The beauty of a dry leaf (colour)

[JBW]

[Shadowman]

Very nice, I would crop out the background foliage.

[JBW]

Very nice, I would crop out the background foliage.

I had tried that but it didn't work to my liking I couldn't get the seam of the leaf right. But I did take one or two without it and i shall see how they work up.

[Ziggy]

I think I would just change the background foliage to solid black and then give it a go in B&W.

[JBW]

I think I would just change the background foliage to solid black and then give it a go in B&W.

[Adzman808]

FWIW

I definitely prefer it in colour! I think the subdued colours compliment the texture and the lines. In B&W it almost looks like an abstract

[Dave Humphries]

Hi again Brian,

I hesitate to suggest this for a variety of reasons, but just musing ...

I wondered whether, in this thread, it would be possible to post two more variations:
A revision of the colour one, but without the highlights in lower left corner (as you did in B&W).

Plus a revised version of the B&W one where the frame (only) is coloured to match the leaf gold in the colour one.

Then switching between the two in LyteBox would swap the 'colour' from subject to frame - perhaps I'm just being silly; I'll leave you to judge

Cheers, Dave

[Manfred M]

Bryan - a nice demo of what I tell people; most images do not look equally good in colour and B&W. In my view, this is what is happening here. The colour image looks good, but something seems to be missing in the B&W version; you've lost something in the conversion.

[bnnrcn]

Color for me Brian

[JBW]

FWIW

I definitely prefer it in colour! I think the subdued colours compliment the texture and the lines. In B&W it almost looks like an abstract

it seems to be running about 50 /50 for and against. Not one vote for both work for me. If nothing else it seems to be a powerful shot.

[JBW]

Bryan - a nice demo of what I tell people; most images do not look equally good in colour and B&W. In my view, this is what is happening here. The colour image looks good, but something seems to be missing in the B&W version; you've lost something in the conversion.

It is indeed a very different shot in B&W. But I am not sure lost is quite right.

[Manfred M]

It is indeed a very different shot in B&W. But I am not sure lost is quite right.

You have definitely lost something - an sRGB image can display a maximum of around 16.8 million shades (256 x 256 x 256). When you go B&W you are down to a maximum of 256 shades. You have thrown away up to 99.998% of the colour data. If that doesn't equate to losing something, I'm not sure what does.

At a more basic level, some of the subtle shading and tonality has been lost.

[JBW]

You have definitely lost something - an sRGB image can display a maximum of around 16.8 million shades (256 x 256 x 256). When you go B&W you are down to a maximum of 256 shades. You have thrown away up to 99.998% of the colour data. If that doesn't equate to losing something, I'm not sure what does.

At a more basic level, some of the subtle shading and tonality has been lost.

Flying a Fleet Canuck means you can fly low and slow to spot things, do aerobatics and even with enough of a head wind fly backwards. Flying a Cessna 182 means more people, faster getting there, and more comfort.

Both have their good and bad points but I never though one was superior, simply a different plane for a different day.

[Manfred M]

Flying a Fleet Canuck means you can fly low and slow to spot things, do aerobatics and even with enough of a head wind fly backwards. Flying a Cessna 182 means more people, faster getting there, and more comfort.

Both have their good and bad points but I never though one was superior, simply a different plane for a different day.

I won't disagree with what you have written, Brian, but would just expand on it a bit; having seen a Fleet Canuck at the Canadian Aviation & Space Museum and having flown in a Cessna 172 a few times (admittedly a bit different that the Cessna 182; but both are 4-seaters). Both aircraft have a different role; different strengths and weaknesses.

The same can be said for B&W and colour photography. I started out as a B&W photographer and shot nothing else for the first couple of years after I got into serious photography. I moved on to colour as well, but still do B&W to this day. When I take a shot, I've pretty well always made up my mind as to whether the image will be in B&W or colour. I compose / frame differently, for B&W or colour in order to take advantage of the colours or my intent to remove colour (i.e. simplifcation is often why I shoot B&W, although I do have a set of criteria that I do use to make that call). I virtually never change my mind after I've taken the shot. I find that one approach will generally generate a stronger image than the other; I have rarely seen an image that works equally well in both B&W and colour.

I find that this is the case here. The colour image is stronger than the B&W one.

[Wavelength]

I very much agree with Dave's suggestion regarding removing the green leaves in the left bottom corner and giving black and white one a second go with a golden frame.....

[JBW]

I won't disagree with what you have written, Brian, but would just expand on it a bit; having seen a Fleet Canuck at the Canadian Aviation & Space Museum and having flown in a Cessna 172 a few times (admittedly a bit different that the Cessna 182; but both are 4-seaters). Both aircraft have a different role; different strengths and weaknesses.

The same can be said for B&W and colour photography. I started out as a B&W photographer and shot nothing else for the first couple of years after I got into serious photography. I moved on to colour as well, but still do B&W to this day. When I take a shot, I've pretty well always made up my mind as to whether the image will be in B&W or colour. I compose / frame differently, for B&W or colour in order to take advantage of the colours or my intent to remove colour (i.e. simplifcation is often why I shoot B&W, although I do have a set of criteria that I do use to make that call). I virtually never change my mind after I've taken the shot. I find that one approach will generally generate a stronger image than the other; I have rarely seen an image that works equally well in both B&W and colour.

I find that this is the case here. The colour image is stronger than the B&W one.

Love to. There is a mode of flying that is called slow flight. basically you adjust your angle to very steep, and add power to stay airborne. this has the effect of keeping you at a constant altitude while allowing you to move forward slower than you would in straight and level flight.

With a Fleet canuck you can lower your forward speed to 20 or so miles per hour. if you are heading into a wind of say 25mph you get pushed backwards.

I agree that the colour version has more oomph.
B.