| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2005 08:00:46 AM · #1 |
to do black and white or color...
do you just go out and say today i will shoot only black and white ?
or is it a post processing decision?
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 08:10:20 AM · #2 |
Great question, more to it than I thought at first reading.
I am still learning digital, but have decided to always shoot in color, especially since I am trying to transition to always shooting RAW/jpeg. Sometimes though, after reviewing images, I will see a good candidate for a b/w exposure and see what it looks like with post processing.
IMO, most of the really wonderful b/w shots I see, though, are shot with that in mind. I am still in awe of the ANSEL ADAMS challenge results, and have it in the back of my mind to one day spend the time and effort to learn to get b/w results like that. I believe that there is more to post processing a photo from color to b/w than meets the eye, and I want to learn how to do that. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 08:21:58 AM · #3 |
| I don't have the B&W option on my Canon, but I always look at the red, green and blue channels in PS just in case they look better than the colour. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 08:38:18 AM · #4 |
Depends on the subject. Some things just lend themselves to B/W more than others.
For example, both of the following shots were taken on overcast drizzly days. The color (cemetary had some green in the grass) didn't offer anything to add to the image. The building shot was mostly B/W already (even in color).
These were taken in B/W mode in camera. I also took a few color shots just to see. The cemetary shot I also went into sepia mode as well.
 | 
This shot I decided to go B/W because the color of her blouse was distracting and I liked the black of the tire and the contrast in the B/W version. Again, this was taken in camera B/W mode. Some color shots taken as well but not used.
It can be a tough choice. Not trying to hijack your thread, but I had posed a similar question myself to get some feedback similar to yours in this recent posting. Opinions are all over the board. ;^) Still learning...
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 10:22:00 AM · #5 |
if it is a subject i can sit and photograph to my hearts content i usually try all in camera settings and decide which i like best when i view on the big screen. while taking photos i tend to catch myself using mostly color setting because i figure i can try it in B&W in processing. but im still learning what will look best at what color settings too
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 10:36:20 AM · #6 |
i guess i asked this as i have been so caught up in colors trying to catch the eye of voters...i was thinking of forcing myself to go out and just shoot b/w for a day a week whatever and see if knowing the photos will be b/w how my subject selections will change
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 10:59:05 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by buzzmom:
i guess i asked this as i have been so caught up in colors trying to catch the eye of voters...i was thinking of forcing myself to go out and just shoot b/w for a day a week whatever and see if knowing the photos will be b/w how my subject selections will change |
sounds like a good study...i might have to join u in this one. i bet it does make a big difference. i find myself sometimes torn between two subjects( one for color strength) maybe this would teach me to find the balance between the two
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 11:38:54 AM · #8 |
On a kind of related topic, is there a difference between shooting in B&W and post-processing a color shot to B&W in terms of quality?
I usually shoot in color and either desaturate or change to B&W using PS. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 11:58:46 AM · #9 |
For me it's a post processing decision but I don't think that I've ever shot specifially with B&W in mind except for a few times.
There are a few subjects that lend themselves to black and white wonderfully like people/close-ups, portraits and things that are old....if I may generalize a bit.
I tend not to think black and white if subjects are to detailed. I like solids or continuous colored subjects, things without too much tonal/textural variation for B&W transfer. I'm sure there are many different ways that people approach this but that's my train of thought.
My best example is probably this image because it captures the essence of what I said in total. Close enough, anyway.
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 12:00:18.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:00:15 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by RolandB:
On a kind of related topic, is there a difference between shooting in B&W and post-processing a color shot to B&W in terms of quality?
I usually shoot in color and either desaturate or change to B&W using PS. |
Yes, there is, in terms of control and dynamic range, particularly if you shoot RAW.
I'd want to edit each shot or, at least, each series of shots differently, with increased or diminished contrast, with a rich or contrasted tonal range, with proper exposure on certain isolated parts of the photo or on others or on the whole shot margin to margin.
