POST YOUR BEST B&W SHOTS!

Sibil wrote in post #18790146
Great shot.

Thank you!

Terrycanon wrote in post #18788636
A foggy, foggy day and virtually no colour, so B&W was a logical conversion for this (lots of) birds in flight pic.

Hosted photo: posted by Terrycanon in
./showthread.php?p=187​88636&i=i1831884
forum: Still Life, B/W & Experimental

very nice, great shot

Worms, Germany cathedral

Photo from fotoi's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (952437)

CBT wrote in post #18791037

Oh, I like it. That type of scene with the wind turbines never seems to work out for me. I think you got it just right with this image.

here is a kid i took a few years back.

i like the texture on this. i can almost feel his skin

Webejamn99 wrote in post #18791847
i like the texture on this. i can almost feel his skin

Thanks.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #18793594
missing

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by ptcanon3ti originally in forum: Still Life, B/W & Experimental

An interesting image but something of a fail for me I'm afraid. You have a long well defined shadow in an overcast image with no light source. It just doesn't look right.

Did you try a shorter, much more diffuse shadow? That would be far more real and less jarring.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18793712
An interesting image but something of a fail for me I'm afraid. You have a long well defined shadow in an overcast image with no light source. It just doesn't look right.

For me, the effect is confusion, almost disorientation. There is a light source, the lantern, but the bench has no corresponding shadow. The shadows shown for bench and pole (implying a distant light) converge toward the foreground, whereas in nature they'd diverge slightly and might seem parallel. The shadows of the three visible bench feet run in inconsistent directions at the base. The substrate is also a mystery. What is it? Is it contoured or flat? It appears uneven, but it doesn't bend shadows. Where are we? How much of this photo was real?

OhLook wrote in post #18793756
For me, the effect is confusion, almost disorientation. There is a light source, the lantern, but the bench has no corresponding shadow. The shadows shown for bench and pole (implying a distant light) converge toward the foreground, whereas in nature they'd diverge slightly and might seem parallel. The shadows of the three visible bench feet run in inconsistent directions at the base. The substrate is also a mystery. What is it? Is it contoured or flat? It appears uneven, but it doesn't bend shadows. Where are we? How much of this photo was real?

All of us are different. Confusion = interest, for me.
I think of that image as a bench at a bus stop. Any minute now, the bus bound for heaven will be making a stop.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18793712
An interesting image but something of a fail for me I'm afraid. You have a long well defined shadow in an overcast image with no light source. It just doesn't look right.

Did you try a shorter, much more diffuse shadow? That would be far more real and less jarring.

OhLook wrote in post #18793756
For me, the effect is confusion, almost disorientation. There is a light source, the lantern, but the bench has no corresponding shadow. The shadows shown for bench and pole (implying a distant light) converge toward the foreground, whereas in nature they'd diverge slightly and might seem parallel. The shadows of the three visible bench feet run in inconsistent directions at the base. The substrate is also a mystery. What is it? Is it contoured or flat? It appears uneven, but it doesn't bend shadows. Where are we? How much of this photo was real?

Lololololololololol!!!​! Holy cow!!!