Needless to say, I feel the need to respond to the nonsense that's been posted regarding black and white conversion. But first, let me note, as I did when PhotoDavid first posted his image, that I like it; it's a quite lovely photo illustration.

So about black and white. First, converting to black and white is something that all of us who shot film often did in the black and white darkroom, taking a color negative and using it to produce a black and white print. The only manipulation involved was the usual adjustment of focus (sharpness), contrast, and burning and dodging, all of which we do in Photoshop. By using the color negative to produce a black and white print, one is simply focusing, if you will, on the gradients of light and shadow within the image. So making a similar conversion with a color digital image really is quite straight forward, and bears virtually no relation to things such as HDR, various Photoshop painting techniques, altering an image by heavy vignetting, by excessive burning down, or any of the other tricks that are considered verboten in photo journalism.

Also, digital cameras do, indeed, "see" in black and white, and their production of color images is as much an artificial construct as colored images of Mars, or, for that matter, colored MRIs. Lensmole provided a very helpful explanation of this reality - the sensor only captures light, not color. It requires a special filter over the sensor to turn that captured black and white image into a colored image.

Finally, one prefers color to black and white, great. Shoot don't convert back to black and white those images your camera has converted to color. I happen to like both color and black and white. But don't suggest that what David did to produce his photo illustration is no different than converting to black and white - because it isn't.

Originally Posted by bdcolen Needless to say, I feel the need to respond to the nonsense that's been posted regarding black and white conversion. But first, let me note, as I did when PhotoDavid first posted his image, that I like it; it's a quite lovely photo illustration. So about black and white. First, converting to black and white is something that all of us who shot film often did in the black and white darkroom, taking a color negative and using it to produce a black and white print. The only manipulation involved was the usual adjustment of focus (sharpness), contrast, and burning and dodging, all of which we do in Photoshop. By using the color negative to produce a black and white print, one is simply focusing, if you will, on the gradients of light and shadow within the image. So making a similar conversion with a color digital image really is quite straight forward, and bears virtually no relation to things such as HDR, various Photoshop painting techniques, altering an image by heavy vignetting, by excessive burning down, or any of the other tricks that are considered verboten in photo journalism. Also, digital cameras do, indeed, "see" in black and white, and their production of color images is as much an artificial construct as colored images of Mars, or, for that matter, colored MRIs. Lensmole provided a very helpful explanation of this reality - the sensor only captures light, not color. It requires a special filter over the sensor to turn that captured black and white image into a colored image. Finally, one prefers color to black and white, great. Shoot don't convert back to black and white those images your camera has converted to color. I happen to like both color and black and white. But don't suggest that what David did to produce his photo illustration is no different than converting to black and white - because it isn't.

And a response to the response.


I am baffled by the idea that one would want to see what a camera "sees." It's been pretty well established, AFAIK that the raw output of a camera is blurry (due to the demosaicing process) and flat. Should we then also turn off capture sharpening and crank down the contrast so that we can get that flat blurry look that so many people find desirable?

And, as RyanS points out, HDR is significantly closer to what the eye sees-- when do you really see a blocked shadow or a blown highlight in real life? It's also as easy (or as hard!) to implement as black and white conversion. Heck, I have two (not very new!) cameras that can do HDR in camera.

I'd like to point out, by the way, that I'm not against black and white for Docu photos. Heck, I'm pro b/w, hdr, star filters, textured backgrounds, selective color, IR effects, tilt-shift, the whole nine yards. You find an obscure or overused effect, I'm all for it.Seriously.*

But don't pretend that black and white is somehow special from all those other things, 'cause it ain't. It's more familar, perhaps, due to the fact that it's about 100 years older, but it's still photo-manipulation.** Give the same (digital) color photograph to a half dozen photographers. Ask them to convert it to black and white. If your hypothesis as I understand it is correct, and we're just "getting back" to some a priori black and white image that existed in the camera, we should get back 6 of the exact same image. We won't, because those photographers are not all going to convert that image by doing a straight mixing of 25% red, 50% green, and 25% blue. In fact, if they're any good, none of them will.

