Stoney Silence (Click to view larger) )

I have picked 3 Landscape shots at randon and converted then to B

& W . The question is........which one do I submit to a B & W photo

contest....if any? Does any of them strike you as having more impact

or any characteristics that you think might catch the eye of the

judges? Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated

Thank You!

Hi Alf,

Contests are primarily based upon personal preferences, so I refrain from making any judgments.

However, the technical merits are good because you used the lens distortion present in this wide field of view to produce interesting results at F/5.6.

Owning the same lens and camera, I would have derived even better lens performance by using it wide open or at F/4 with a different perspective used, but your aesthetic value is very good the way you used the setup.

I still do not follow the need for a tripod, since a 14mm lens can be easily hand held, at 1/500 second exposure and the horizon can be held even across the frame as well.

Best Regards my  friend, Mike.

I do like your black and white work here. Nothing else to add for my part. I like it.

This one gets my vote (yes, it's my personal preference).  The foreground is very strong, and the clouds hold interest.  Nice reflection on the small lake as well.  Overall, I find it to be most "eye-catching."

truly impressive foreground. the overall mood, tones, composition is all good, but this foreground is a killer :)

Alf,

  Beautiful b/w scene with wonderful composition, reflection & details.  Take care, Patsy

Hi Alf

The foreground is indeed eye-catching and strongest part of the image. The clouds in the sky and reflections in the water could perhaps use a bit more contrast and clarity. did you use a dedicated plugin or channel mixer for the B&W conversion?

Hi Alf, this shot is the most interesting of the three you  converted to B&W, it called my attention right away, perhaps is the great composition you did,and because of it you put the viewer to  start from the rocks and end up  in the beautiful sky, not missing any  detail  this pic has.

However, in my little experience here In PN, is hard to decide which one will be the one you  would submit if a  contest open,  because people opinions  and tastes are different.

Warm regards,

LuDa

You are right contests are indeed based on personal preferences and no one knows exactly what each individual judge is looking for.

For that reason I thought maybe a cross section of views would help guide me in one direction or another and the feedback might identify flaws or weakness / strengths that I had not recognised myself.

But, there may be a case to answer for the technical merits also and who knows the judge / judges may apportion merit / de-merit for the settings used.

The F / 5.6 aperture was chosen carefully and after a selection of shots at F /4 failed to get the distant boathouse looking as sharp as required (viewed close up in my LCD screen) I opted for F/ 5.6.

The 14 - 24 mm lens has proved consistent in achieving corner to corner sharpness even when I have deliberately tllted the camera downwards as I have here in order to distort the dynamics of the foreground stones slightly.

The tripod is a personal preference, as stated previously, when there is a changing light and time is running out, I like to make sure I have that shot in the bag before moving on. The tripod removes the element of risk.

All the best my friend!

Alf

SVEND

Many Thanks for your interest and positive feedback, very much appreciated!

Best Regards

Alf

STEPHEN

Its all about personal preference, even when it comes down to the judges decisions, I tend to think the choices are made more from aesthetics and personal preferences than technical merit or technique.

Therefore your comments help me build a picture of the kind of thing that might just catch the judges eye too!

Many Thanks!

Alf

ZSOLT

Many Thanks for your thoughts and positive feedback, much appreciated.

I agree the foreground does seem to have a impact.

Best Regards

Alf

PATSY

Thank you so much for your interest and kind words.

I wasn't sure if the foregroud was a bit too dominant.

Best Regards

Alf

JUHA

Too strong maybe?  Could it be the foreground is too dominant and therefore it compromises the rest of the image?

I used "Nik Siver Efex Pro 2"  a plugin for lightroom.

I find it quicker and more effective than processing B & W through channels.

Sincere Thanks for your feedback, it is most helpful.

Best Regards

Alf

LUISA

You are quite right about the diverse range of people tastes and opinions. I had imagined that an outright favourite would emerge, but as yet it is a close thing with votes being fairly evenly spread.

The feedback and comments do however give me some good pointers and indicators of the various strengths and weakneses, and I  can make a more informed decision from that infomation.

My Sincere Thanks for adding your contribution, very much appreciated!

