DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> People hiding behind B&W Images
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 86, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/07/2009 11:29:13 AM · #1
This is just an opinion/observation ;

Some say B&W photography is an art form, and I agree. It works in many situations. However, looking at the last several challenges, I notice many people are using B&W conversions to hide imperfections in color qualiy of the original photo.

I am by no means an top flight photographer myself, still learning and have a long way to go. However, IMO when more effort is spent in the developement / correction of the photo rather than in taking the photo itself I feel it is going against the spirt of the challenge.

Converting to B&W is one method I have noticed being used more and more and I am curious if these photos would be judged the same if they were in the orignial color form.

Maybe it is time for a color ruleset - like color only / B&W only, or mixed to go along with basic/advanced editing.
12/07/2009 11:33:42 AM · #2
How would one know that there were color imperfections in the original if you did not see the original?
12/07/2009 11:34:52 AM · #3
Originally posted by jbsmithana:

How would one know that there were color imperfections in the original if you did not see the original?


Damn: You beat me to exactly this point.
12/07/2009 11:35:37 AM · #4
Originally posted by stewzdaman:

...looking at the last several challenges, I notice many people are using B&W conversions to hide imperfections in color qualiy of the original photo.


Given that the image is presented in B/W, how do you know this is the case?

Originally posted by stewzdaman:

Converting to B&W is one method I have noticed being used more and more and I am curious if these photos would be judged the same if they were in the orignial color form.


Presumably not, or why bother making the conversion?

It sounds to me like your beef is with processing-in-general, not with B/W. IMO you should be campaigning for more challenges run under the Minimal Editing ruleset, straight-from-camera images are what you are looking for.

R.

Sheesh, 2 responses to the first point as I typed :-)

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 11:37:49.
12/07/2009 11:39:36 AM · #5
One more commment.

Personally I use b/w because, at times, I think it adds drama. I normally get told that some like the color version better but I still submit b/w images because it is my bias, not to cover up imperfections although that is certainly possible at times.
12/07/2009 11:39:43 AM · #6
Color can either work for you or work against you. Competing colors often distract the viewer, so conversion to B&W helps the photographer to focus attention on the elements or concept. This is especially important with mixed light sources or unattractive Winter landscapes, and the blue ribbon in the Polka Dot challenge is a great example IMO. The absence of color lets the concept shine through without distraction.
12/07/2009 11:54:23 AM · #7
Have you ever wondered if people are using colour to hide monochromic 'imperfections'?
12/07/2009 12:03:57 PM · #8
Isn't the idea to make the best possible image, if converting to B&W makes a better image then it would make sense to convert it. I really do not think that converting an image to B&W to be hiding imperfections but rather a way of displaying an image using their own personal preference. Assuming why someone changed an image to B&W is a little unfair, there are a lot of tools in PS and everyone uses them differently to their own liking so I think making a blanket statement why someone used a certain type of image conversion is not really fair. It is easy to pick apart images and say I would never do it that way but if everyone used the tools the same way all the images would begin look alike.

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 12:04:38.
12/07/2009 12:15:49 PM · #9
Originally posted by scalvert:

... Competing colors often distract the viewer, so conversion to B&W helps the photographer to focus attention on the elements or concept. ...

Agreed. In addition, for me anyway, B&W or toning (Sepia for example) can convey a mood that I feel works better for a particular photo.
12/07/2009 12:20:59 PM · #10
The best way I hide imperfections is that I just don't show them.

12/07/2009 12:21:58 PM · #11
My basic rule of thumb is - try it in color first, but if the color doesn't appear to be adding anything to the overal effect, convert to black and white.
But if the image is a bad image to begin with, it's not going to look good either way.
12/07/2009 12:26:44 PM · #12
Originally posted by xion:

Have you ever wondered if people are using colour to hide monochromic 'imperfections'?


I shoot in b/w mode (in RAW), so I can say this is definatly the case with me. Every once in a while I will revert my RAW file back to color to hide the black and white "imperfections". My basic rule of thumb is just the opposite of PennyStreet's.

Originally posted by PennyStreet:

My basic rule of thumb is - try it in color first, but if the color doesn't appear to be adding anything to the overal effect, convert to black and white.
But if the image is a bad image to begin with, it's not going to look good either way.
12/07/2009 12:32:29 PM · #13
Originally posted by jasonlprice:

I shoot in b/w mode (in RAW), so I can say this is definatly the case with me. Every once in a while I will revert my RAW file back to color to hide the black and white "imperfections".

You've got some grayt images in your portfolio. ;-)
12/07/2009 12:36:30 PM · #14
I agree that it can be an effective method of dealing with colors that are not the best for the scene. It worked well for me with this entry:


However, I don't see any problem with it. If it works well as a b/w and not as color, that's fine. Part of improving one's digital photography skills is learning how to recognize a good shot and knowing the appropriate adjustments to bring out the best in it.
12/07/2009 12:39:39 PM · #15
Stew - I'd say before making such broad general statements and major change suggestions, that you enter a few challenges, get a better feel for the process, learn a bit more then re-circle to this point.

You've only been here a few days over a month. Take it slow.
12/07/2009 12:56:26 PM · #16
Originally posted by stewzdaman:

This is just an opinion/observation ;

Some say B&W photography is an art form, and I agree. It works in many situations. However, looking at the last several challenges, I notice many people are using B&W conversions to hide imperfections in color qualiy of the original photo.

My initial thought to this post was .....You have GOT to be kidding! Then I thought about it some more and I'll take it as an observation as you stated....

