Colour or B&W please?

dinneenp

Hi,
I'm not sure which I prefer so just looking for opinions- thanks in advance





Thanks in advance,
Pa.

pixbyjohn

Colour for me is more interesting

AnimalRights

I checked ur exif and u shot at f18 yet it isn't very sharp? Did u not have a tripod to shoot at such a high aperture?
2nd pic look's a bit better cos it look's slightly sharper, that sort of wide detailed pic should always be as sharp as possible to see the detail.

In colour I always find Red and Blue to strong and distracting so I tend to either dumb down those colours or do a BW.

challengemaster

If I'm being honest, I'd have binned it without a second thought.

Sabre Man

I prefer the colour version.

swingking

I like the colour version. The black and white looks a little flat

AnCatDubh

black and white for me Pa, but i'd work a little on the contrast.

pullandbang

Have to agree with challengemaster, dump both of them. Totally uninteresting shot with the main subjects at the extreme edges.

Take a shot of either the boat on the right or building on the left.

Deadlie

OP comes in and politely asks for opinion on which you prefer. Posters tell him its sh*te and he should bin it.

Stay classy Photography Forum.

Daveysil15

Yeah the OP wasn't asking for critique. I prefer the B&W - it just looks more interesting.

dinneenp

I don't mind some c&c.

The sign right of center says Port of Cork so the boat, sign and water are meant to show the port and the skyscraper showing new development of Cork.

SamAK

First thing that I thought - Quite a modern scene, with the boat on the right and tall building. B&W doesn't really suit such modernity

So I prefer the colour one, although it looks like it could belong in a 'Visit Ireland' tourism brochure..

That's the opinion of a complete and utter photography noob, by the way.

amdgilmore

I'm on the 'reshoot it' side, tbh. I don't think you've achieved the goal you mention above. I wouldn't even have noticed the port of cork sign had you not mentioned it.

Forced to choose: If I were looking at that scene in person, I would have said that there was no reason for it be shot in b&w. And honestly there's not much in the final shot to warrant a conversion. The light is too flat and as a result there are no shadows and not much contrast. You can boost the contrast in post, sure, but it won't help much.

Stick with colour and try to bring out some of the dusky colour in the sky, or discard and shoot again.

kelly1

Hard to decide. Probably the b/w but it need a bit of processing - increased exposure and contrast.

I know you didn't ask for C+C but I think the main problem is that there is no clearly discernible subject. The two areas of interest are pushed out to the sides.

pullandbang

Deadlie wrote: »

OP comes in and politely asks for opinion on which you prefer. Posters tell him its sh*te and he should bin it.

Stay classy Photography Forum.

You're the only poster using the word sh*te, so yeah keep it classy....

AnimalRights

Dineenpa is a long time user here and if we didn't say anything about an average picture that slipped through his radar we wouldn't be his fellow boardsies :P

I'd reshoot it....

It def def has to be sharper whatever the merits are of the composition.

I am not even a landscape photoographer but u have to have clarity/detail in that type of shot.

amdgilmore

AnimalRights wrote: »

Dineenpa is a long time user here and if we didn't say anything about an average picture that slipped through his radar we wouldn't be his fellow boardsies :P

I'd reshoot it....

It def def has to be sharper whatever the merits are of the composition.

I am not even a landscape photoographer but u have to have clarity/detail in that type of shot.

Regarding the sharpness, I think the problem is that it was shot at f/18. There's a common belief that smaller apertures = sharper images (particularly in landscape photography), but this is only true up to a point. At very small apertures diffraction comes into play and noticeably softens the image.

Before I moved over to film I shot APS-C and, in my experience, the threshold on those sensors, after which the image quality noticeably degrades, is somewhere between f/11 and f/16. I wouldn't go any lower than f/11, except maybe for long exposures.

AnimalRights

I don't think I've ever shot over f8 in 7 years of doing Photography....

amdgilmore

^ The luxury of adjustable iso!

I sometimes have no choice but to use the sunny 16 rule with film. Higher iso films seem to handle it OK.

dinneenp

Thanks for all the comments & as I said I don't mind C&C.

It's not a photo that I'm planning on framing or anything, was just wondering which worked better.

I've never really shot much landscape photography, I tend to seek out more abstract or the 'less obvious' things to photograph. That's not having a dig at landscape photography btw.
The morning I was out in Cork city at sunrise there was a guy with 2 cameras and a tripod on the other side of the river where the crane is. I should have spotted and chatted to him. Would like to see how his images came out.

It's nice driving around an empty city taking photos, seeing a few other photographers doing the same.

Kenny Logins

dinneenp wrote: »

Thanks for all the comments & as I said I don't mind C&C.

