The Conch (Sepia)

[Marko]

Hi Tegan and others,

Here's a sepia shot that I feel works. Colour would have sucked in this case.
Given your responses from the previous thread on sepia tegan I don't expect you to like it but I know many others do due to their previous feedback. I am aware that this is a very low res image (35k)

feel free to critique.

Thx
Marko

[tirediron]

Level the horizon!!! All the water's running out of your image and onto my keyboard!



I like the image, it's a little dark toward the bottom for my taste, but yes, I think the sepia does work here.

[tomorrowstreasures]

I love the soft focus on this image - the ethereal quality of it... and the sepia!

[tegan]

You say, Marko, that colour would have sucked, BUT you did not provide a colour version for us to see and make up our own minds.

The low res, suggests a Holga image, but you are very fuzzy as to what you are trying to do with sepia.

Composition wise the distortion of your wide angle lens is a distraction and I would crop the image below the elbows. The problem I have with sepia is that the concque would seem to stand out more in colour. In sepia it blends in. The blurred focus contradicts your espoused attention to tones. Both are part of technical quality. Either technical quality is important or it is not. Make up your mind please, so that I can understand where the value is in what you are doing. So far, you are still confusing me.

If I was viewing it in total isolation in 1930 for example, I would probably say it was a good shot, but I was not even born then so I really can't see a relevance to modern photography or current artistic expresion.

Tegan

[Marko]

Can't offer the colour version - there is none. This is a sepia toned infra-red image from film. It was further diffused during the printing to get the soft focus then toned sepia.

The actual print reveals many tones in the blacks though it is dark.
Sorry I can't offer better resolution at this point.

My main objective in posting this was to show that the sepia works in this case. I stand by that statement despite any suggestion to the contrary.

I'll get back to this digitally one day and I'll level the horizon!

Both are part of technical quality. Either technical quality is important or it is not. Make up your mind please, so that I can understand where the value is in what you are doing. So far, you are still confusing me.

If I was viewing it in total isolation in 1930 for example, I would probably say it was a good shot, but I was not even born then so I really can't see a relevance to modern photography or current artistic expresion.

I think questioning the value and relevance of someone's artistic expression is rather rude tegan.

Thanks everyone

M

[tegan]

Can't offer the colour version - there is none. This is a sepia toned infra-red image from film. It was further diffused during the printing to get the soft focus then toned sepia.

The actual print reveals many tones in the blacks though it is dark.
Sorry I can't offer better resolution at this point.

My main objective in posting this was to show that the sepia works in this case. I stand by that statement despite any suggestion to the contrary.

I'll get back to this digitally one day and I'll level the horizon!



I think questioning the value and relevance of someone's artistic expression is rather rude tegan.

Thanks everyone

M

Hey, I am not trying to be rude but rather trying to understand the rationale and trying to explain how I see it and so far no one has explained where my view is wrong.

So, yes, I can see with a retro designed room in your house, you might want to display sepia shots that looked historical or "timeless" or perhaps if you were into antiques, you might want to display sepia shots in the same area.

On the opposite side however, I do not see why I would want to display sepia shots in a family album and try to explain to the viewer why they were not in colour like the rest of the shots and that it was not due to the age of the photos taken but rather that sepia is supposedly more artistic. I would get some very strange looks, I assure you.

I also find it somewhat contradictory that those on the opposite end of the "realistic portrayal" discussion tend to be arguing for "lens distortion" and for unrealistic colour. I would appreciate some explanation of how these two apparently opposite views are logical and sensible in any photographer"s mind.

I said before there were essentially two basic attitudes toward sepia. It is ether an approach to creating an aged or historical photo which means duplicating the historical look of old film that had faded. The means of judging this is whether the historical look comes across to the viewer.

The second is that it is just a special effect used for artistic expression. The means of judging this is whether sepia is the BEST means "in the eye of the viewer" for shooting this particular centre of interest. So, if colour is more effective than sepia then sepia should not have been used. Sepia should only be used if it is the most effective approach for the subject.

I would appreciate knowing Marko, which of the two approaches you take. You avoided answering that question previously which created my confusion and perhaps led to your incorrect assumption of rudeness.

So, I am indicating very precisely how I see things, so I would still like to hear more precisely where you think I am wrong.

Tegan