Black and White or Color - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

04/24/2002 01:32:23 PM · #1

is there a way to tell if you should use a black and white photo instead of a color photo? or is it just what you think is best?

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

04/24/2002 01:35:42 PM · #2

You can always try it both ways and then decide for yourself. Black and White can completely change the mood of a photograph. It's up to you to determine what 'mood' you are looking for :)

Originally posted by Chrommonky:
is there a way to tell if you should use a black and white photo instead of a color photo? or is it just what you think is best?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/24/2002 01:37:02 PM · #3

Originally posted by Chrommonky:
is there a way to tell if you should use a black and white photo instead of a color photo? or is it just what you think is best?

Generally it's what you think is best, however, some things to consider:

black & white has no colour (duh!) just tone. This means that things that may be red and green in colour would look exactly the same in black and white, because they were equally toned/ bright.

Black & white is good for focusing your eye on texture/ patterns, so works well for things that are all the same colour but have interesting textures (rocks, water, veg, old barns seem popular subjects, landscapes)

Something to play with anyway. Personally I much prefer doing the convertion 'after the fact' in photoshop, as the black and white modes on a camera usually leave a lot to be desired.

I wrote a bit about how to convert here

lecook

Sony Mavica CD1000

04/24/2002 01:42:42 PM · #4

Originally posted by Chrommonky:
is there a way to tell if you should use a black and white photo instead of a color photo? or is it just what you think is best?

just go by what i think is best....if i think the picture will be too busy in color i use black and white...sometimes i just prefer simplicity and will use it regardless what i'm shooting...when the sky is bright white i tend to do b/w...i use b/w more in the winter than the summer...if i want to portray 'vintage' i use b/w...

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

04/24/2002 01:48:29 PM · #5

not everything looks good in black and white. things with a lot of contrast (light and dark areas) tend to look better. it takes a practiced eye to see a good b&w scene in the world of color. cameras with bw modes that show bw in the viewfinder help a LOT.

Alecia

Canon EOS-10D

04/24/2002 01:52:34 PM · #6

Gordon, thx so much for that little lesson in B&W. I was getting very disgusted in the output of some of my photos--especially the portraits of my nephew. With the human skin factor involved, they wound up just looking like shades of grey, instead of clear B&W. I thought I needed to adjust settings on my camera or something, but now I know how to fix it! :)

04/24/2002 01:52:43 PM · #7

alright...i'll have to think about that, and also, is there a way to change the dimensions of the picture without distorting it? i seemed to have messed up the resolution in my camera some how, and i really like this picture and i need it to the right size.
nevermind, figured it out..thanks anyway

* This message has been edited by an administrator on 4/24/2002 2:05:59 PM - .

i3ullseye

Olympus Brio D-150

04/24/2002 05:09:48 PM · #8

Hmmm.... I always use Hue/Saturate. If i want a tonal effect i will set the overal hue first, then desaturate to a comfortable level.

It is not true B&W, but often the ever so slight hnt of color makes it far more interesting.

moondoggie

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/24/2002 05:46:11 PM · #9

Originally posted by i3ullseye:
Hmmm.... I always use Hue/Saturate. If i want a tonal effect i will set the overal hue first, then desaturate to a comfortable level.

It is not true B&W, but often the ever so slight hint of color makes it far more interesting.

Kinda Like This?

Maverick

Nikon D200

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

04/24/2002 06:10:25 PM · #10

I'm not sure if this was addressed in the rules in that massive thread about alterations or not, but is converting to sepia allowed? I would guess no. Just want to be sure

i3ullseye

Olympus Brio D-150

04/24/2002 06:36:42 PM · #11

Yup, i really liked that peice. Just a hint of green left in the blades of grass to make it interesting.

As far as Sepia, if it isn't allowed, Hue and Saturate is which can achieve the same effect, plus a myriad more.

langdon

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/24/2002 06:43:14 PM · #12

Originally posted by Maverick:
I'm not sure if this was addressed in the rules in that massive thread about alterations or not, but is converting to sepia allowed? I would guess no. Just want to be sure

Sepia is allowed. Check the rules.

ciscocali

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/24/2002 07:06:20 PM · #13

Will the limits of the size of the photo ever change? I just think the current limits (640x480, 150 kb) can actually hurt the image. I'm using the resize command in XP. Is there a better way?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/25/2002 10:44:14 AM · #14

Originally posted by ciscocali:
Will the limits of the size of the photo ever change? I just think the current limits (640x480, 150 kb) can actually hurt the image. I'm using the resize command in XP. Is there a better way?