I also would want to see the colour version to get a sense of my subject. Colour is information, which is often relevant for developing this sense for a subject.
There are many ways to convert colour to B and white. There are rudimentary methods. There are very sensitive and sophisticated methods. In-camera settings (B & W modes) belong to the first group.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:06:13 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Yes, there is, in terms of control and dynamic range, particularly if you shoot RAW.
I'd want to edit each shot or, at least, each series of shots differently, with increased or diminished contrast, with a rich or contrasted tonal range, with proper exposure on certain isolated parts of the photo or on others or on the whole shot margin to margin.
I also would want to see the colour version to get a sense of my subject. Colour is information, which is often relevant for developing this sense for a subject.
There are many ways to convert colour to B and white. There are rudimentary methods. There are very sensitive and sophisticated methods. In-camera settings (B & W modes) belong to the first group. |
Perfectly stated, zeuszen. It's the "very sensitive and sophisticated methods" that I'm interested in one day exploring when I have more time to devote to it. The difference in such shots and the more rudimentary shots such as mine in the ANSEL ADAMS challenge was eye-opening to me.
As for using the b/w feature on my 20D, I've tried it and the results are very, very bland. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:10:45 PM · #12 |
Steve - I really like this shot, but it appears to have more of a sepia or duotone treatment to it. ??? How did you process this, if you don't mind my asking?
Originally posted by pawdrix:
For me it's a post processing decision but I don't think that I've ever shot specifially with B&W in mind except for a few times.
There are a few subjects that lend themselves to black and white wonderfully like people/close-ups, portraits and things that are old....if I may generalize a bit.
I tend not to think black and white if subjects are to detailed. I like solids or continuous colored subjects, things without too much tonal/textural variation for B&W transfer. I'm sure there are many different ways that people approach this but that's my train of thought.
My best example is probably this image because it captures the essence of what I said in total. Close enough, anyway. |
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:13:15 PM · #13 |
I never shoot in black and white... even if I am fairly certain ahead of time that the final image will be presented that way.
Why restrict myself when I may be surprised and find I like the colour version better?
Secondly, I much prefer to convert to black and white myself for the reasons stated by Zeuszen. Sometimes the textures and information I'm more interested in are more evident in one or two of the colour channels than the others and when I convert I'll include more information from that/ those channels than the rest. I also tend to opt for high contrast conversions. I seldom use the straight desaturate command provided by any of the postprocessing software tools.
I think the choice of black and white over colour generally has a great deal to do with the image content. Where I want to accentuate light and shadow, form and texture I'll opt for black and white. Where I want to focus on the life within a scene, whether it's people or place, I'll opt for colour. Some images work well in both colour and black and white but many times I find myself leaning towards one or other treatment quite strongly.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:28:03 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Yes, there is, in terms of control and dynamic range, particularly if you shoot RAW.
I'd want to edit each shot or, at least, each series of shots differently, with increased or diminished contrast, with a rich or contrasted tonal range, with proper exposure on certain isolated parts of the photo or on others or on the whole shot margin to margin.
I also would want to see the colour version to get a sense of my subject. Colour is information, which is often relevant for developing this sense for a subject.
There are many ways to convert colour to B and white. There are rudimentary methods. There are very sensitive and sophisticated methods. In-camera settings (B & W modes) belong to the first group. |
Thanks for your thoughts. So, to clarify this for me (I'm still not clear) if I don't shoot in RAW (which I don't) it would STILL be better to shoot in COLOR and then use some other means of converting to B&W (over just setting the camera to shoot in B&W).
Many years ago, in my film days, I shot almost exclusively B&W. It was my first love. I'd like to revisit those days.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:32:36 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by 4N4M:
...It's the "very sensitive and sophisticated methods" that I'm interested in one day exploring when I have more time to devote to it. The difference in such shots and the more rudimentary shots such as mine in the ANSEL ADAMS challenge was eye-opening to me.
