[Steve400]

hi, i havent done much black & white processing in my time but i thought id give it a go on this shot.

please be as critical as possible so i can learn!



cheers,
Steve

[Summerleft]

I like it, can't make my mind up on the sky but it would probably be too much if it were as dramatic as the lower 1/2. Reminds me of one of those old seafaring B&W movies

[Les Meehan]

Nice dramatic composition there Steve. From this example my impressions of the technical side are: light water seems to be completely blank on RH side and the dark rocks are possibly too dark i.e. was there more detail to be seen.

There is an old darkroom printing saying: 'soot and whitewash' to refer to a BW image that had been printed with too much contrast in which the light values and dark values had been pushed into white and black without detail.

'Master' print makers, and of course digital print makers, know that the secret of good BW is TONE not contrast. The term used for prints that exhibit excellent tonal orchestration is 'fine print'. A 'fine print' is a thing of immense beauty for the subtlety of tone contained in the print. The same standards apply to digital images.

Now not to be in anyway offensive, but most newbies to both traditional and digital print making, especially in BW, tend to think that contrast is what BW prints need. However, after learning what really makes a print beautiful to behold, the tones between black and white, print makers realise the error of the contrast route and start to produce 'fine prints' by reducing contrast and bringing out subtle details especially in the light and dark values.

I see many examples on forums such as this of the newbies producing otherwise nice compositions but killing the visual experience by blasting their BW images with the 'beginners all powerful, make it great with loads of contrast ray guns'. Don't do it!

Back to your image. I like the composition BUT I feel you have probably made the image too contrasty. Now, this could be a load of b******s because I don't know how good or bad your original image capture was/is, and this image may well be exactly how you want it to look. In which case I can only say, if that's how you want it to be then that's fine. However, since you state this is a new area for you, I would suggest going back to the original image file and try experimenting with subtler interpretations by seeking to retain subtle details in the lightest and darkest tonal values.

Yes, you will probably need both pure black and white as well (in this image but NOT always!!). Black and white are what allows the eye to 'key into' the in-between tones of the image. Black and white add the 'sparkle' touch whereas subtle GRADATION of the other tones combined with 'micro contrast' i.e. subtle details are what gives an image elegance, beauty and that sensational 'Hmmmm' feeling that experienced photographers recognise when they see and FEEL it.

If you want to get into BW, you need to see examples of 'fine prints' made by experts so that you understand exactly what you need to aim for to put the FEELING into your images.

Welcome to the beautiful world of mono, it is a wonderful world to explore and can give you a life-long journey of discovery and search for beauty! Have a look at the work of Edward Weston for examples of 'masterworks' (better still if you get to see an exhibition of his actual prints you will have the experience of a photography lifetime).

Hope this helps...
Les

PS Note that this post is about image quality in terms of technical standards and NOT about the visual qualities of the composition which is another ball game completely!

[Rob Barron]

I agree with most of what Les has said and definitely the points made about tonal variation and detail being more important than straight contrast. However, whilst that is what I want in a print, it is much less achievable in a picture shown on screen. There is a limit to how much tonal variation you can show when you have 72 dots per inch to play with!

In this shot, the impact created by the strong contrast makes it more powerful and detail is not really required as much. Indeed, the FG rock area, whilst I'd like a touch more light in that area, would be overpowering if we had all the light reflecting off the wetness, making the whole scene much busier. That is why I also like the sky just as it is, any more would make this all a bit messy as the sea is where all the action is here.

So I think I would lift the FG rock and the left rock just a touch, and then I'd leave it at that. The power of the sea is amply demonstrated here and that is what I feel this image is about. A printed version would be another issue perhaps but for me this is nicely done Steve.

Cheers,
Rob

[Steve400]

aw thanks people! thats the kind of feedback i was hoping for! ill be honest and say i did think the contrast was a massive part in a mono but hey im here to learn!!

ill go and have a play again and see what i come up with! I guess i have a lot of research to do aswell!!

cheers people!

[scenario]

Hi like it but i think you have 2 pics here cut it in half Love the left half
Scenario

[Rob Barron]

Interesting comment from Scenario though I have to say I don't see any wasted area that could be cropped off as I feel the whole is more than the two halves. Interesting viewpoint though for sure.

Cheers,
Rob

[fionaB]

this is a super shot and well done indeed for your first foray into the realm of mono......
i agree with what has already been said about the tones, and no you will never be able to recreat on the monitor what you will see in a print, i would like to see a little bit more detail in the big rock at the front and i think there is just enough detail in the sky but would maybe be tempted to bring more out....... but thats my personal taste!
a first image that will bring lots more to follow ! well done

Fi