(Novembre, 27th) Picture of the Week

Draco wrote:
wrote:

Right. Showing passion, love, can not be done
in different ways.I do not want to show it in
one way. I want to show an idea.

Keep at it Daniel. You can do better. We've
seen that you can.

For me better is not showing every time people
together, to show love. For me better is to show
it, in different ways.

For example another way to show it :
http://www.monochromatique.com/dansl...lesbois09.html

Thanks for your opinion, Draco.



Great example of showing the lasting effects
of romance. Showing two souls intertwined in
the bark of a growing thing. Yes, this shows
love. Show the idea of passion. Show the idea
of love. The warmth. The strength. The ever lasting
committment of two to each other. No matter
how fleeting the moment.
The image of the back of the bus, motor carridge
or motorhome or what ever that thing was didn't
convay the passion of romance. The strength of
love. It was a nice piece of airbrush work that
the owner may have felt displayed something.
What, I'm not sure.

Daniel shoot what you have the need to shoot.
Don't let me or any one else sway you away from
your vision of photography.

Keep at it and never give up.

Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.


Great example of showing the lasting effects
of romance. Showing two souls intertwined in
the bark of a growing thing. Yes, this shows
love. Show the idea of passion. Show the idea
of love. The warmth. The strength. The ever lasting
committment of two to each other. No matter
how fleeting the moment.

Very touching post Draco. Nice to know there really ARE guys out there
who are romantic.

Daniel shoot what you have the need to shoot.
Don't let me or any one else sway you away from
your vision of photography.

Keep at it and never give up

Inspiring advice for all of us.
Helen

"Draco" wrote in message

Daniel shoot what you have the need to shoot.
Don't let me or any one else sway you away from
your vision of photography.

Keep at it and never give up.



Exactly.

It is a shame that there are those people lurking in the shadows, ready to
attack someone else's work. These spoilers exist everywhere, not just in
photographic circles.

I thought that the photo of the couple embracing was quite erotic. And the
absence of color was a good thing because it did not distract from the
subject. I had shot exclusively in color for 35 years, and I just began
experimenting with B&W from my digital camera, and I've been intrigued by
the results. Sometimes, having to focus only upon shadows and tone forces
one to study the photo more. Somewhat like comparing a pen-and-ink sketch
against a colorful oil painting.

The mere fact that B&W images are off the beaten path these days makes them
interesting. I'm gratified to see that some people are not blindly
following the crowd.

jeremy wrote:
"Draco" wrote in message

Daniel shoot what you have the need to shoot.
Don't let me or any one else sway you away from
your vision of photography.

Keep at it and never give up.



Exactly.

It is a shame that there are those people lurking in the shadows, ready to
attack someone else's work. These spoilers exist everywhere, not just in
photographic circles.

I thought that the photo of the couple embracing was quite erotic. And the
absence of color was a good thing because it did not distract from the
subject. I had shot exclusively in color for 35 years, and I just began
experimenting with B&W from my digital camera, and I've been intrigued by
the results. Sometimes, having to focus only upon shadows and tone forces
one to study the photo more. Somewhat like comparing a pen-and-ink sketch
against a colorful oil painting.

The mere fact that B&W images are off the beaten path these days makes them
interesting. I'm gratified to see that some people are not blindly
following the crowd.


Thanks for the kind words. Keep shooting in color
but, when you edit them in photoshop or what
ever program you use. Go to the color edit
section and de-saturate. Then you will have
a "black and white" image. Simple? Yup.

Keep shooting and enjoying photography.



Draco



Getting even isn't good enough.

wrote:
Draco wrote:
wrote:

Right. Showing passion, love, can not be done
in different ways.I do not want to show it in
one way. I want to show an idea.

Keep at it Daniel. You can do better. We've
seen that you can.

For me better is not showing every time people
together, to show love. For me better is to show
it, in different ways.

For example another way to show it :
http://www.monochromatique.com/dansl...lesbois09.html

Thanks for your opinion, Draco.



Great example of showing the lasting effects
of romance. Showing two souls intertwined in
the bark of a growing thing. Yes, this shows
love. Show the idea of passion. Show the idea
of love. The warmth. The strength. The ever lasting
committment of two to each other. No matter
how fleeting the moment.
The image of the back of the bus, motor carridge
or motorhome or what ever that thing was didn't
convay the passion of romance. The strength of
love. It was a nice piece of airbrush work that
the owner may have felt displayed something.
What, I'm not sure.

Daniel shoot what you have the need to shoot.
Don't let me or any one else sway you away from
your vision of photography.

Keep at it and never give up.

Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.


Great example of showing the lasting effects
of romance. Showing two souls intertwined in
the bark of a growing thing. Yes, this shows
love. Show the idea of passion. Show the idea
of love. The warmth. The strength. The ever lasting
committment of two to each other. No matter
how fleeting the moment.

Very touching post Draco. Nice to know there really ARE guys out there
who are romantic.

Daniel shoot what you have the need to shoot.
Don't let me or any one else sway you away from
your vision of photography.

