Options
Rods or Cones: A discussion of B&W vs Color
I shoot my photos in RAW and always in color (is there a RAW B & W setting even?). This is opposite to how I learned photography in the garage darkroom with B & W. Back then, the focus was on the composition and the rich tones of greys (I recall 38 or so with glossy, but may be completely off...)
In the Street & PJ forum, it seems about one-half (I counted a small sampling) are B & W. I wonder if it is because of the tradition of B & W for photojournalists or if people just equate PJ and B & W. Along this line, do posters in B & W shoot in B & W or just convert it to B & W because it happens to look better or they happen to be posting in this forum.
One other question that I have is the amount of contrast in B & W that I am seeing. Many well-received photos are high contrast, seeming to decrease the tones of grey available and with a harsh effect (for dramatic effect?)
As an example, I took the following (for B.D.'s challenge) and never intended it as a B & W shot:
I can convert it to B & W by merely moving my DPP sliders to zero color saturation and then adjust the contrast with its slider to get this:
This does give the photo a different feel and quality.
I would like to hear some thoughts from others on their choice and methodology of shooting/posting in B & W or color.
In the Street & PJ forum, it seems about one-half (I counted a small sampling) are B & W. I wonder if it is because of the tradition of B & W for photojournalists or if people just equate PJ and B & W. Along this line, do posters in B & W shoot in B & W or just convert it to B & W because it happens to look better or they happen to be posting in this forum.
One other question that I have is the amount of contrast in B & W that I am seeing. Many well-received photos are high contrast, seeming to decrease the tones of grey available and with a harsh effect (for dramatic effect?)
As an example, I took the following (for B.D.'s challenge) and never intended it as a B & W shot:
I can convert it to B & W by merely moving my DPP sliders to zero color saturation and then adjust the contrast with its slider to get this:
This does give the photo a different feel and quality.
I would like to hear some thoughts from others on their choice and methodology of shooting/posting in B & W or color.
0
Comments
I only returned to 'serious' dSLR photography a couple of years ago, starting out with colour but quickly realising that I simply enjoy B&W. So 95% of the time when I'm shooting in an urban setting, I'm composing and thinking in B&W. Sometimes, an image might end up better in colour, but it's rare.
I've discovered that if I set the camera to B&W for jpeg, it will preview the image in B&W even though I exclusively shoot RAW. Although I don't chimp all that much, I've found this helpful when I do as well as for initial culling before downloading a set. PP is done pretty much exclusively in Aperture on a calibrated monitor. I have a workflow that I use to get to an initial B&W conversion, but it's not magic. I have PSE 4 but it isn't happy on Snow Leopard, so I'll likely upgrade it to the latest version sometime soon even though I've had very few reasons to use it.
One extra thought I'd like to share. Since returning to a B&W mentality, I think I've come to see colour differently. It's become a much more deliberate process.
I do all my conversions in CS3 using the B&W adjustment layer. I start by cycling through the presets to see what the various filters look like, then usually pick the one I like best and tweak the channel mixer settings from there. On occasion, I will combine more than one masked conversion layers if the image requires it. I generally put two curves layers on top of that, one to make the basic adjustments, then a clone of that one in one of the overlay modes to add contrast. That last step is the hardest for me. I do like high contrast, but I am not happy about losing detail just to achieve that look. I'm probably still too timid about it, but I'm working on it.
Marc, as you may know, does absolutely stunning landscape and outdoor life photography. I'm talking show stopping, full color stuff.
He said that when he is culling through his shots, he takes a quick look at them in b&w. If a shot is compelling in b&w, he knows he has a good one.
B&w forces us to look at composition in a different way. I personally am drawn to color and design - interesting patterns or juxtapositions of colors, color densities etc. A picture can delight me just because of the colors.
If you take away my color, I am forced to confront the question of whether there is something interesting beyond that in the photograph. How compelling are the content and the composition? Those 2 c's are not only crucial to really good pj (which, I hasten to say is not my strength or even my favorite) but, arguably to all photography.
Now, I check all of the photos I am thinking of keeping to see if they hold their interest in b&w - then, if they do, I "develop" them in color or b&w as the subject and my mood move me. Sometimes I do both.
Re the high contrast of the b&w's you are seeing on the PJ forum, I think that is definitely the current flavor of the month. I like the drama of a fairly high contrast b&w, though I do try to preserve the mid-tones too.