To sum up: I don't think any form of photo-manipulation is, of itself, incorrect for this forum. I do consider black and white to be a form of stylized photo-manipulation. (There are about as many inches of books devoted to it as there are to HDR at my local bookstore!)

And at this point, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I do plan to continue posting color, b/w, hdr, and maybe even some textured b/g pictures to this forum.

Oh, and, PhotoDavid78, cool pic! . Looks much better with the texture.

*With the exception that if you're trying to publish the photo, i.e. not playing around on a forum, you either need to play by some very strict rules such as the AP guidelines, or be very transparent about what you did.

**I guess, if you really want to get technical about it, until a 360 degree panorama 3d camera with a dynamic range of 20+ stops is invented, all photography is manipulation.

To which I only will add that every newspaper and magazine does black and white conversion; most newspapers would fire photographers who engage in other forms of what you call "manipulation."

No, there aren't "rules" here - but this is a "Documentary" forum - and there is nothing "documentary" about photo illustration - it is taking what was, and turning into something that never was and never will be. It is NOT documentary. Period.

I'm loving the debate. A quick example of why it's the journalist and not the processing.
A CNN photographer was covering Tibet and took a shot of the Chinese police beating Tibetan Monks. A few weeks later it came out that he purposely didn't shoot half the scene.
When compared to an AP shot of the same scene it showed the Monks throwing rocks and antagonizing the Police. So my point is, while both photos had little or no processing, it was the journalists shooting that made it unethical not the processing.

Originally Posted by bdcolen To which I only will add that every newspaper and magazine does black and white conversion; most newspapers would fire photographers who engage in other forms of what you call "manipulation." No, there aren't "rules" here - but this is a "Documentary" forum - and there is nothing "documentary" about photo illustration - it is taking what was, and turning into something that never was and never will be. It is NOT documentary. Period.

But then, by your reasoning, neither would this picture be considered documentary: that little girl will never have all the color removed from her environment. She will likely never be encapsulated by a thick black border. She will hever have parts of her environment darkened and lightened selectively.* You took something that was, and made it into something it never was and never will be.**

... but I'd still consider it documentary!***

*I'm guessing you dodged and burned parts of the image for effect. I'm prepared to be wrong on that point.

**I'll hedge my bets and say there's an outside chance that she suffers from achromatopsia, and possibly glaucoma. But I think that's a long shot.

***(Even if it had a textured background!)

Originally Posted by MarkR But then, by your reasoning, neither would this picture be considered documentary: that little girl will never have all the color removed from her environment. She will likely never be encapsulated by a thick black border. She will hever have parts of her environment darkened and lightened selectively.* You took something that was, and made it into something it never was and never will be.** ... but I'd still consider it documentary!*** *I'm guessing you dodged and burned parts of the image for effect. I'm prepared to be wrong on that point. **I'll hedge my bets and say there's an outside chance that she suffers from achromatopsia, and possibly glaucoma. But I think that's a long shot. ***(Even if it had a textured background!)

Right. I'd call it street photography. And it has been very little altered - just a bit of burning in and contrast boosting, as one would do in the darkroom, to bring out the ceiling lights.

But this is getting pretty nonsensical.

Originally Posted by bdcolen Right. I'd call it street photography. And it has been very little altered - just a bit of burning in and contrast boosting, as one would do in the darkroom, to bring out the ceiling lights. But this is getting pretty nonsensical.

Why is it nonsensical? It's all about where you draw the line ... Yours is a very narrow circle that strangely juts out for things such as dodging, burning, black and white, and frames. I've drawn the circle significantly larger, allowing things like HDR, texture mapping, etc.

It's very likely we'll never see eye to eye on this, but I'm ok with that. Check out my .sig for details.

We'd probably both agree that cloning in extra people to make a crowd scene bigger, or using the transform tool to make someone look sickly, are off limits. It's that sticky area of artistic intent where the interesting arguments lie.

(And if black and white isn't all about artistic intent, then why all the books?)

ugh

you have picked some nice processing to enhance an other wise dull image..now imagine if you had used a more compelling base image and rocked that processing on that? Your skill here was that you found nice compleimentary process..whihc is no small feat but you could've picked a better base image no?

Originally Posted by Qarik you have picked some nice processing to enhance an other wise dull image..now imagine if you had used a more compelling base image and rocked that processing on that? Your skill here was that you found nice compleimentary process..whihc is no small feat but you could've picked a better base image no?

Of course and I have just not this time.

Originally Posted by bdcolen Also, digital cameras do, indeed, "see" in black and white, and their production of color images is as much an artificial construct as colored images of Mars, or, for that matter, colored MRIs. Lensmole provided a very helpful explanation of this reality - the sensor only captures light, not color. It requires a special filter over the sensor to turn that captured black and white image into a colored image.

Well, our eye pretty much works the same way. We are only sensitive to three colors--one of each of the three types of cones we have in our retinas, which filter the light into 'color' in much the same way as a camera does. And for each of these--much like an R,G, or B pixel in the camera sensor--the incident light is just converted into an electrical signal that conveys intensity. There is no actual 'color' that reaches our brain, only an electrical signal. All of the richness we perceive as color is just a construct of our visual cortex. For example, we cannot be certain that when we perceive a green object, it is actually green; it may be a combination of blue and yellow, with no green whatsoever. The important question is not what our eye sees--it sees very little, in fact--but what rises to the level of consciousness. This is many steps removed from our eye.

But as far as why B&W is still considered an acceptable format for documentary photography, I suspect it is nothing more than an aesthetic legacy.

Originally Posted by bdcolen No, there aren't "rules" here - but this is a "Documentary" forum - and there is nothing "documentary" about photo illustration - it is taking what was, and turning into something that never was and never will be. It is NOT documentary. Period.

I agree that it is not documentary, but neither is a photograph of a knapsack
caught up in a bush unless you are establishing that it is possible for a knapsack
to be caught up in a bush. This is not the "Found Objects Forum".

This is not a Pet Photograph forum, either, but dog photos - and I'm not talking
about a dog in a "street" shot - have appeared without negative comments.
It's not the "People" forum where photographers of models and weddings
strut their chops.

It's a bit out-of-place in this forum, but that camel has been fully in the
tent before. I see it as David just flexing his PS skills on an image that
wouldn't garner much attention if presented as-shot. Nice job. I would
have liked to have a click-to-enlarge, though, since the size used doesn't
do much for it.

Originally Posted by TonyCooper I agree that it is not documentary, but neither is a photograph of a knapsack caught up in a bush unless you are establishing that it is possible for a knapsack to be caught up in a bush. This is not the "Found Objects Forum". This is not a Pet Photograph forum, either, but dog photos - and I'm not talking about a dog in a "street" shot - have appeared without negative comments. It's not the "People" forum where photographers of models and weddings strut their chops. It's a bit out-of-place in this forum, but that camel has been fully in the tent before. I see it as David just flexing his PS skills on an image that wouldn't garner much attention if presented as-shot. Nice job. I would have liked to have a click-to-enlarge, though, since the size used doesn't do much for it.

Actually I was wondering how to achieve the click to enlarge??

BD is an accomplished, knowledgeable, professional photographer. I am disappointed that there are so many people here who think that by buying a dslr they are more knowledgeable than he is. Instead of attacking him, why not listen; instead of quoting him and attempting to use his quotes against him, why not think about what he is saying. To say that black and white photography is an aesthetic and nothing more shows deep ignorance of the medium. Photographers dodge and burn photographs that are already inspirational and unique. They do not take what is otherwise a nothing shot and attempt to give it texture or whatever and then get offended when others don't like it. "My shot is great because I took it with this brand new camera that I can't really use properly because I usually only keep my cameras for 5 months. I upgrade thinking that the next camera will transform my mundane shots into sublime shots!" Pathetic. BD's dog shots are a series based on a particular moment in his life that has inspired him in a certain way. The shots build upon his knowledge and are a reflection of his experience. To see them as pet shots clearly misses the point.

