#photo #monochrome #oldbuildings #art #mnartists
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
6 points (80.0% liked)
Photography
4529 readers
4 users here now
A community to post about photography:
We allow a wide range of topics here including; your own images, technical questions, gear talk, photography blogs etc. Please be respectful and don't spam.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah - using a mobile phone, I should have guessed, and a phone does suit what you are trying to achieve. It also means you are not carrying around a bulky expensive thing, which is a bonus.
Shooting Black & White is a different sort of limitation: to me B&W only suits scenes where there is very little colour variation, as otherwise you are just throwing away information (yes, I have a computer background!) which feels wrong. Looking back on what you've posted, (in my opinion) you've generally stuck to images where B&W works.
I'd love to find a small digital rangefinder with a larger lens to carry everywhere with me. 25 years ago I always carried Grandpa's Yashica Lynx 14e and 4 rolls of Tri-X with me "just in case". It was fun.
I like how the approach to black and white photography is different from color. For B&W I concentrate on contrast and form as well as the subject but with color my focus is on saturation and the 'shape' of color. I don't think information is thrown away. I think it's about working with the strengths and parameters of the medium.
Or sometimes it's just play. Astronomatopoeia is play.
I'm pretty sure you don't suffer from this problem (especially as you recognise B&W needs a different approach), but I came across too many photos where it was clear the photographer had just presented their shot as B&W because that's "Artistic" (and no other reason) while there was almost certainly good colour in the scene they took a photo of - it's those cases where I see it as throwing away information.
Ahhh yes! I know exactly what you mean. You can see "artistic" talent right away. I think it comes from a lack of art education or inexperience or you've encountered a marketing rep. But then again, we've all put out art because that's what we thought art is supposed to be.
Here's a question I ask my artist friends from time to time: can you instinctively see or notice high art / low art, more talent / less talent regardless of finished work? And, considering your answer, do you think there's a universal aesthetic in which everyone can agree that there is definitely good art and bad art?
It's good art if it satisfies the soul of its creator ... if it satisfies anyone else, that's just a side benefit.
You rock