Virginia
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
A couple of quick thoughts:
Despite the way the terms are thrown around on Dgrin, and the way they can overlap, photo journalism, documentary photography, and street photography are three different things. I'm not going to restart the endless discussion of that now, other than to note that the vast - vast - majority of what most of us would agree is photo journalism - journalism with a camera; covering news events - is shot and posted/printed in color these days. That said, documentary photography and street have traditionally been shot and now are presented mostly in black and white because they come from a time and tradition of black and white. In the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and I guess into the 60s, when the strongest, most iconic work in these areas was done, color film pretty much sucked,
Now, why is much of this work still done in black and white? Simple - black and white, with its emphasis on contrast, form, and composition, tends to tell stories in clearer terms. When you shoot in color, generally what people see is the color - which is why I would argue that a color photograph is about the color. When you shoot in black and white, your subject is much more obvious. Or to put it another way, shoot people in color and the viewer sees their clothes; shoot them in black and white and the viewer seems them. Your posted photo is a great example of this. Presented in color, what I see are the lovely colors. Presented in black and white, I see the subject, the form and composition.
Yes, it makes sense to shoot everything raw, which gives you a color and a black and white negative. Having shot in black and white all my life, I can visualize in black and white, and am not thrown by having a color image on the LCD.
If I were you, I'd go for another conversion method, however. I'd suggest that this is a stronger image than the black and white you've posted.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I am usually very aware of the medium that I am using and my intentions with the creative process. Different mediums have different connotations, for example oil paintings have the weight of hundreds and hundreds of years in art history, of being an expensive medium and more technically demanding than say acrylic. I associate black and white photos with newspaper images (too young to even think of black and white in magazines lol) and old photographs in general. I associate film images with images that have been less altered, because of the difficulties that come with manipulating an image photo-chemically. I associate digital images with the era of photoshop and heavy image manipulation. As we know, a black and white digital photo is most of the times a color image that has been desaturated, so I associate black and white with film in that way (which I understand is a bit contradicting to other things I will say, but hopefully I can express it in a manner that is fair)
When I notice that an image has been transformed from a color image to a black and white image I can't help but think that the image has been manipulated and there must be an intention. This can be distracting by itself if the intention is just to "make it look better." or if it's done without any thought because it is misleading.
Also, black and white is an abstraction. Unless you are color blind, you don't see in black and white, you see in color. This is a very strong motivation for me to feel that color photos are more appropriate for photojournalistic, street and documentary photography in general where the objective is to capture reality as truthfully as possible. This is the same way I feel about high contrast. Our eye can see with a wider contrast than that of the regular film or digital photo and I am guilty of increasing contrast in my images for aesthetic purposes, but the issue with contrast is a bit more murky than the issue of black and white vs. color as our impression of contrast in an image is altered by many more factors.
While digital photos have the connotation of being from the era of image manipulation, they also have the connotation of being ubiquitous. I think of digital acquisition and i think of all of the digital cameras in the hands of everyone, webcams, cellphones and the new perspective they have brought to the world of photography where professionalism has stepped aside and presented more of a "raw" side.
When I think about this and many other factors (price of shooting film vs. digital for example) I feel that right now the best way to portray reality is digital color photos as a general rule. Of course this argument can go into the "what does reality really look like" direction, which is why I don't think they are absolute rules and why I feel ok about manipulating contrast and cropping (the act of framing a photo is cropping.)
RAW data is the actual values that come from the camera's sensor. In order to turn this sensor data into colors you can see they are converted from the camera sensor's color space, (although it is not really a color space but for simplicity...) to some other color space. Usually RGB. There is a whole field dealing with color spaces and color gamuts called Color Science.
I'd be interested in hearing about how people do their B&W conversions. The only tool I really liked was Silver Fx Pro but it was too expensive for me.
If the purpose of a picture is to convey a realistic, "you are there" sense of a certain time and place, then color may be helpful because it makes the picture look more like reality as we normally see it.
On the other hand, if a picture is really "about" an abstract pattern of lines and shapes, only incidentally having any connection to the physical, three-dimensional space that was photographed, then sometimes color just gets in the way.
And then again, I find that some pictures work well both ways.
One sneaky use of B&W that I've discovered in the digital age is that sometimes you can remove virtually all of the noise from a moderately high-ISO image by reducing it to B&W using the "maintain luminance" mode (whatever that may be called in the software you use). High-ISO noise tends to be predominantly chroma (color) rather than luminance, so throwing away the chroma throws away the noise too. The effectiveness of this method probably varies between camera models, though, and the higher the ISO level used, the more luminance noise there is likely to be.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
michswiss, I like that you deliberately take B & W -- this is similar to shooting with B & W film whereby the colors will not rescue you and you had to work harder to compose shots that people would react positively to.