Originally Posted by damonff BD is an accomplished, knowledgeable, professional photographer. I am disappointed that there are so many people here who think that by buying a dslr they are more knowledgeable than he is. Instead of attacking him, why not listen; instead of quoting him and attempting to use his quotes against him, why not think about what he is saying. To say that black and white photography is an aesthetic and nothing more shows deep ignorance of the medium. Photographers dodge and burn photographs that are already inspirational and unique. They do not take what is otherwise a nothing shot and attempt to give it texture or whatever and then get offended when others don't like it. "My shot is great because I took it with this brand new camera that I can't really use properly because I usually only keep my cameras for 5 months. I upgrade thinking that the next camera will transform my mundane shots into sublime shots!" Pathetic. BD's dog shots are a series based on a particular moment in his life that has inspired him in a certain way. The shots build upon his knowledge and are a reflection of his experience. To see them as pet shots clearly misses the point.

1. Nobody's attacking BD. There is such a thing as a free exchange of ideas. The Roman fora were, in addition to marketplaces, places were ideas were hashed out and argued. Our modern forums perform an analogous function.

2. Your other argument is a straw-man argument. The OP has not, AFAIK, been "offended when others don't like it." The OP took his shot with a K10D (I believe!). Certainly not a "brand new camera that I can't really use properly because I usually only keep my cameras for 5 months."

3. No one has attacked BD or his credentials, which are impressive. Which is why I listen carefully to what he has to say. But I can still disagree when something doesn't sit right with me. See point #1.

4. I (and others in this thread!) would love to hear your ideas about where the line is drawn for post processing. I think it's an important topic! More on topic, I'm sure the OP would love some constructive criticism about what you think worked or didn't work in this photo.

Originally Posted by MarkR 1. Nobody's attacking BD. There is such a thing as a free exchange of ideas. The Roman fora were, in addition to marketplaces, places were ideas were hashed out and argued. Our modern forums perform an analogous function. 2. Your other argument is a straw-man argument. The OP has not, AFAIK, been "offended when others don't like it." The OP took his shot with a K10D (I believe!). Certainly not a "brand new camera that I can't really use properly because I usually only keep my cameras for 5 months." 3. No one has attacked BD or his credentials, which are impressive. Which is why I listen carefully to what he has to say. But I can still disagree when something doesn't sit right with me. See point #1. 4. I (and others in this thread!) would love to hear your ideas about where the line is drawn for post processing. I think it's an important topic! More on topic, I'm sure the OP would love some constructive criticism about what you think worked or didn't work in this photo.

How about modern spelling? I think you mean where, not were. Also, fora is already plural. Forum is singular.

Originally Posted by damonff How about modern spelling? I think you mean where, not were. Also, fora is already plural. Forum is singular.

Thank you for your corrections. In re: fora/forums I was riffing on the fact that fora is plural, but the modern, colloquial plural is forums. And I apologize in advance if there are any misspellings in this post.

Glad I wrote a few thoughts out.

We humans do love to categorize everything, then argue like hell about whether or not a particular example belongs in this category or that. A documentary photograph should be an accurate representation of a subject only to the same extent a news story should only inform. Since news is inherently biased and serves an entertainment function as well as an informative function, I guess there is no good reason why a documentary photograph shouldn't do the same. If B&W is more entertaining (e.g. by virtue of being more aesthetically pleasing), then fine--let's call it photojournalism.

What I do find interesting in this discussion are arguments that include or exclude certain techniques as valid in photojournalism based on tradition and legacy. For example, dodging and burning are acceptable, but HDR is not (for some, at least). If one is trying to capture the most accurate representation of the actual subject, then HDR will often get around the single biggest functional distinction between the camera and the human eye: dynamic range (or more precisely, preserving intensity gradients).

To clear up a few things. This particular shot was shot and edited on the iPhone. I find that with the iPhone I am able to be quicker and stealthy. My landscapes/portraits I use my k10d but for the street I really love the iPhone.

As far as BD goes, nobody has attacked him. An attack would be calling his photos or opinion crap which is certainly not the case. There is nothing wrong with healthy debate and just because he is the resident expert doesn't mean one can't question him.