As for using the b/w feature on my 20D, I've tried it and the results are very, very bland. |
You may want to have a look at Greg Gorman's B & W conversion method. It's available as a downlodable PDF.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:32:51 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by RolandB:
Thanks for your thoughts. So, to clarify this for me (I'm still not clear) if I don't shoot in RAW (which I don't) it would STILL be better to shoot in COLOR and then use some other means of converting to B&W (over just setting the camera to shoot in B&W).
Many years ago, in my film days, I shot almost exclusively B&W. It was my first love. I'd like to revisit those days. |
Correct. The advantages to working from color in making a B/W conversion are manifold. Look at it this way; REALITY is in color. Any process (be it in-camera or post-production) that renders a B/W image is manipulating reality in some way. You want to have maximum control of that manipulation, per Zeus Zen's excellent description.
So shoot RAW, if you have it, or highest possible resolution you have, and work from a color original.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:34:18 PM · #17 |
For a b&w photograph to work well, IMO, the critical factor is in contrast, light and shade. In shooting colour, careful attention to contrast, light and shade will improve many photos. These shots can often also be sucessfully desaturated into interesting b&w shots. If the colour adds little, or detracts from the colour shot, the desaturated version may look better than the colour version.
One practice is to learn and improve in b&w - colour adding an extra dimension that is hard to keep in mind when learning/improving photography. Once the factors that go into making a good b&w photo are mastered (if that is possible), then colour can can be introduced as an additional creative dimension.
Shooting in colour is preferable for the reasons mentioned by ZeusZen. When shooting b&w, traditionally a colour filter is used to block certain spectra and change the dynamic range of the image. For example, a yellow filter is often used to darken skies and increase contrast (yellow blocking blue light). A similar effect can be obtained by removing one or more colour channels in photoshop (delete or fade the blue channel for the equivalent of having used a yellow filter, and then desat the image). This means that you can shoot colour without a filter, and experiment with the equivalent of having had a variety of different colour glass filters on your camera by post processing manipulation.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:38:03 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by RolandB:
...So, to clarify this for me (I'm still not clear) if I don't shoot in RAW (which I don't) it would STILL be better to shoot in COLOR and then use some other means of converting to B&W (over just setting the camera to shoot in B&W).
Many years ago, in my film days, I shot almost exclusively B&W. It was my first love. I'd like to revisit those days. |
Yes, it is, IMO, better to shoot colour to start with, even with JPGs. I don't want to tweak (camera) presets. I want as much control and range as I can get. The colour image has more pixels, period.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:44:18 PM · #19 |
The original "when is B&W better" question has to do with learning to see things in tonal values from the brightest to the darkest within a given scene; as opposed to merely appreciating that the color is bright, complimentary and in the correct positions within the composition. A superior B&W will (normally, but not always) have all the tones represented and in balance (AA's very strongest suit), from the lack of hue (white) to the totally of it (black) with a sampling of as many greys between the two as is practical for that scene. Contrast is introduced or modified to add or remove drama to parts or all the piece at the discretion of the photographer. A good exercise is to set your camera to B&W and compose shots on a tonal level through the viewfinder. Attempt to capture as wide a greyscale tonal range as is possible while maintaining an interesting composition. If you do this exercise in in RAW, later during conversion to TIFF, you will get the shot presented in back to you in color. That is when the differences (in terms of what to look for in a scene) will make themselves most evident to you. A tonally wonderful scene in B&W may look natural, but unappealing as a color photo. If you shoot only in color, you can only HOPE a scene will translate well as a B&W, unless you have it in your mind to do a lot of "doctoring" to the shot, which is always simpler to do in B&W.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:48:16 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by RolandB:
...So, to clarify this for me (I'm still not clear) if I don't shoot in RAW (which I don't) it would STILL be better to shoot in COLOR and then use some other means of converting to B&W (over just setting the camera to shoot in B&W).
