I’m glad for the open topic. I am feeling a bit over-structured lately. Been looking at older posts and realizing I’m losing my “zip.” Maybe life has just gotten too serious, but I definitely need my zippedy-doo-dah back!
There was a time not so long ago when head shots — close-ups — were standardized in black & white. That’s the way they were done.
Possibly, it was because they were typically put in newspapers which were black & white — much less expensive to print for everyone.
Personally, I don’t think the quality of color in newsprint is worth looking at. They should stay with black & white.
I also think that black & white closeups are more interesting and dramatic than color.
It turned out that every picture we have that shows bicycles is a Garry Armstrong special. I know there are a few more, but Marilyn could only find one. The rest of the bicycle photographs seem to have vanished into the huge collection of photographs.
This week’s Cee’s Black and White Photo Challenge (CB&W) topic is Patterns. I wan to see all sorts of patterns, on building, clothes, nature, the list is endless. Your patterns can either be a unique looking piece or a pattern created by repetition.
This was not just a photographic challenge. It became something of a philosophical puzzle too. I had to define “pattern” for myself. Does pattern imply “natural” repetition of a theme? Can it be an abstract design that does not repeat?
I eventually decided on “abstract design created by nature.” Nature … but very far from natural. I used so many different effects, from the camera and via Photoshop and other filters that I actually lost track. Suffice to say that these pictures were taken of natural subjects, but the processing is profoundly artificial.
Which brings me to the next philosophical photographic issue. At what point does a picture that started as a photograph cease being one and become a different form of art? I have no answer for that. Not yet. Maybe later.