Some non-entries and a question or two

Most of these have been posted before, and one half-question is if they meet the criteria for this contest. They are all color slides that have not been turned int B&W. Like TahitiNut, I wonder if the theme was B&W abd B&W tinted, or something broader. Regardless, the contest entries have been great.







My main question is about these two. With some settings on my two antique monitors the first looks washed out, while with other settings (like my current ones) the first shows a pastel (purplish-blue) jacket and a very slightly greenish rock in the lower left and the second shows a dark blue jacket and loses all detail in the foreground. Is this like what you with other (newer, most likely) monitors see? Or would you descibe them differently?





Thanks to http://xs.to>Free Image Hosting

The bottom 2 photos I experience about the same as you. The one has a blue/purple pastel while the other has a brighter blue/purple color. The rocks are slightly green and medium green in each.. although the entire foreground is washed out more in the 2nd one than the 1st, like you said.

As far as these photos go as entries.... I would say #1 yes, #2 maybe, #3 probably not, but maybe, and the last 2 probably not.

Hope this helps :-)

Love the first two photos, and I think they qualify.

They're so ethereal.

I like three the best, reminds me of something out of Lord of the Rings.

I recall all but one (I think) of these photographs. As for your last question.... yes I pretty much "see" what you are seeing in the two versions. My monitor is average on a good day.

Don't see any of these that wouldn't meet the criteria for "absence of color" but Ted is the final word.... though the group has spoken.

Think you should enter that first photo. I remember that one. Would add much to all the fantastic entries that have already been entered. Balance out things. So IMO.... enter the darn thing.
:hi:

since I found what I was doing wrong (well, the first thing) in my haphazard attempt to achieve "color management" and now have started over. And thanks to you and the others for the kind words. Here's another reprocessed low-color image you've seen before, and then another new one. I could de-saturate the colors a bit to better fit the contest parameters, but I like them as they are. As for entering any in the contest, you, and the others, are right. #1 is the most appropriate, and PitbullTed (pit bulls are by nature the most compassionate and smartest of canines) can add it in if needed to fill out the contest, but I'd like to see others first get a chance to participate.

...for this contest I wanted to go with photos like your woodland scene here - photos where the color was very muted by fog, dusk, whatever. But after seeing the first entries and reviewing the theme: "absence" of color, I decided to go with a b&w/sepia entry. Maybe in the future we can have a 'muted colors' theme.

The only way I've been able to interpret "lack of color" as a "theme" is in the sense of #2 -- that the scene is as it would be seen by the eye (and a color camera) and that its inherent power to evoke an emotional response comes 'sans colour.'

How do I say that in a way that makes sense? (Lessee.) When I look at an Ansel Adams print, I'm NOT seeing a "lack of color"! What I'm seeing is the way in which Adams actually conveys color without using color to convey it. When I look at his Yosemite photos, the monochrome actually becomes polychrome in my mind's eye. Yes, the texture, gradations, and composition are beyond marvelous. (I'd be an idiot to pretend that I could describe an Ansel Adams photo adequately.) The point is that I'd never regard an Ansel Adams photo (except one that comes to mind) as even close to qualified for a "theme" of 'lack of color' - because they just DON'T lack color. (I hope that makes sense.) So much for what I DON'T think it means from a thematic perspective.

What do I think it DOES mean? (Honestly, I don't know. That's why I posted the question.) The best I can figure out is that it means the view depicted gains its power and emotion from something OTHER than color -- or, even more, that he actual absence (or retreat) of color is an inherent element of why the photo moves me. Most clearly, I think we can all understand, color retreats at twilight. I'm NOT talking sunset - which has impact due to color. I'm talking about how twilight depictions gain their emotionally moving character from muted, retreating color.

A theme is something other than the 'specification' for entries. "640x480" isn't a theme. 'Sepia' isn't a theme. They're specifications. A "theme" relates to the character of the subject matter. As such, I can think of a number of subjects that might (simplistically) find themselves in a "lack of color"-themed contest. Old people. Twilight shots. Shadow patterns.


Thus, the very REASON that I like #2 has to do with the retreat of color - the peace and quietude of twilight.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense. Obviously, it's my fault for over-thinking something that must be obvious to others. Not me. For me, it's difficult to understand.

the most suitable entrant. Full moonlight on a cloudy evening plus some residual sunset light from the sky behind me. About a 30second exposure if I recall, on Provia 100, most likely, while camping on Scott Lake in Oregon last summer. For people planning vacations or photo expeditions, keeping an eye on the moon phases might earn a few good photos. City dwellers tend to forget how bright moonlight can be.

One advantage of an informal group like this is that the entries are worth seeing regardless of how clearly defined the theme happens to be.

(edit to add) Some more Scott Lake pix on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=280x7748