I'm on board with the initial replies.....how the heck would you arrive at this conclusion in the first place??

I never shot B&W in the "Old Days" simply because though I had seen B&W as exactly what you described, an art form, it wasn't something that I felt comfortable with......I never shot B&W 'til I started digital.....or more correctly, started doing conversions 'til that point.

Personally, I think B&W is much more difficult to pull off.

You have to have your exposure, lighting, contrast, tonal ranges, and the precise meld of all of that together to pull off a B&W shot and make it really work. The world is in color, so there's no reason to do B&W unless the image is in fact special, or can convey a mood that will work, or only work in BN&W.....at least as I see it.

It is much harder for me to be happy with a B&W shot than a color one.
Originally posted by stewzdaman:

I am by no means an top flight photographer myself, still learning and have a long way to go. However, IMO when more effort is spent in the developement / correction of the photo rather than in taking the photo itself I feel it is going against the spirt of the challenge.

The heck with the spirit of the challenge, that goes against the spirit of photography. The objective of post-processing IMO is to enhance an image, or to push the image more towards the original vision you had when you banged the shutter.

That's what I like about PS.....not that it can polish the proverbial turd, but that it enables me to recreate the image I had envisioned.
Originally posted by stewzdaman:

Converting to B&W is one method I have noticed being used more and more and I am curious if these photos would be judged the same if they were in the orignial color form.

I'd love to see some specific examples of what you're referring to as this is a pretty bizarre concept, IMO.
Originally posted by stewzdaman:

Maybe it is time for a color ruleset - like color only / B&W only, or mixed to go along with basic/advanced editing.

We have done, and will do that.......there have been color/B&W portrait challenges.....I'm sure at this point a seed has been instilled to take it past portraits.
12/07/2009 12:58:26 PM · #17
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

My basic rule of thumb is - try it in color first, but if the color doesn't appear to be adding anything to the overal effect, convert to black and white.
But if the image is a bad image to begin with, it's not going to look good either way.


Hear, hear!
12/07/2009 01:00:10 PM · #18
Originally posted by jasonlprice:

Originally posted by xion:

Have you ever wondered if people are using colour to hide monochromic 'imperfections'?


I shoot in b/w mode (in RAW), so I can say this is definatly the case with me. Every once in a while I will revert my RAW file back to color to hide the black and white "imperfections". My basic rule of thumb is just the opposite of PennyStreet's.

Originally posted by PennyStreet:

My basic rule of thumb is - try it in color first, but if the color doesn't appear to be adding anything to the overal effect, convert to black and white.
But if the image is a bad image to begin with, it's not going to look good either way.


Okay, if you know you want the end result in black and white for sure, go for it.
I have never tried converting back to color, but I will now that you mention it.
I just find that the conversion process is so good that if I shoot in color (and in RAW) I have a choice so that's what I've done.
12/07/2009 01:05:15 PM · #19
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

... I have never tried converting back to color, but I will now that you mention it. ...

Me either. Same as you - shoot color (RAW) and convert if desired.

Now I'm wondering. If you shoot in B&W (say RAW + JPEG), doesn't the camera still capture the RAW in color and just present it when viewed, in B&W (i.e. the JPEG)?
12/07/2009 01:11:13 PM · #20
With my Canon cameras, if I shoot with the jpeg set to B&W (which I do sometimes) the screen shows a B&W picture on the camera. The RAW is captured in color, of course.

Oh, and I rarely intentionally hide people in my B&W images but sometimes they sneak in where I don't see them. I'll keep an eye out for that in the future.

:-)

(Heck, I *think* in B&W....)

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 13:12:03.
12/07/2009 01:13:07 PM · #21
Although I do not shoot in b/w there are some good arguments for doing so. I have read a number of "experts" that say you should see the scene in b/w when composing in order to get a better feel for the tonal flow of the image. Makes sense as color can throw you off by distracting the eye when composing. Robert should have an opinion on this. Bear_Music?

Maybe I'll have to start shooting my lanscapes that way.

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 13:24:11.
12/07/2009 01:16:07 PM · #22
Right, the only difference between shooting in RAW color and RAW b/w is what you see on the camera's viewfinder..it is RAW after all. It is the same way when you shoot just raw (not RAW+JPG). Don't go shooting b/w jpgs only and try to convert to color :)
12/07/2009 01:18:20 PM · #23
Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Although I do not shoot in b/w there are some good arguments for doing so. I have read a number of "experts" that say you should see the scene in b/w when composing in order to get a better feel for the tonal flow of the image. Makes sense as color can throw you off by distracting the eye when composing. Robert should have an opinion on this. Bear_Music?

Maybe I'll have to strat shooting my lanscapes that way.

There are some things that just won't translate to B&W.

Sunsets, flowers, auroras......there are just some things that won't convey the vibrance and body that color conveys.

That said, I cannot imagine this in color and looking right......



Message edited by author 2009-12-07 13:18:45.
12/07/2009 01:20:47 PM · #24
Originally posted by jasonlprice:

Right, the only difference between shooting in RAW color and RAW b/w is what you see on the camera's viewfinder..it is RAW after all. It is the same way when you shoot just raw (not RAW+JPG). Don't go shooting b/w jpgs only and try to convert to color :)

LOL!!! I suppose you could paint them... :-)
12/07/2009 01:21:50 PM · #25
Another consideration in shooting B&W and what you see in the final output, is the use of filters. A yellow filter was standard in most camera bags when shooting B&W film. I know in digital conversion the application of red/green/blue filters can really make an obvious difference and impact on the image.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 09:25:10 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 09:25:10 PM EDT.