Flickr's "Explore," a brightly-lit shop window for selected high points from among their users' work, is all B&W today. (Google "Flickr Explore.")
Much of it is "B&W for special effects," and a lot of it exhibits what Oren trenchantly called that "characteristic low-key, gloomy-theatrical look." Actually he was talking about B&W from monochrome-converted sensors when he said that. But that's a good description of the palette, all right.
I've added four more shots to the Sigma FP samples on Flickr, too. I screwed up, though. You can read about it in the captions there.
"Farm Field," my picture that was featured on Explore, got 6,635 views! [UPDATE: 7,668 as of Saturday, and the big increases seem to have ended as the picture is no longer on the Explore page.]
Mike
(Thanks to ChrisC)
Book o' the Fortnight
Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.
These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.
Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
KeithB: "In my photography class in college, we were to have one shot that illustrated depth of field. I had a young cousin pose in a field like yours with a fairly large aperture. So I used a field to illustrate depth of field!"
Mike replies: I heartily approve.
Michael Elenko: "Eliot Porter has been in my photography Pantheon for a long time. About five years ago, I was in my doctor's waiting room. His personal photographs of nature scenes on the wall are OK. In perusing the images, one popped out and I did a double take: it was an Eliot Porter original. When I got to see my doctor, he explained that he won it in a benefit auction and didn't know anything about Porter. I filled him in and offered to relieve him of the photograph if, when he retires, his home wall space becomes maxed out."
Sean: "Re 'T.S. Eliot said April is the cruellest month, but August is the saddest month.' And blue is the saddest colour, but you'll be golden if you remember that Keats said autumn is the season of mists and mellow fruitfulness."
Jack Mac: "I have In Wildness..., first printing, and the printing is as amazing as you say."
ChrisC: "I've never quite worked out what the criteria are for being featured on the Flickr Explore page (except perhaps for being a Pro account holder). At times I do find myself questioning why a photo may have been featured. However, that is probably due to the uncertainty in Flickr's purpose. Some people use it as a gallery, others simply for picture hosting with the display/discussion taking place on other sites, some people seem to treat it as an online backup and simply dump everything they shoot, and others still play the social media game of collecting followers/'likes.' As for the black-and-white featured images, I think John's earlier comment sums up a lot of thoughts about them—there are certainly several that fall into the 'Why B&W?' category, as well as several 'Why featured?' Despite this, I still find myself regularly browsing through the Explore page on a regular basis."
Mike replies: Well I'm glad you check it—I never knew it existed before now, and if you hadn't told me my picture was on it I probably never would have known. Thanks again.
I looked at that B&W collection on Flickr and have a number of observations. (1) Just because it's in B&W doesn't make a photo good. I had somewhat higher expectations of these photos, because if somebody is shooting in B&W he/she is probably an enthusiast. But, it is what it is. (2) For most of the photos, B&W strikes me as an affectation. It simply wouldn't make any difference whether they were B&W or color. Of course, I couldn't see what the color might be in many of them, unless it was foliage, and maybe some of the B&W conversions were done because the color was poor or even offensive. (3) It strikes me that back in the day, when B&W was the default mode, it was in most cases a handicap, not a feature. B&W is now a purely aesthetic choice, but it works best with only a narrow range of photos. The point being, that if you go out with a Monochrom, or even just a monochrome, you'll have to pass on a great range of photo possibilities because they'll want color. So, if you can work your head around it, and if Lightroom/Photoshop conversions turn out as good (for the shooter) as a Monochrom or a monochrome, you'll have a much more interesting photo day if you retain the color possibilities, n'est-ce pas? (4) The strongest non-cliche B&Ws seem to be portraits, where you have a never-ending variety and in which color really doesn't seem to matter much.
Posted by: John Camp | Thursday, 25 August 2022 at 02:39 PM
Maybe add a link to your blog on Flickr?
[Not allowed. --Mike]
Posted by: Richard Parkin | Thursday, 25 August 2022 at 03:00 PM
I’m guessing that Flickr “Pro” users are allowed to link to their websites, since many do, and that you were unable to do that before you paid them.
Posted by: Richard Parkin | Thursday, 25 August 2022 at 06:25 PM
I went to the Rhode Island School of Design library today (they have EVERYTHING) to look at the Eliot Porter 1962 edition you recommend. Quite amazing color printing for 1962 BUT we have come a LONG way in color photography/printing in the past 60 years! Odd/way off overall color on balance many of the photos, odd looking sharpening on many of the leaves, many blown out highlights. Not sure how this book looks compared to the original chromes.
Posted by: Jeff in RI | Thursday, 25 August 2022 at 08:02 PM
I agree with John Camp. Black and white certainly can be an affectation now, but in the day, it was the only way to go. Printing color in the darkroom was an exercise in futility, endless iterations of off colors. Skin was always too yellow-jaundice, or blue-heart disease. The greens were never quite right. When color became doable on a computer in the early days of Photoshop it was an absolute revelation. Using a monochrome only camera is like running in a race using only one leg. You can do it but it's really hard and you miss out on a lot. Having the range of colors available to adjust the equivalent of the yellow, orange, or red filter in micro units is also a huge advantage. I've seen prints from Leica M's of various vintages and like all such arguments, you need an imagination to see differences. I'd never argue against people enjoying and choosing whatever gear they feel enhances their creativity but... Content is still king.
Posted by: Eric Brody | Thursday, 25 August 2022 at 09:49 PM
Don’t use Flickr for commercial activity, unless you’re a Flickr Pro.
Only Flickr Pro members are permitted to link directly to a shopping cart, checkout page, or pricing pages on other sites. Flickr Pros may also list prices for their products in their Flickr photo descriptions.
https://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines
Posted by: Richard Parkin | Friday, 26 August 2022 at 04:38 AM
I think maybe I can see some of the artifacts you reference in the accidental jpegs. Maybe.
Can you point out where to see a clear example? I have downloaded the osprey nest shot, but unless I crush the levels to the center, I don't see much.
Posted by: Luke | Saturday, 27 August 2022 at 08:59 AM
While I always try to display my "best" and freshest work, I'm very bad at evaluating my images. As such, I post almost daily to Flickr as a "beta test" to help me determine whether a photo has some merit. The ratio of "views" from random viewers to "faves" & "comments" offers a crude metric.
I suspect that most people, while interested, are passive when surfing others work. As such, I figure within the first 24 hours of exposure, if 10% of the image's viewers are moved enough to indicate a "fave", or better yet, "comment", then something must be happening in it.
I still have my personal "keepers" though I'm frequently pleasantly surprised.
Cheers... M
Posted by: Michael Gay | Monday, 29 August 2022 at 06:08 AM
KeithB: "In my photography class in college, we were to have one shot that illustrated depth of field. I had a young cousin pose in a field like yours with a fairly large aperture. So I used a field to illustrate depth of field!"
Hmmmnn, a dual cabbageway?
I'll get my coat ....
Posted by: Olybacker | Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 01:20 PM