A couple of mono landscapes

[pdk42]

Still trying to figure out whether mono ever really works for landscapes. What think you?


Hampton St Lucy by Paul Kaye, on Flickr



Hampton St Lucy by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

[MJ224]

Whist these are pretty stunning photos, I feel colour would add to them.

But a mono does draw attention to the subject I think, so a valid use of that tone...:-)

[pdk42]

Thanks Mark - I agree that colour would help.

[Bikie John]

These are nice pics in mono but I can't help missing the colour. The colour palate would be pretty harmonious as the subject is vegetation, sandstone and sky , so it would work well whereas in mono it all a bit flat. I am a big mono fan but don't think it helps in this case - the subject needs more form and drama.

John

[pdk42]

I think you’ve summed up my own thoughts too John.

[Ian]

Some skillful toning would definitely work.

Ian

[DerekW]

Too much detail for B&W pics, colour would be OK as it tends to disguise the detail. I think that the old classic B&W pictures would have less detail - or larger areas of detail - the masses of twigs and branches are too distracting in B&W. The B&W image is uncomfortable to view, a colour image would be more relaxing. I have a couple of 20x16 monochrome prints which are more relaxing see

https://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/jodyforster/forster/index.html

especially the sixth one in (I have a copy of it in the lounge so I see it every day

[pdk42]

Thanks Derek. That point about detail not working for B&W is a very good observation. That explains why landscapes often don't work well.

[OM USer]

The top one brings out the "pen and ink" qualities of the image. That and the composition put it firmly into the "classic" bracket. The bottom one less so, probably as there are too many shades of gray and the composition, for me, is not as pleasing.

[pdk42]

Thanks for that. I agree that the first is the better of the two.

[pdk42]

Here are colour versions FYI...

[Bikie John]

Thanks Paul, this is very interesting. Sorry to be critical, but I don't think the colour versions work all that well either - not up to your usual landscape standard, I can't help feeling I could almost have taken them! It has made me realise that one thing that makes your landscape work so outstanding is that you make very good use of colour.

John

[pdk42]

It's the lighting John. Mid-day sun. I usually avoid it. That's the reason why I went B&W since I wasn't wild on the colour versions either!

[Bikie John]

A valuable lesson for us all! Sometimes things can work in B&W when they don't do so well in colour, but it is quite unusual IMHO.

[MJ224]

Must agree that the b/w work better in both cases. Not sure why, but as Jeremy said the b/w have that pen and ink quality, which is really unusual, and attractive..:-)

[pdk42]

OK - final attempt at making something of these images !!

[DerekW]

Looking at the colour images and thinking back to my comments re the monochrome images. My thoughts are that you have not cropped in tight enough. One's eye is trying to determine what are they supposed to be focussing on. Each major item in the picture eg tree or building or water / river bank are conflicting in demanding the viewers attention. The tree on the left in the second image is too demandingof the viewers attention versus the building.

Try a colour image of the tree only or of the church only and I think that in collour or mono the images would be more pleasing. Just my 2p.

[alfbranch]

They are too cluttered IMO it is what you leave as much as what you include.