Last night I posted these two photos on my blog with a simple question: Which version do you prefer?
Votes from the comments (and also the few that came in via Facebook and Flickr) have been counted and verified, and the results are as follows:
-
Colour: 6.5 votes
-
Black and White: 10.5 votes
That half vote? Someone who said they preferred the black and white one now, but with a little tweaking would prefer the colour one. Now you see, I knew full well when I posted them that both versions could be improved. For what it’s worth, I prefer the colour one of this shot. And I had already toned down the colour saturation because the greens in the original shot were very bright to the point of distraction.
.
But here’s the reason I tried it in black and white. See this shot of the same dog:
.
.
Now how’s that for a distracting background? This time a black and white conversion’s an unquestionable improvement.
.
.
But for the first shot, I think the colour should stay. And so does the dog’s owner, which is, I guess, what really matters.
.
Another photography question tomorrow, I feel. This time a technical one…
.
Tonealy in the first shot the dg and the background are very similar, so in black and white there is not enough variation to distinguish the subject from everything else, in the second shot the dog is distinctly different tonealy from the background and so in back and white the dog is pushed forward. I’ve just taken my inlaws to the airport and it’s really early but I cannot get back to sleep, so f ths doesn’t make sense ts cos I’m a bit fuzzy
It makes perfect sense, Ben. I’m sure I could increase the tonal contrast between dog and background in the first one with some sensible adjustment. But I like the colour one now.