Keep at it and never give up

Inspiring advice for all of us.
Helen

People have said that I'm a bit "touched" in the head.
Thanks for the kind words Ms Helen. It was
not my original thought to keep true to
your own vision of photography or anything
else you do. I don't know who said it first
or when. Just I remember the line in Shakespeare,
"To thine own self be true."
As being a romantic...maybe so. But my wife
would never admit that I was.

Have a great week,


Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.

"Draco" wrote in message

Thanks for the kind words. Keep shooting in color
but, when you edit them in photoshop or what
ever program you use. Go to the color edit
section and de-saturate. Then you will have
a "black and white" image. Simple? Yup.



I first became interested in B&W a couple of years ago, when I was shooting
a neighborhood park just before the onset of a major snowstorm. The sky was
severely overcast, it was dark gray-blue and the cloud cover was very thick.
The shots showed just the first dusting of snow, but the colors of the trees
and foliage were awful. Everything had a purplish cast, and I thought that
the images were just too poor to print.

Then the thought occurred to me to get rid of the color entirely. The
results were amazing. I warmed up the blacks just a bit, rather than keep
everything in pure grayscale. Not sepia by any means, but just a very "dark
brown" as opposed to pure black. I saw that park in an entirely different
way.

When I was much younger, I had the impression that B&W was "old fashioned,"
just like B&W movies, and that color was the more modern, and better, way to
make images. I had not shot a roll of B&W in well over 35 years. Having
rediscovered B&W, through my digital camera, of all things, I keep on
experimenting with it. Perhaps that is why I appreciate Daniel's B&W
images. They have less distraction. The brain is forced to contemplate the
subject, rather than look at the background scenery. Perhaps it's the
minimalist in me, but I think that such images are more "pure." I read a
quote awhile back to the effect that "color was obscene." I am beginning to
see that there is a grain of truth in that statement.

I had previously been fascinated by well-saturated colors in my photographs,
and the advent of the digital darkroom served to further my ability to
produce prints where the colors seemed as they were about to jump right off
the paper. Now I am reorienting myself toward less-saturated, muted colors.
I hadn't realized just how much the saturation level of color could change
an otherwise identical image.

I've been looking at color in everyday objects and I am coming to the
conclusion that the color that we produce in our prints is not
representative of the way color actually appears to the eye in real life.
My prints had been oversaturated.

There are times when color can become so much of a distraction that it
defeats the purpose of the image. I need to get some books on the classic
B&W photographers and study their styles. Sometimes less is actually more.

jeremy wrote:
Perhaps it's the
minimalist in me, but I think that such images are more "pure." I read a
quote awhile back to the effect that "color was obscene." I am beginning to
see that there is a grain of truth in that statement.

Do you see in color or B/W? Why do you think that is?

Annika1980 wrote:
jeremy wrote:
Perhaps it's the
minimalist in me, but I think that such images are more "pure." I read a
quote awhile back to the effect that "color was obscene." I am beginning to
see that there is a grain of truth in that statement.

Do you see in color or B/W? Why do you think that is?

Color is very important in the real world. It
helps identify friend from foe. Mate from
competitor. Dangerous from safe. While
color photography yields wonderful images,
some times the photographer wants to make
an image that draws the viewer into the image.
Some photographers love shooting in B&W for
the very reason to bring a feeling to the viewer
other than,"Oh what a pretty image. Look at
the color."
I am not saying that color photography is
obscene nor that it is for those who can't think
beyond bright colors. Sometimes the colors
define and improve an image. Sometimes not.

So just because we see in color, do we always
have to produce or capture images in color? I don't
think so and I don't shoot all in black and white.

Just my two cents Bret. Keep shooting and posting.
I admire your work as well as others. No matter if they
are in Color or Black and White.


Draco



Getting even isn't good enough.

Draco wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
jeremy wrote:
Perhaps it's the
minimalist in me, but I think that such images are more "pure." I read a
quote awhile back to the effect that "color was obscene." I am beginning to
see that there is a grain of truth in that statement.

I am not saying that color photography is obscene......

Oh, I thought that's what you said.

Annika1980 wrote:
Draco wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
jeremy wrote:
Perhaps it's the
minimalist in me, but I think that such images are more "pure." I read a
quote awhile back to the effect that "color was obscene." I am beginning to
see that there is a grain of truth in that statement.

I am not saying that color photography is obscene......

Oh, I thought that's what you said.

Hmmm, an apology from Annika1980? Not
sure. I' ve had my say in this matter.




Draco



Getting even isn't good enough.

Draco wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Draco wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
jeremy wrote:
Perhaps it's the
minimalist in me, but I think that such images are more "pure." I read a
quote awhile back to the effect that "color was obscene." I am beginning to
see that there is a grain of truth in that statement.

I am not saying that color photography is obscene......

Oh, I thought that's what you said.

Hmmm, an apology from Annika1980? Not
sure. I' ve had my say in this matter.

I wasn't apologizing (as if!).
I was pointing out the discrepancies in your two statements.
First you said there was a grain of truth in the statement that color
was obscene.
Then you said that claimed that you were saying something different.
Stop straddling the fence. You'll hurt your balls.