I like where this is going.
My early "landscapes," (crap mostly), were all done in B&W. From shooting, to final print it was fast and fun to do. Then I discovered Kodachrome. Then I discovered Agfachrome. Then I discovered Fujichrome. Then I discovered Ilfochrome. I use color only as the final suggestion of what I'm trying to express. If the image doesn't already have all of the other elements that satisfy my curiosity, I won't print it. Great color or not. To me the color, however rich and brilliant, is secondary to the quality of the photograph, and mostly puts a "finishing touch" upon the subject matter.
Yes, I like landscape photography.
I have come to despise the genre that suggests Man is vile and fallen
and should not be portrayed in nature. I am most interested in scenes that illustrate a harmony of Man in Nature. After years in the Rockies, I prefer - infinitely - an apple orchard. Or a pasture.
As for medium, I simply use what will express my feelings and the data for that image. 80% of the time, it's B&W. Obviously, when all the world becomes gray, usually color conveys the emotion when B&W would fail. It is NOT dogmatic, nor ideological for me. It's all about the image.
Here's a 'fall color' shot of a wonderful scene I look forward to every year. It will never work in B&W, it depends completely upon Color. And FLASH !
Perhaps we can have a 'landscape workshop' here sometime. But everyone would have to love celtic music.
The types of landscapes I tend to prefer to look at look better in color, except in winter. Cityscapes, on the other hand, look better to me in black and white, or increasingly blue or brown and white. Some woodland scenes work well for me in black and white, but I tend not to think of those as landscapes.
Landscape is just about all I shoot. As for BW vs. Color it depends on the mood I am in, and the situation.
If shooting in color I tend to have a very narrow field of view. I don't like wide angle color landscape photographs. I do like wide angle BW landscape photographs.
Why? I honestly have no idea. I think the color intimate landscape is just that, personal, a feeling of moment and place. I don't get that feeling with wide angle sweeping grand landscapes in color. In BW I do not feel this way at all. I think the Grand Landscape is best rendered in BW. Just a preference I guess.
I am strictly a color photographer and as such shoot only color landscape photographs (and is a major portion of my photographic work). I see the world in color. As others have indicated to take a successful color photograph and in this case color landscapes it is often more difficult than in B&W. For much of my color landscape work, and what is frequently most striking or most successful relies on color as the (or at least a) major subject (or element) or color that adds an important added benefit to the image. I can certainly appreciate excellent B&W work as well and seeing such fine work in our galleries and elsewhere does give me reason to attempt this medium again. In fact, there are times that I am out and taking landscape images that I recognize that the conditions would be much more ideal for B&W than for color.
I am very interested in Black and White Platinum with a colour Gum layer over top, I am keen to learn this process from Kerik within the next year.
Best of both worlds. archival B&W and colour combined.
I like *some* landscapes, but not others. It's difficult to say specifically what attracts me to some but not others, but I have no *general* preference for either color or black and white. For me, color, or the lack thereof, all depends on the feeling that is imparted by the photo and if the color adds or detracts from that feeling. Sometimes color does the best job, but other times the abstracted feel of black and white does it, but it always seem to be tied to the overall feeling.
A couple of the main problems I have with some color landscapes are over-saturated colors, and the looming foreground object, usually a rock. These once were attractive to some extent, but they have become so common that they now prevent me from being able to enjoy an otherwise aesthetically pleasing image. Color can be very powerful when used by someone who understands how to use it, but there are times when black and white drives the photo and color would just be a distraction. Other times the lack of skill results in a misuse of color, which is like any other misjudgment can be annoying.
To put things in context, I used to shoot a lot of landscapes but in recent years have not shot many at all. Most of my landscapes were in color, and my goal was to use the color for emphasis, but as films became more and more saturated, I found that I preferred using black and white. Now I will use either depending on the specific setting, but I still lean toward more black and white landscapes than color, when I shoot them.
I tend to like what I like.
If it's spectacular I like it. Doesn't have to be flashy, just spectacular. I like Roberts (roteague) work as well a some other APUGers.
I used to shoot a fair amount of color landscape stuff but found that it stayed in drawers. Now I only shoot B&W and I print and display it.
I do think that most landscape work would benefit greatly from having people or a human "element" as part of the image.
Unfortunately, most landscape photographers, aren't people photographers so you rarely see it.
I prefer B&W, it often touched my heart. My favorite photographer is Wynn Bullock.
Yes. Right now i shoot b+w mostly with some velvia and b+w infrared thrown in. I like to use the right tools for the job so i carry all 3 types of film just in case. I usually get better results with b+w though. I've got plenty of good slides but haven't been satisfied with the printing aspect up to this point.