PBase

Looking for critique!
I took this photo and I like the contrast between the polished bronze and the green patina of the two statues. But then I decided to try a black&white (monochrome, one can hardly call this a B+W, can they?). Now I am not so sure anymore...

Which do you prefer and why? Would you have done something different?


(Click images for original size)

You're invited to post your treatment in this thread, I have the original available for download here: http://www.pbase.com/ernst/image/73038723

Looking forward to your reaction.

B&W (or in this case sepia) is almost always more interesting than color, especially when the background is a bright color and the actual subjects are less vivid.

Actually I think in this case the colour image is more interesting - it retains contrast so that you have a greater sense of depth - and the colours are nice.

you could try desaturating the colour one a little, so it retains some colour

Speaking as someone who's doing quite a bit of duotone/tinted stuff lately...

Thanks, that's one all.

Any other opinions?

What do you think of selective color? IMO, the background and distant figure are definitely more interesting in monochrome version. But I will try to leave the foreground figure with the color..., may b a bit less saturated.

My 2c

Michael.

The color version is more pleasing to my eye. It has depth and a dimensional contrast that isolates the near figure's focus nicely. The background color is complimentary to that of the near figure. The monochrome image loses most of the depth and the black background becomes visually "heavy".

in different ways. I like the separation apparent in the color version. I like the "shapes" abstraction apparent in the sepia version, though I'd clone out the obelisk-like thing behind the background figure.

jypsee wrote:in different ways. I like the separation apparent in the color version. I like the "shapes" abstraction apparent in the sepia version, though I'd clone out the obelisk-like thing behind the background figure.

good point about the obelisk thingy.. didn't think about that. it is indeed somewhat unnecessary to the composition...

Thanks all for your suggestions!
During the next weekend, when I have access to photoshop again, I'll try some of the options, like selective colour and cloning-out. However, the obelisk-like object is part of the back sculpture, so I am a little hesitant in that...

I'll post the results.
Thanks.

I like the color one but the background annoys me. I would try to adjust it to a be less intrusive.

sepia toned. hands down. the color is annoying.

I agree that they both are good for different reasons. But I like the pillar thing, especially in the monochrome. It almost looks like an angel wing - having to do with the figure it is next to.. I don't find it distacting at all.
My favorite? I have to go with the color...

I have to disagree with Jude!

I would prefer the mono if it weren't for the obelisk thing behind. But it doesn't distract so much in the colour version because of the rich colour background.

Looking forward to your new options.

Ray

My interpretation

... my new study is more demanding than anticipated.

Again, I thank you all for your suggestions. I tried several and the results are here (click photo for original size):

First, I hesitated cloning out the obelisk, because it is part of the back statue, but you were right, it is an improvement!


Keeping the natural colour for the front statue introduces some weird coloured reflections (not noticeable in the small versions).


Giving them both back their own colours works well.

So, in the end I think I still prefer the monochrome, but without the obelisk.

Philway, I'm afraid your approach is a bit too much for me, yet. Cool effect though , I am surprised however how some details emerge in the structure. I like your idea to do something really radical. Maybe I'll give it a go in the future. Thanks for posting and if you have more, please post.