640x480 is okay for nearly all images, assuming you resize it using a good approach. For best results you want something that will let you do a bicubic or bilinear (bicubic is better) resampling on the image, to downsample to 640x480. Once you've done this (and not before!) you should sharpen the image, using an unsharp mask (and not the standard Photoshop style 'sharpen' or 'sharpen more')

After this step you want to optimise the JPEG compression to give you a file about 150k. If you follow this approach you should get a smaller image that hasn't suffered very much in the conversion. I've no idea what Windows XP does, but I find it very easy to believe that it screws the image up badly.

04/25/2002 10:49:46 AM · #15

does optimising the JPEG compression mean change the quality? and if it doesn't, how do you do it?

04/25/2002 10:50:32 AM · #16

Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by ciscocali:
[i]Will the limits of the size of the photo ever change? I just think the current limits (640x480, 150 kb) can actually hurt the image. I'm using the resize command in XP. Is there a better way?

640x480 is okay for nearly all images, assuming you resize it using a good approach. For best results you want something that will let you do a bicubic or bilinear (bicubic is better) resampling on the image, to downsample to 640x480. Once you've done this (and not before!) you should sharpen the image, using an unsharp mask (and not the standard Photoshop style 'sharpen' or 'sharpen more')

After this step you want to optimise the JPEG compression to give you a file about 150k. If you follow this approach you should get a smaller image that hasn't suffered very much in the conversion. I've no idea what Windows XP does, but I find it very easy to believe that it screws the image up badly.

[/i]

does optimising the JPEG compression mean change the quality? and if it doesn't, how do you do it?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/25/2002 10:53:03 AM · #17

Originally posted by Chrommonky:

does optimising the JPEG compression mean change the quality? and if it doesn't, how do you do it?

Basically the higher the quality setting, the bigger the file. If you have photoshop then under the 'save for web' option, there is a drop down file option (click one of the black triangles that point to the right) that lets you do an 'optimise to file size' selection for JPEG modes. It tries various quality settings to get the right one.

If you don't have photoshop, you can just save at different JPEG quality levels until you get one that is close to 150k. NB Don't save and then open it again each time!

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/25/2002 10:59:49 AM · #18

Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by Chrommonky:
[i]
does optimising the JPEG compression mean change the quality? and if it doesn't, how do you do it?

Basically the higher the quality setting, the bigger the file. If you have photoshop then under the 'save for web' option, there is a drop down file option (click one of the black triangles that point to the right) that lets you do an 'optimise to file size' selection for JPEG modes. It tries various quality settings to get the right one.

If you don't have photoshop, you can just save at different JPEG quality levels until you get one that is close to 150k. NB Don't save and then open it again each time!

[/i]

oh, i didn't even know photoshop had this option, it even shows the size of the image, thanks gordon.

ciscocali

Canon EOS-30D

04/27/2002 10:59:21 PM · #19

I need help. I have photoshop version 3 and I can use XP to shrink the dimension to 640 X 480 but it shrinks my file size to 26KB and my photoshop version doesn't have that many options.

mykoleary

Nikon D3300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

04/27/2002 11:14:36 PM · #20

Originally posted by ciscocali:
I need help. I have photoshop version 3 and I can use XP to shrink the dimension to 640 X 480 but it shrinks my file size to 26KB and my photoshop version doesn't have that many options.

In PS3, go to Image|Resize Image. Choose constrain proportions (or ratio.) Take the bigger pixel size and change it to 640. If your picture already has the proper dimensions, then the other box will change to 480. If it is something else, check for the thread that shows how to use the marquee tool to get a selection of the correct proportion. This will resize your image. Go to the file menu and choose save a copy. There will be a drop down to choose the type of file to save it as. Choose jpg. I don't think there will be an options button right now, but if there is choose it and pick a compression percentage (70 or 80 usually make the best mix between keeping info in the image and getting it under 150K.) If there is no opitons button, choose a file name and click save, and the options will come up then. Since you choose save a copy, the original uncomporessed (by this save at least) image is kept open in PS3. Check on your hard drive to make sure the fiule is under 150K, and if it is all should be good. Check it in a browser and you should be good to go!

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

04/27/2002 11:15:45 PM · #21

I don't have photoshop v3 but I feel sure that photoshop v3 will allow you to adjust the file size or quality settings when you save as a jpg file. I am using Windows 2000 instead of XP as well so I'm not too familiar with XP's capabilities of working with JPG files.

I would suggest, if you don't find a way to do this in your version of photoshop, to invest about $40 in an inexpensive editing program. What software came with your digital camera? It may have the capabilities that you are looking for...

magnetic9999