Warm  Regards

Alf

Hi Alf,   Of the three, this is my choice.  This image packs the most punch. The sense of distance and breadth makes the image go on continuously for me.  The contrast between the foreground rocks that "explode" laterally for me to wrap and widen the image and the soft and most effective clouds that do double duty in their reflection creates artistic interest.  The shapes of the background hills also extend the image to infinity.  This needs to be viewed large to really appreciate the impact of the boat house in the distance.  This image has it all.  Now, as a B&W I appreciate the full range of gray values from white to black.  This is what Ansel Adams believed made a great B&W.  Contrast is present, but not overpowering.  I can look at this image and keep staring at it for a long time.  This is art.  Good fortune to you in the contest, whichever image you choose to enter.   Best to you as always.  Larry

Hi Alf,

If I take your statements as being accurate about the 14 mm showing better imagery at F/5.6 than F/4, then you DO NOT have the best copy of what that lens can deliver. My lens clearly works better at F/4 than F/5.6, and at Infinity (which is what you are at) F/2.8 is even better ! I have only tested about 100 of these particular Nikkor zooms in my lab, and all followed the results  that my own copy exhibits.

Best Regards my friend, Mike

My Sincere Thanks

Not only did you make a choice, but you have explained the reasoning behind it which I find most helpful!

I wasn't sure if the little boat house would get lost or ignored because of the strong impact of the foreground detail, but it seems that is not the case and that in itself is most gratifying to read.

The B & W tonal range that you have mentioned is also cause for me to smile as it is something I have struggled with in the past, and to be mentioned in the same paragraph as Ansel Adams .......well what can I say but another big Thank You!

Best Regards

Alf

MIKE P

"Better imagery" no I didn't say that, but for the avoidance of doubt what I was referring to was front to back sharpness.

My lens could indeed be a less than perfect copy, I have no way of knowing as I do not have any test facilities and I have no way of comparing the lens to others as I only have one in my possesssion. I can only tell you that I purchased the lens from a dealership that supplies the professional fraternity of photographers and that I have a great deal of faith in them. They not to sell  "grey imports" or copies.

I do not dispute the fact that this lens will record more information with a wide open aperture.

But what I found was I could not find a focus point that would deliver front to back sharpness at F4. The dof at this aperture consistently had a detrimental effect on either the distant sharpness or the near foreground sharpness, depending on the chosen focus point.

As you know I have successfully used F2.8 with this lens during landscape situations, but none of them have featured close up foreground detail that requires sharpness.

So maybe it is my technique which is at fault ?

A dof calculator I have since used to compare F/4 and F/5.6 shows a differential of about 1m in favour of F/5.6 as a foreground sharpness at infinity. And although  1 meter doesn't seem a lot in terms of dof, it matters a lot when the foreground plays a pivotal role in the composition as it does here.

Now whilst I don't entirely trust Dof calculators I do trust the evidence of my own eyes.

So as you know I am always willing to learn, and if you would be so kind as to indicate a focus point, or perhaps use manual focus to infinity?

Or maybe advise the technique I should adopt?

I will make a special journey (weather and time permitting) to go back to that exact location and take the shot again using both F/2.8 and F/4.

If I can repeat the shot and obtain the same front to back sharpness using these apertures then I will indeed have learned a valuable lesson.

I would of course be more than pleased to share the results of this experiment no matter what the outcome.

Many Thanks for your invaluable imput my friend.

Alf

I would also pick this one.  You have to see it in larger view to really appreciate it.  Perhaps it misses the uniqueness of the other one with the tree rows but it's still a fine one.  Cheers!

Hi Alf,

I feel that your lens does have focus issues at different focal length settings and certainly at different f-stop settings. I see lens in my lab that fail all the time to provide sharp images due to various mechanical  or an alignment issues in the lens. It is also the way that it is focused by the user. An auto focus lens fall short of providing the precise focus that a manual lens can deliver.

In short focal length lens that are shot wide open or near wide open, the sensitivity to obtaining a precise focus greatly increases. By stopping down a short focal length, the loss in detail is traded off by what appears to be in focus, when it is not really in focus.  There is only one point of true focus, after that , it is the perception of focus that misleads most photographers and viewers that are not used to the basic concepts.

Now, it is true that NOT all lens can work at their maximum aperture because of the lens limitations in design and build quality.  Zoom lens fall prey more often to various aberrations and defects because of all the tolerances that are not properly maintained, all the glass used,  and mechanics that become worn over time. Now stopping down lens does mask this , but the fact still remains that the a lens without any aberrations or defects does perform much better as the f-stop is limited to one or two f-stops below the wide open set point.

