Because it SNOWED today...
...we're going to have a little reader poll here at Something Beautiful.
I photographed these tree roots at Dumbarton Oaks the other day. One of these images was rendered in grayscale directly from the RAW file in Lightroom and then adjusted. The other was tweaked in Silver EFX.
Can you guess which is which?
And, in any case, which do you prefer?
(As always, please look at large versions rather than thumbnails to decide.)
A:
or
B:
I find that preferences in black & white vary tremendously, and that people are quite passionate about how they like their monochrome images structured. I await your responses with great interest!
I photographed these tree roots at Dumbarton Oaks the other day. One of these images was rendered in grayscale directly from the RAW file in Lightroom and then adjusted. The other was tweaked in Silver EFX.
Can you guess which is which?
And, in any case, which do you prefer?
(As always, please look at large versions rather than thumbnails to decide.)
A:
or
B:
I find that preferences in black & white vary tremendously, and that people are quite passionate about how they like their monochrome images structured. I await your responses with great interest!
posted by NT at
11:59 PM
5 Comments:
I don't know your softwares, but I choose A as most pleasing. B seems more processed, A seems more warm and natural, while still retaining detail. I could force more comments, but those are my first impressions.
And the official photographic term is "Embiggen," not "Large!"
It's not easy to make me feel clueless, but you're succeeding. I have no idea what the two software packages are supposed to be for, or why one would use one instead of the other. Worse, the photos look so nearly identical to me that I'm tempted to think they ARE identical, and you're pulling our collective leg, to see who will say they like the emperor's new clothes, and who will be as honest as the little boy and say they see nothing. I don't really think you'd do that, though, which means that I'm being the visual equivalent of tone-deaf. That's an unpleasant realization. I think I would have to have them printed on photographic paper, then have you walk me through the differences you see. Then do it again on 10 more pairs of pics, and maybe I would start to see what I'm currently missing.
But at least I have grounds for thinking I'm capable of learning. When I decided I wanted to learn about opera, it was all a big, undifferentiated bunch of noise. But I took three classes at the university where I was working, and learned why some voices are better suited to certain roles than others, why some work better in large theaters, some in small, and still others in recording studios. I also developed a taste of my own. In one of the classic divides of the opera world, I much prefer Sutherland to Callas. I'd rather hear Pavarotti on CD but Domingo on stage. Etc.
So I may be visually retarded, but I'm probably educably retarded. Clearly not ready for quizzes yet, though!
I liked A better in the small version but then I read your admonishment to look at the full size images.
It was tougher to decide with the larger versions but I still find myself drawn more to A than B. I think it feels more 'natural' than B.
When I look at B&W, the first thing that I look for is range of tone ( a difficult feat with nature shots). It's a holdover from the few photog classes I took in college. Yet, because of this, I prefer 'B'. That said, if I didn't have 'B' to compare against 'A', I would find 'A' suitable.
Like others who have commented, I haven't a clue about the software.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home