Many years ago, in my film days, I shot almost exclusively B&W. It was my first love. I'd like to revisit those days. |
Yes, it is, IMO, better to shoot colour to start with, even with JPGs. I don't want to tweak (camera) presets. I want as much control and range as I can get. The colour image has more pixels, period. |
Thanks for your quick responses. That is what I shall do!
And thank you too, Robert.
Roland
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:53:01 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Steve - I really like this shot, but it appears to have more of a sepia or duotone treatment to it. ??? How did you process this, if you don't mind my asking?
My best example is probably this image because it captures the essence of what I said in total. Close enough, anyway. |
[/quote]
I'm sorry. I kind of lump sepia and B&W into the same category for some reason as I approach their value the same way or from a similar angle. If that makes sense. I hope that doesn't offend any B&W purists.
The D70 doesn't shoot in B&W or sepia. So in PS I select Monochrome on the Channel Mixer. Then I select either Sepia or Warming Filter(85)out of the Photo Filter, drop down menu and use the slider to get the desired effect.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:55:21 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
If you shoot only in color, you can only HOPE a scene will translate well as a B&W, unless you have it in your mind to do a lot of "doctoring" to the shot, which is always simpler to do in B&W. |
I don't agree with this at all. Most photographers who work frequently in black and white are very much able to previsualise what a scene will look like in black and white without reference to an LCD panel showing them.
Think back to pre-digital days - how do you think professional film photographers (such as Ansel Adams) coped? Do you think they simply took images and "hoped" they'd look good or do you think their experience allowed them to "assess" the scene infront of their camera well enough to know how it would translate into black and white?
And I'm no pro, but I can certainly look at a scene and assess how the light, shadow, textures and tones will work in black and white.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 01:08:54 PM · #23 |
Steve - No problem at all. I was curious how you obtained the look you did - the tone is very rich. Thanks for sharing.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm sorry. I kind of lump sepia and B&W into the same category for some reason as I approach their value the same way or from a similar angle. If that makes sense. I hope that doesn't offend any B&W purists.
The D70 doesn't shoot in B&W or sepia. So in PS I select Monochrome on the Channel Mixer. Then I select either Sepia or Warming Filter(85)out of the Photo Filter, drop down menu and use the slider to get the desired effect. |
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 01:14:05 PM · #24 |
Now, I'm all about a new technique - but I tried this and now I have questions.
I tried a blue solid color, a red solid color, and a yellowish solid color. In all 3, what I got was just contrast differences. I was able to fully replicate ALL of my conversions with brightness/contrast adjustments so that they were dead-on exactly the same.
I guess my question is - what am I missing in this conversion? My Nik filter does tonal range and dynamic b/w conversions, so maybe I should stick with that... I get the "spectrum" thing - maybe that's what it is .. maybe that's how the Nik filter works?
*confused in Syr*
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 01:20:13 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by RonBeam:
If you shoot only in color, you can only HOPE a scene will translate well as a B&W, unless you have it in your mind to do a lot of "doctoring" to the shot, which is always simpler to do in B&W. |
I don't agree with this at all. Most photographers who work frequently in black and white are very much able to previsualise what a scene will look like in black and white without reference to an LCD panel showing them.
Think back to pre-digital days - how do you think professional film photographers (such as Ansel Adams) coped? Do you think they simply took images and "hoped" they'd look good or do you think their experience allowed them to "assess" the scene infront of their camera well enough to know how it would translate into black and white?
|
Kavey, this was exactly the point made in my post. The part you quoted was in response to those who recommend shooting only in color. If one wants to acclimate their eye to seeing a B&W shot instantly in nature, one must practice by shooting and evaluating with the camera set to B&W. Otherwise one will only "hope" the shot will translate well to B&W from color. Reread my total post in context of those that went before and I believe you will find we are both in agreement as to their being a knack to recognizing a good scene to be interpreted in B&W. |
|