I suggest that you bring a dark cloth hood and place it over your head. This increases the contrast from your rear screen during the day. Using "Live View", and an 8X magnifier loop, look at the rear screen while you focus at F/2.8, F/4, etc.. Then , if nessary, use the enlarge button to further isolate the small tragets seen on the sceen and repest the focusing procedure. Also, try to focus from one direction and stop when you get the best image. If you go back and forth, there is backlash in the mechanism, optical components might not end up in the exact same place each time, so care needs to be taken when manually focusing. It is always easier when the focal length increases. I do understand that "Live Screen" is limted by the screen resolution, too, but it is a better way to observe what the sensor "sees" than trying to use your viewfinder or trust auto focus.

As for your trusted source, keep in mind that they do not have the facility to test lens anyway. I have had some major manufacturing companies even send me lens that their repair centers could not repair to the satisfaction of my clients.

As for DOF charts, I ignore them since they should first change the name to "Perception Charts, with a statement that the performance of any good lens decreses with the increase in the F-stop."

Best Regards my friend, Mike

The more I look at the three images, the more difficult it is for me to choose a 'favorite'. I don't think I can, really. They each have their own merits. Now, if I had to choose one to purchase, and frame, I know it would take a few 'sleeps' to get the choice right!!! These landscapes in Wales and Scotland really amaze me. At times 'barren' as far as any human life goes, but here we have a lone Boathouse. It makes me wonder about the person who comes to that boathouse, and what it must be like to be out on that Lake alone. I think I would be very humbled. I am very humbled taking in this view. In a world so full of 'busEness' and 'deadlines''; responsibility and demands; and you haven't even arrived home from work and walked through the front door at this point ! - I can see why you search out these places and record the magnificence of the moment. As for a favorite, I still need a few more 'sleeps' :-) as for being thankful that someone like you shares this beauty with us, no contest!

For this moment, I celebrate the unique human being I have come to know in you, Alf Bailey. Just be very careful please, on those 'solitary drives' you take in the wee hours in inclement weather. There will be so many lessons to learn in the wonderful world of Photography. I am thankful you are one of those who has an open mind, who strives to learn and develop your craft, and is here on PN, where we can witness your 'Journey'.

Sincere and humble regards, Gail

My Sincere Thanks for taking the time to view these images and relay your thoughts, it really is most helpful to get other peoples impressions.

Best Regards

Alf

MIKE P

I'm not sure if I've explained myself suficiently.

I seriously doubt if my lens has any focus issues, although I have no way of knowing that other than constant use for the last two years and my powers of observation.

I realise of course that the fact that it has performed faultlessly (as far as I am concerned) does not necessarily mean it is without fault at all.

My conclusion being that if there is a fault, then it remains undetectable by the human eye from the results I have obtained with it.

I really don't know of any lens that is capable of front to back sharp focus at F2.8 from 0.5m to infinity.

Surely it is widely known that at this aperture there will inevitabley be "out of focus" areas when presented with the above scenario for shooting the scene. People refer to it as a "shallow depth of field"

Now I can fully appreciate and understand your comments "By stopping down a short focal length, the loss in detail is traded off by what appears to be in focus"

The crux of my objective is "what appears to be in focus" is what I want, and I would venture that this "impression" is what others find aesthetically pleasing also.

The quality trade of is more than compensated for by the "appearance" of the image.

The quality I have achieved using F/ 5.6 has never been an issue.

I have prints of 3ft x 2ft with the finest details recorded, and with the potential to print much larger if so required.  

Landscape photography is all about pretty pictures. No one really looks at them to establish the scientific quality of the image. They look at them because they like what they see, that being the "perception" of sharpness or impressson of clarity that you refer to.

They don't care about the "basic concepts" either, they just want to see things that move them emotionally, or that makes them feel good.

I want to produce images that people like, and for that matter, I want to produce images that I like.

Now although I would never doubt the accuracy of your statements, my aims are to produce the highest quality image I can whilst retaining a visually aesthetic image does not concur with shooting everything "wide open"  In short, the results of shooting everything wide open just don't always look nice.

All that being said I found your technique suggestion very interesting and I will try this using manual focus and "live view" and let you know my findings.

(I now have a comical vision of me wandering around the Welsh Mountain with a black cloth on my head)

: - )

Science and art can live together in harmony, but the strive for perfection in both fields leads us down parallel paths that will inevitabley move closer and further away continuously as our targets interweave.