It's not a photo that I'm planning on framing or anything, was just wondering which worked better.

I've never really shot much landscape photography, I tend to seek out more abstract or the 'less obvious' things to photograph. That's not having a dig at landscape photography btw.
The morning I was out in Cork city at sunrise there was a guy with 2 cameras and a tripod on the other side of the river where the crane is. I should have spotted and chatted to him. Would like to see how his images came out.

It's nice driving around an empty city taking photos, seeing a few other photographers doing the same.

Have to say, I do like your abstract shots.

Reoil

While I find it boring, the colour one is better but it needs more editing, specifically brightened.

Gehad_JoyRider

amdgilmore wrote: »

Before I moved over to film I shot APS-C and, in my experience, the threshold on those sensors, after which the image quality noticeably degrades, is somewhere between f/11 and f/16. I wouldn't go any lower than f/11, except maybe for long exposures.

That's complete rubbish you shoot at a desired aperture because you have no choice, If the lights crap you stop up if the lights good you stop down, That's the way its always been for any one to say the image is not good enough at f4 then it is at f11. is complete crap because no one notice's any difference.

swingking

dinneenp wrote: »

The morning I was out in Cork city at sunrise there was a guy with 2 cameras and a tripod on the other side of the river where the crane is. I should have spotted and chatted to him. Would like to see how his images came out.

Sorry, but I have to come back to this. He was on the other side of the river Lee? It's not really possible to get across that easily considering where I think you shot from.

dinneenp

swingking wrote: »

Sorry, but I have to come back to this. He was on the other side of the river Lee? It's not really possible to get across that easily considering where I think you shot from.

I was in his side of the river too, he was by the docks area. I drove past him and noticed him just when passing

kelly1

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

That's complete rubbish you shoot at a desired aperture because you have no choice, If the lights crap you stop up if the lights good you stop down, That's the way its always been for any one to say the image is not good enough at f4 then it is at f11. is complete crap because no one notice's any difference.

Have you not heard of diffraction at small apertures?

See http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Kenny Logins

swingking wrote: »

Sorry, but I have to come back to this. He was on the other side of the river Lee? It's not really possible to get across that easily considering where I think you shot from.

It's easy enough, you can walk/drive down Kennedy Quay on the opposite side no problem.

amdgilmore

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

That's complete rubbish you shoot at a desired aperture because you have no choice, If the lights crap you stop up if the lights good you stop down, That's the way its always been for any one to say the image is not good enough at f4 then it is at f11. is complete crap because no one notice's any difference.

You are wrong.

Gehad_JoyRider

kelly1 wrote: »

Have you not heard of diffraction at small apertures?

See http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

no never heard of that :rolleyes:

amdgilmore wrote: »

You are wrong.

yes but you like cameras you look at more of the picture, then most. Most people are interested in whats happening in said picture.... You can sell what every point you like but the picture it self speaks more then how its technically taken.

amdgilmore

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

but the picture it self speaks more then how its technically taken.

Yeah, I agree with that, and I go in for a lot of lo-fi stuff myself. But the starting point should always be to know your camera's strengths and limits. For people on APS-C cameras it's important to know where the sweet spot for maximum sharpness is. After that, they can tailor their settings to the circumstances and desired look.

kelly1

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

no never heard of that :rolleyes:

So softness, doesn't bother you, fine.

Gehad_JoyRider wrote:

That's complete rubbish you shoot at a desired aperture because you have no choice, If the lights crap you stop up if the lights good you stop down, That's the way its always been for any one to say the image is not good enough at f4 then it is at f11. is complete crap because no one notice's any difference.

With respect, sounds like you don't have a clue. How can you say you have no choice over aperture? Are you forgetting about shutter speed and ISO? Generally you choose aperture first and then fit the other exposure settings around that.

Gehad_JoyRider

kelly1 wrote: »

So softness, doesn't bother you, fine.

Softness due to aperture? that's a bit of a so so question in its self. I think softness from aperture can define the look style feel and give the over all impression from a picture that the photographer is looking for! So no depending on the shoot and whats being shot and how and how the photographer wants a picture to look they use a certain lens because it might be a little softer around the edges. Doesn't bother me, An art picture that's a little soft vrs these clowns with clarity at 60+ and blown out shadows/HDR. Ill go with a soft lens.

With respect, sounds like you don't have a clue. How can you say you have no choice over aperture? Are you forgetting about shutter speed and ISO? Generally you choose aperture first and then fit the other exposure settings around that.

What about focal length?

See where you go with this its becomes a mind field of BullSh1t, hence why I kept my previous answer nice and loose, i don't want to waste hours of long winded bull sh1t!