Richard, it seems like you wrestle somewhat with some of the same issues but are further along in working with B & W. I always enjoy your shots (maybe because many are in color), though I refrain from commenting on many of them (perhaps I am still a little intimidated by CC'ing shots from you and B.D. and other accomplished photographers).
Virginia, I really like the information you bring from Marc Muench regarding viewing in B & W and paying attention to the two C's.
B.D., I view all your photos and pay attention to them. They are captivating and also a completely different tone and mindset when I shoot. Your shots are largely responsible for my original posting on this. And yes, I know your PP on my shot is much better. That is the only way I have done conversions, mostly because I resist PP and converting. I have found threads (including one from you) on suggestions for B & W conversion.
pgaviria, thanks for your comments. I think it adds much to the discussion and mirrors some of my thoughts. When I see highly processed shots, I often move on quickly because it becomes more like art than photography to me (and I don't want to start a thread on this
baldmountain and craigd, you touch on technical aspects which I must become acquainted with as I explore the B & W conversion further.
Thanks all. I will "check out" here in the sense that I give up "ownership" of the post (and not respond as if I were getting feedback on a photo) and monitor and ponder new posts and contribute if I have something to say.
Tina
www.tinamanley.com
www.tinamanley.com
I love good B&W, and find it compelling for subjects with strong lines, and deep shadows or bright highlights. Color becomes an additional element to include in the image. I do appreciate that some portraiture can be more compelling in monochrome also. I like my subjects to wear black shirts with this in mind.
I used to buy my Tri-X in 100 foot rolls, so I think I am not biased.
Michael Reichman wrote a brief piece about the use of color a few years ago. I'll see if I can dig it up.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/tinamanley/61853_080829_49901.jpg.html
and following
or
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/tinamanley/61952-080725-0077.jpg.html
and following
It could be that it's just that I am more comfortable with B&W, but I think the B&W photos are much stronger than the color ones. The ones I've left in color are only because I see a reason to include color. I think color would have detracted from the ones that are shown in B&W, even if they were originally in color (some were and some weren't.)
Other opinions are greatly appreciated.
I'm traveling and using a netbook so please excuse typos!!!
Tina
www.tinamanley.com
www.tinamanley.com
Beautiful images, all. I agree that your B & W are stronger, but I also believe that these are the stronger, human condition images that you have chosen to render as B & W. They would still be strong, beautiful images in color (but better or worse, who knows? -- thus this thread and discussion).
Tina, your images are very powerful and moving, whether in monochrome or in color. That is a credit to your eye and your judgement.
Some images do lend themselves to color, some demand it, and others are best rendered as monochrome images. Jay Maisel emphasizes that color kills shape - think of how camouflage hides a hunter's shape. Monochrome strongly favors shape.
Warm colors, reds and yellows, approach the viewer. Cool colors, blues and greens, recede from the viewer. This can be used to make a background come forward or recede from the viewer.
I was just reading David DuChemin's "Within the Frame" and notice that most of his images are not monochrome, although most of the images are of people and foreign lands.
I did find the link I mentioned earlier about color theory that M Reichman wrote 8 years ago. It is still relevant.
A earlier poster suggested monochrome has been reserved for photographers, and ignored by painters, but a careful perusal of the art world reveals that artists have been painting Grisaille for years - http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&resnum=0&q=grisaille&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=B57WStWdDo_ysQP9kPTgAg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CB8QsAQwAw
More about Grisaille here - http://www.lindacoulter.com/Grisaille.htm
I spoke to a local camera club recently about color, and noted that many of my most popular images are based on complementary colors - blue and orange, red and green, yellow and purple. This occurs so frequently that I am convinced it is not random or accidental.
Was the reason the Leica shooters favored B&W because of its monochrome rendering, or that it offered ISO ( ASA ) speeds absolutely unavailable for candid Leica style street shooting? Tri-X was 400 pushed to 800 or so, while in the 30s and 40s Kodachrome was ASA 12? Now we can all shoot color or B&W at ISO 1600 or 3200+ and still come home with lovely images.
This post has been a rambling dissertation and is not meant to favor color or monochrome. Both are worthwhile. I think we should all know how to use both effectively as the subject/image dictates.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin