| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2004 09:47:38 PM · #1 |
seems to me when the white is too white and not enough grey areas,
any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2004 10:17:30 PM · #2 |
It all depends on your subject. B/W is great for bringing out texture and emphasizing tone and form. If whites are too white--meaning they are burned out and have lost detail, it's probably best to get a new shot of the subject anyway?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2004 10:24:05 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
06/26/2004 10:26:45 PM · #4 |
Sucks even more for color portrait entries.
Originally posted by Malokata:
Sucks for sunsets. |
|
|
|
|
06/26/2004 10:31:48 PM · #5 |
| what exactly is the meaning of 'suck'? in this context |
|
|
|
06/26/2004 10:36:04 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by goodman:
what exactly is the meaning of 'suck'? in this context |
"Sucks for sunsets" > "It's lousy for sunsets"
|
|
|
|
06/26/2004 10:59:05 PM · #7 |
other meanings jump to mind........to be continued
|
|
|
|
06/27/2004 12:24:49 AM · #8 |
B & w or colour, any made photo, I feel, relies heavily on balance for appeal. Colour communicates warm and cold and, perhaps, in a more immediately familiar way, since we see the world in colour. B & w, even though it is no more than what's left after we have removed colour, comes at us differently and less familiar. It is, no doubt, a more abstract experience, which likely appeals to those of us who value a particular kind of transport over a general and familiar one. B & w also connotes a history of photography, which like any history, is a record. The record can probably be said to have been largely concerned with events and facts. While colour photography can share and express the same interests, it sells them more easily by immediately appealing to our most primal senses.
B & w resorts to contrast, grain and the finery of tones. I say finery, because tones, of course, equally exist in colour images, yet we consider them more critically in a context where there is little else. The same goes for contrast and brightness, grain and, probably, other image properties.
Digital photographers are accustomed to make b & w's from colour images. You simply click a button or move a slider and, presto, you have a b & w. Great colour images can make great b & w, sometimes - and at other times, well, they just don't. They don't, I suspect, because we never saw a b & w when we took the shot. Conversion only removes colour. It does and cannot convert intrinsic aspects of composition. This requires an eye.
A good colour photograph can, on occasion, make a great b & w. Often the colours don't work: the grass is to yellow, the trees are too blue or the white balance is blue rather than white (you know the feeling). You convert the image to black and white and... the flaws are gone. So far so good.
But is the shot balanced as a b & w? What happened to the rich earth tones in the foreground? Much of what appeared to be a bold and heavy given in one image may appear faint or weightless in black and white. Is the horizon still distinct? What is the distribution of relative weights within the frame? You can see where I'm going here.
One thing which prevents many disappointments, I believe, is try to visualize a b & w as a b & w, as you take it. Another good practice for those of us who value the aesthetics of a monochrome reality, is to consciously resist the lure of colour in favour of facts, matter, objects, you know, that special grittiness that doesn't just come out of every camera by default anymore.
Message edited by author 2004-06-27 00:27:42.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2004 06:30:36 AM · #9 |
Some very good points. I think in a less verbose statement, color does a great job at depicting temperature while b&w breaks it down to the fundamentals of photography.. the capture of light. B&W greatly emphasizes contrast and at times is more powerful than a color photo because our eyes are not accustomed to seeing the absence of color.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2004 11:24:02 AM · #10 |
I think zeuszen has pretty much captured the essence of why a b&w conversion of a color image can either fall flat or succeed, occasionally eclipsing the impact of the color version.
Remember that when you're doing a conversion, simply hitting the "convert to greyscale" button, or sliding the master saturation slider to the far left is the same as ignoring white balance when editing a color image. Actually, it's worse. When converting a color image, you have an infinite number of ways to combine the three color channels, which may allow you to avoid those stark, detailless whites, or bring out the beauty in skintones, or the texture in soil or rock, etcetera.
Learning to use the channel mixer, or any one of a number of other ways to optimize your conversion to b&w can have a dramatic impact on the quality of your final images. A forum search here will reveal a lot of information on alternative techniques for conversion.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2004 01:09:57 PM · #11 |
I t works for lot of things well,unless you want to show the colors :-)
Check some B/W here in my gallery ! |
|
|
|
06/27/2004 01:24:31 PM · #12 |
Things with many colors and excitement, a Circus. A Pink-floyd laser light show, Fall leaves. Lately, b&w photo seems not to work well in finding something extraordinary to shoot for that challenge...Color is one great element to enhance such a strange object...so overall b&w may not be a alterenative. In my case or photo, it dosn't....It may in others....It just depends....However, I can go on and on about what will work in B&W...:) All outdoor Winter shots!!!!! :) With the exception of a Cardinal...
Message edited by author 2004-06-27 13:25:53. |
|
|
|
06/27/2004 02:43:38 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Malokata:
Sucks for sunsets. |
How about for sunrises? Here's an example of the opposite conversion; I don't know if one is "better" than the other though:
Original:  Edited:  |
|
|
|
06/27/2004 02:48:08 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
... simply hitting the "convert to greyscale" button, or sliding the master saturation slider to the far left is the same as ignoring white balance when editing a color image. Actually, it's worse. When converting a color image, you have an infinite number of ways to combine the three color channels, which may allow you to avoid those stark, detailless whites, or bring out the beauty in skintones, or the texture in soil or rock, etcetera. |
I need lessons on this ... most of the time when I try using the Channel Mixer it looks worse than a straight mode change to grayscale and a Curve adjustment. |
|
|
|
06/27/2004 05:13:05 PM · #15 |
I've been using the Lightness channel of late. Convert to lab color, then select the lightness channel. If it looks like what you want, just select Convert to Grayscale. You'll delete all channels but the lightness channel and you have your bw photo!
You can do the same thing with the RGB channels. Click on each color, then Convert to grayscale from the one you like best.
Using the channel mixer is just like converting to grayscale from a particular channel, but now you have just a bit more control over how your photo will look. For example, with blue skies, I'll often use the channel mixer on the Red channel because this will make my blues darker (my skies darker). It's almost like using a filter.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2004 07:30:27 PM · #16 |
I rarely if ever convert to b/w using anything else but the channel mixer - not only does it have the advantage of selecting anything from a single channel to all three equally, but also you can emply negative values (to make your skies even darker).
E
|
|
|
|
06/29/2004 12:05:54 AM · #17 |
How strange..i have a picture almost exactly like that sunrise picture..although mine was at sunset. Kind of a HUGE picture though..sorry about that.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:43:22 PM EDT.