Always good to hear from you Mike!

All the best my friend!

Alf

GAIL

It is interesting to note, that the "votes" for each image is so very close that no one image has fallen behind or streaked ahead, as I thought it might have done.

Therefore I can appreciate why you might be finding it difficult to make a choice.

The terrain of the Uk never fails to fill me with awe too.

The little boathouse you refer to is used by fishermen, I keep returning to this spot in the hope that I will see one of them using it and get a shot of them fishing fom the boat.  3 years later I am no nearer to achieving that goal : - ) ............but ahh yes one day I will get that shot.

Just being in these places are a tonic for my body and soul, and if I do manage to get a few decent shots, then I am a very happy little bunny!

"Unique" Oh yes ......they broke the mould when they made me.......some people say they also shot the mould maker too : - )

I think an open mind is vital in photography. The subject is so huge and diverse that it seems unlikely that anyone could know everything about it.

I think also that vast pool of knowledge is for me is one of the attractions, there is no chance of becoming bored or compacent when there is so much to learn.

I shall await the results of your "few sleeps" with barely constrained patience and intrigue!

My Sincere Thanks & Warm Regards

Alf

All 3 photos are quite beautiful, Alf.... Nearly impossible to choose...  

Yet, since these are for a B&W photo contest, maybe this one seems to be the strongest candidate in the end for me...

(and yes, = very subjective, of course... ;-)

It is an interesting composition, contains great (foreground) textures, and has a strong overall tonal range. 

Good luck with the contest! & Have a great (rest of the) WE, Marjolein

"luisa dasilva  July 31, 2013; 02:12 P.M.

Hi Alf, this shot is the most interesting of the three you converted to B&W, it called my attention right away, perhaps is the great composition you did,and because of it you put the viewer to start from the rocks and end up in the beautiful sky, not missing any detail this pic has".

I felt this way also  - I was immediately drawn to this one and I don't even remember what the other two look like.   I did not read past Luisa's comments so there is danger I might be repeating something.

I know you prefer minimal processing and maybe the judges of the competition will like that also. What i envision would be at add 'more drama' to the image if it is to stand out more and that would require more post processing. There is British lady (name escapes me at the moment) whose black and white work has inspired me. She is careful not to reveal her technique but what I gather is that she will process an HDR image and light up the sky which would look surrealistic in color but she would convert to B&W and selectively use portions to get that 'kick'.

I could attempt it with what you posted here but I don't want to do a quick job.

The final image would only affect sky and water - mostly.

That is my 2 cents and good luck.

Please temper your changes should you make them by the following:

By Sam Marsden

10:47PM GMT 02 Nov 2012

David Byrne was disqualified from the Landscape Photographer of the Year award for employing excessive digital manipulation in his winning entry, a striking black-and-white image of beached wooden fishing boats with Lindisfarne Castle in the distance.

He has been removed of his title as overall winner of the competition, which comes with a £10,000 prize.

The contest’s organisers, Take A View, said Mr Byrne’s photograph was assessed in “good faith” and was the “clear favourite” of the judges.

Charlie Waite, the competition’s founder, said: “This is extremely regrettable and it appears there was no deliberate intention to deceive the judges, but the level of manipulation means that this photograph gained an unfair advantage in this category and in winning the overall competition.

Hi Alf

Very interesting discussion. Uncle Mike often recommended others to use the max aperture where as the MTF charts for all lenses shows the max sharpness is near the mid aperture range. Anyhow, I want to learn from your individual experience, for such great DOF and for a single focus capture, Is it better to use infinity distance or the Hyperfocus distance?. Best regards    

As I have high regard for your B & W work, I have to take your suggestions seriously.

The strange thing is that to date there is no clear front runner (according to amount of commments per image)

This is going to be tougher than I thought!

Sincere Thanks for your thoughtful considerations!

Best Regards

Alf

TONY

A most Interesting analysis and great thought provoking comments.

I can envisage what you are tring to convey about the sky and water, and in some ways I agree with you, the effect would indeed be more powerful and dramatic.

The Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 software that I used could easilly be tweaked more in the direction you have indicated, yet I hesitate because as you rightly pointed out I do prefer minimal processing.

Well.......not so much minimal (although some images need very little) but more that I am keen that my work doesn't look over processed.

I will have another attempt, paying more attention to the sky and water, and see if I can make a subtle transformation that will also provide the desired effects.

