ' ...... when it comes to passing comment .... at least then you don't end up in rather pointless arguments. 

Thankfully we all have different tastes otherwise we we all be using identical cameras and producing boringly uniform images ..... 

[A miller]

43 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

Ah ...... the hoary old chestnuts ....... objectivity and subjectivity ...... and the unfortunate human tendency for one to drift into the other 

I think perhaps we should all stick to statements of the 'I prefer' rather than 'is better than ' ...... when it comes to passing comment .... at least then you don't end up in rather pointless arguments. 

Thankfully we all have different tastes otherwise we we all be using identical cameras and producing boringly uniform images ..... 

The only bone I have to pick with you - which is really a pet peeve of mine on this forum - is the accusation that I am stating something other than my personal opinion and pontificating as to what something is as a matter of fact. 

Please look carefully at the statements that I have made in this thread and it will be very clear to you that I have stated nothing other than my own opinion.  

************************

 "indeed, I like the B&W conversions form the SL.  The colors from the long exposures and use of ND filters leave a lot to be desired, me thinks."

*********

"I am very much not a fan of the way the colors from the SL sensor are rendered in the long exposures.  The earth tones look plastic and sterile and the colors from the morning or evening sky are generally not luscious like they are (or at least like they can be) on film.  To me, nothing beats film with these long exposures.  My eyes have been sensitized in this way.  For many others, it is the opposite.  "

*************

Yes indeed, subjective it is.  And then there is emotional investment that people have in their expensive gear.  This has a tendency to get in the way of objectivity.  But please don't misunderstand where I am coming from or what I said.  I never suggested that shooting long exposures with film produces more natural colors.  This is most certainly not the case and I don't believe this.  Difference film stocks will produce different color palettes, which will range from real to very surreal.  Very surreal can be stunningly beautiful.  

I just don't get the same aesthetic beauty from these SL files.  There is something about the transition between the tones, the sterile colors (even when the photo is very colorful, if that makes any sense) and the one dimension aspect. 

Again, very subjective and I am speaking only for myself, who wouldn't know what do with a digital camera if I had a gun to my head.  But I do a LOT of viewing here and elsewhere of both film and digital files..

Any more qualifications would most certainly be a case of over-lawyering.   And I will say - in case it hasn't ben made clear enough -  that in my opinion many if not most of the landscapes that I see in this subform are uniformingly boring, and many are from the SL, for the reasons that I have articulated.  There, I said it!   

The whole "objectivity vs subjectivity" thing is really what makes this forum tick.  You will blindly use it when you want to try to shut down criticism that you don't want to hear.  But if all the commentary on this forum were objective it would be less than half as useful and interesting.  You have given plenty of subjective perspectives on this thread, as have the others that have commented.  It's called feedback, opinion and analysis, much of which is very valuable to people.  Wikipedia is also valuable, but that ain't what LUF is.  

I wish you were more engaging and-  if anything-  just take my points for what they are (MY OPINION!!) and then just disagree if you have to (counter with your view, etc) and move on...

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by A miller