Reading mode: Light Dark

>>>> Challenge 56: White on White<<<<

Go to last post
so am i, tough theme... and no sheep allowed :D
 
no text
 
I know we don't usually post the images here, but we need to liven the place up a little.

I popped two in. The first one I liked, because although its not pure 'only white', I felt it was close, and I didn't want to deliberately PP it to get rid of the colour. But its 'nearly there' (catchy title eh? nearly there ... geddit ... you know ... up there ... nearly all white ... oh forget it ....)

Taken with my recently purchased Tokina 11-16. My word, what a great lens. The 'poor mans 14-24' ? not sure about that, ok, its not as wide, but you can stick a bloody filter on the front, and its f2.8, and better still, its pretty darn sharp across most of the frame wide open, and its BLISTERINGLY sharp once you stop down just a little - and right across the frame. No soft edges here. Correctable (and minimal) distortion as well. Ken Rockwell told me so personally and he wasn't wrong! he's a great guy Ken. I remember the time when he and I ......

Anway:



Great lens. This shot was on D300 as its a DX lens, but it works on the SLRn at 16mm as well :-)

G.
 
Maybe the missus took this one. She grabbed my camera at some point. Can't remember. You don't really care anyway do you?

Fuji S5 with another recent acquisition, the Voitlander 58mm f1.4

I've been walkabout with this on the SLRn as well and its great. Sort of gently soft and slightly dreamlike at f1.4 (but not so bad that you can't use it for portraiture, I'm sure it will be lovely, kind of saves softening skin in PP afterwards! - can't wait for the summer and brides in flower beds etc). But the hokey bokey seems to be optimised for f2.8, when you get minimal hard rings on OOF light spots. And dear me its sharp at this setting as well. Better get the blackhead removal plugin working .....

White roses seem to be the in thing these days .....

 
i don't think this one would qualify. the lamb is cute and white and all, but the momma sheep is most probably not. i see some kind of scary warpaint, and judging by the dreadlock hanging from belly, big momma hasn't taken a baaath in a while... no, definitely not white, sorry :P
 
Warren Sarle said:
Lovely photo, but it's got LARGE dark areas. Get out your Photoshop
curves!
Click to expand...
Yea .. but the point was, you don't often get an image that's naturally all white (well ... unless you've forgotten to switch it off manual and ISO6400 when you step outside that is .... I've got loads of those ...)
So I just wanted to show that all that whiteness was natural, and not processed.
Not all of us are clever enough to do stuff with eggshells you know .....

G.
 
I find this theme hard to interpret, because it hasn't been exactly clarified by its host, whether the absense of must be artificial or natural. The examples provided, are curved and hi-keyed to such a degree as to make the impression of the actual image almost invisible. Is invisibility the ultimate goal of a visual art???

The host's is a very strict interpretation of the theme "white on white", which characterizes the final image, and not so much to the actual subject matter photographed, defies generally held principles of good photography.....I've been taught, in good photography, contrast is desireable, especially in grey scale and even high key.

The requirement for colorlessness in a theme of white on white, is purely arbitrary. As Warren's walls show, or Gareth's sheep, actual subject matter which is technically white may appear as anything but white, but as shades of gray, yet these are natural photographs. While a colorful subject might be desaturated and curved into an artificially manipulated oblivion....what is "close enough"???

And moreover, why hasn't there been mass outrage against the saffron yellow in Flick's white irises???
 
Kim Borchardt said:
I find this theme hard to interpret, because it hasn't been exactly
clarified by its host, whether the absense of must be artificial or
natural.
Click to expand...
The Rules allow any degree of post-processing unless the moderator says otherwise.
Kim Borchardt said:
The examples provided, are curved and hi-keyed to such a
degree as to make the impression of the actual image almost
invisible. Is invisibility the ultimate goal of a visual art???
Click to expand...
In the more extreme versions of minimalism, apparently so.
Kim Borchardt said:
The host's is a very strict interpretation of the theme "white on
white", which characterizes the final image, and not so much to the
actual subject matter photographed, defies generally held principles
of good photography.....I've been taught, in good photography,
contrast is desireable, especially in grey scale and even high key.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what makes this challenge challenging.
Kim Borchardt said:
The requirement for colorlessness in a theme of white on white, is
purely arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Yes, but all the challenge themes are arbitrary.
Kim Borchardt said:
As Warren's walls show, or Gareth's sheep, actual
subject matter which is technically white may appear as anything but
white, but as shades of gray, yet these are natural photographs.
While a colorful subject might be desaturated and curved into an
artificially manipulated oblivion....what is "close enough"???
Click to expand...
My interpretation would be that any large or important areas darker than (128,128,128) don't qualify, since that's not white by any stretch of the imagination. Fred said "no colors" but he didn't say "gray scale", so I'm interpreting that to mean that hues should be no more than barely perceptible.

I took "no blacks" literally and curved away anything close to black, which I thought actually produced an interesting effect in the portrait. But it is difficult to avoid blacks completely without post-processing.
Kim Borchardt said:
And moreover, why hasn't there been mass outrage against the saffron
yellow in Flick's white irises???
Click to expand...
Because we try to be polite, to make up for the barbarism in the other forums. But that much yellow won't get more than one vote from me, since the yellow is an important part of the image.

But I'm not awake at this hour, so you shouldn't believe anything I say while I'm typing in my sleep (while the dog has her breakfast).
 
Fred

--
Critique and comments always welcome.



Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions (David Hume)
 
Warren Sarle said:
Kim Borchardt said:
And moreover, why hasn't there been mass outrage against the saffron
yellow in Flick's white irises???
Click to expand...
Because we try to be polite, to make up for the barbarism in the
other forums. But that much yellow won't get more than one vote from
me, since the yellow is an important part of the image.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that's a case of me not reading the brief properly. i honestly didn't pick up on no colour. I'll ammend it later today.
Flick
http://www.pbase.com/flickmerauld/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top