I was aware of the Landscape competition disqualification, and I agree that some digital manipulations just go too far, and particularly in a competiton environment.

Though I have no problem at all with honest digital manipulation.

Many Thanks for your consideration Tony, I very much appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.

Best Regards

Alf

MUSEEB

Thank you so much for contributing your thoughts and questions!

Uncle Mike is a wise and knowledable man, and it is fair to say that I have learned a great deal from his narratives and the information that he shares so selflessly.

However I do find that in certain circumstances using a wide open aperture is not the answer.

You might ask yourself as I have,  "if a wide open aperture was the answer to every photographic scenario, why would manufacturers bother to make it possible to stop down the aperture"

Uncle Mike might answer this question (though I do hope he will correct me if I am wrong)  that this is to pander to the whims of the public who want the ability to produce photographs that have the "appearance" of sharpness. And of course he would be right, that is exactly why they have this adjustment.

From a scientific viewpoint, much more accurate information will be passed to the sensor from a wide open aperture than a stopped down one.

The difference between Hyperfocal distance and infinity can be very similar. I prefer to work to the parameters set by hyperfocal distance.

Although I have to stress that I am still learning and open to any suggestions. And I am yet to fully implement the suggestions from Uncle Mike above.......but I will.

My observations relating to apertures in this case using hyperfocal distance calculator, would mean an out of focus area of approx 2 meters at F/2.8 whilst F/ 5.6 will reduce this to 0.59 meters.

If I had not been shooting such close foreground then a wider aperture could have been employed succesfully.

I hope that information helps Museeb.

Best Regards

Alf

Thank You Alf for your in-depth discussion and reply. All the best

Nice three set of shots, all are beautiful and most impressive. Its hard to pick just one among three, but if should accomplished, i pick this one for better contrast, very excellent framing/composition, more inviting fg elements, and very impressive quality. This shot benefits more of the bw conversion vs just grayscale conversion. I mean there are real black and white pixels in there. Reflection is already very nice and eye-catching. Bravo for all these series.

My best regards,

Hamid.

You did it well using wide angle lens! Well seen perspective, good choice as B&W presentation.

All the technical discussion is out of my league; I'm not demeaning it, just a fact.

I don't know anything about photography judging either, but if you want the "common man" opinion, I'd have to say this photo is the most compelling of the three. For me (and perhaps a judge or two), this gives the sense of being immersed in the scene, as though I were standing on those rocks rather than simply viewing a representation.

I do think the sky at the horizon could be darker without overdoing it, but that certainly does not diminish my enjoyment of it.

Good luck with your contest.

As always, very welcome!

Best Regards

Alf

HAMID

Many Thanks for your thoughts and explanation of your choice, it is most helpful.  Since posting these images I found at least another 3 images for consideration, yet I hesitate to post more in this vein, for fear of becoming even more confused than when I started : - )

I think I might just write the names on bits of paper and pick them out of  a hat!

Seriously though, it is good to get such a widespread selection of view points.

Best Regards

Alf

GRIGORIY

The wide angle can be very effective where there are segmented elements in the foreground.

Many Thanks for your thoughts and positive feedback, much appreciated!

Alf

JOSEPH

The "common man" opinion is valued equally by myself than that of the "experts"

Photography judging I would guess is tempered by 50 % photographic knowledge and an equal amount of personal preference. The former being heavily influenced by the latter.

The following tale I have related previously a few times to prove a point: -

Before photography discovered me, my wife bought a large B & W print and we had it mounted in pride of place above the fireplace. I thought it was brilliant, I loved the image, an old rowing boat set in front of gnarled old tree with broody looking clouds and the sun shining through on one side.

As time went on and I learned about photography I noticed a couple of faults with the image, and mentioned them casually to my wife. She didn't make any comment, just looked at me with those raised eyebrows as only women can.

More time passed and I become conversant with Photoshop editing and processing and I found more things wrong with the old print. One day I rambled on to my ever patient wife, about how it had been edited and manipulated etc, and at the end of my tirade I got the raised eyebrows again accompanied with the simple sentence "Well........it's the same picture that you loved 5 years ago, it hasn't changed"

Photographs don't change, but our perceptions of them are influenced by knowledge, and sometimes the person without all the technical knowledge is in the best position to give an honest appraisal.

So my Sincere Thanks for your observations, suggestions, and best wishes they are fully appreciated!

Best Regards

Alf