B&W - discuss...

Jedo_03 · Oct 18, 2008

I just had a peek at some B&W images on another forum (thank God, not TPF!) and thought/wondered "do people convert their colour images to B&W because the colour images are blown/clipped/colour-cast/flat/under-over exposed...etc?
I just get the sneaking suspicion that 'some' people (on other forums) convert their colour images to B&W because the conversion "hides" the imperfections.
Like - some/a great many of the white dresses/clothing of the models in the B&W images was most definitely 255, 255, 255... Just white blobs.
Most of the comments I saw were "Great Conversion... Good Tones... You got a great balance...", when clearly, these were poor images...
One poster said that she 'preferred B&W' because it 'didn't show all of the imperfections of colour photographs'..!!
So...
Do you think that people convert their images to B&W to 'disguise' the problems of their colour images..?
I will be contentious - I think that they Do....
Jedo

Alpha · Oct 18, 2008

Some people convert because they think it hides imperfections or makes the image more "artistic." They're stupid.

Chris of Arabia · Oct 18, 2008

I convert when I feel the subject matter suits B+W - not saying I always call it right, but that's the general idea. Trying it because the colour version doesn't work probably isn't going to make things much better if at all.

tirediron · Oct 18, 2008

Alpha said:
Some people convert because they think it hides imperfections or makes the image more "artistic." They're stupid.

Don't hold it all in Alpha; tell us what you really think!

Alpha · Oct 18, 2008

Always do.

aprileve · Oct 18, 2008

gotta admit that I've done that on occasion. though I'm not in the habit of it anymore.
for awhile there I felt like if an image was just slightly oof or really grainy it looked better in b&w. :shock:

craig · Oct 18, 2008

That is correct. Some people convert to greyscale when all else fails. Personally I do not care. We all form our own relationship with photography. I wish I had time to consider why others do what they do, but I don't.

Basically the world is in colour, so of course B&W is more dramatic... What makes you think this is a bad thing? Aren't we all just trying to enjoy the art of photography?

Love & Bass

Jedo_03 · Oct 19, 2008

craig said:
That is correct. Some people convert to greyscale when all else fails. Personally I do not care. We all form our own relationship with photography. I wish I had time to consider why others do what they do, but I don't.

Basically the world is in colour, so of course B&W is more dramatic... What makes you think this is a bad thing? Aren't we all just trying to enjoy the art of photography?

Love & Bass

Craig - not exactly saying it's a 'bad' thing - just that it seems like some people convert to B&W as an "opt-out", the 'easy' way to make their pics more 'presentable' (Hey - saves all the -ve comments about blowout and colour-cast and W.H.Y...)
Well... You say "When all else fails..." LOL
I say - It's a poor photographer who resorts to fake imagery to disguise the faults and discrepencies of their photographic skills...
In "plain" langauge - if a colour image is crap/blown/clipped, is it moral to convert this to B&W and extol the virtues of the photographer in being able to 'capture' such a "wonderful" B&W image...?
Well... I say not...
As you said - basically, the world is in colour... You are right...
This is how we see the world around us...
NOT B&W...
Some afficianodo's see the world in NEON/POPPED/SEPIA...
That is "their" interpretion...
What I'm addressing is the 'Cop-Out" of converting colour images to B&W to hide/disguise/nullify imperfections in their colour images that betray their skills in camera technique...
Nuff-Said
Jedo

Overread · Oct 19, 2008

I don't see it as a copout as such since calling black and white a copout starts to question what other things are.
Is the burn tool a copout?
Is altering curves a copout?

once you start thinking down that line of thought even basic editing starts too look like a copout for bad photographic practise. In the end its a tool, if it takes a photo that is poor and makes it look a little better without blatent lies being used (such as cloning in a new background for example) then I can't see why people should not use it to get a few more keepers out of a photo shoot.
Of course today black and white is not seen as a meduim, but as an art form (very much so in the digital areas where you nearly always shoot in colour and convert later) so its under more stress to work as a black and white today than it was in the past when colour was not an option.
And not every shot works well with black and white - some just don't function well without their bright colours. Also overexposed areas still show up in them - the shot is still not perfect/.

holga girl · Oct 19, 2008

you also have to remember that black and white film itself is a more 'forgiving' film, allowing a person to shoot under circumstances that were not favorable and still be able to produce a pleasing result.

back in the days of film i often took black and white along with me for situations that i knew would need a bit more forgiveness in exposure. why should it be so different with digital?

also remember that in the days of film, you had to get it right the first time, everytime, in the camera. in the days of the super over pp digi images, i see no fowl in converting a slightly blown/noisy image to black and white. i find less harm in that than brides that appear to be air-brushed models from the latest issue of elle.

Battou · Oct 19, 2008

...http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135538

But anywho, Where I buy film, it's the only place locally convienient and they do not carry any B/W so I at current only have convertions as an option. When I convert to BW it's nine times out of ten shot with the intention of convertion right from the get go. Take this reasent convert. This is the unprocessed shot here. Yile yes there is a blue cast to it, but it was corrected prior to convertion. If you look closely you can see it but I digress. As I was saying, I composed that and shot it for B/W, If I had B/W film I would have used it for that shot. I'm not trying to hide anything, infact if anything I exadgerated flaws.

Battou · Oct 19, 2008

holga girl said:
also remember that in the days of film,

What are you talking about....tis still the days of film

as far as I am concerned

skieur · Oct 19, 2008

Jedo_03 said:
I just had a peek at some B&W images on another forum (thank God, not TPF!) and thought/wondered "do people convert their colour images to B&W because the colour images are blown/clipped/colour-cast/flat/under-over exposed...etc?

I just get the sneaking suspicion that 'some' people (on other forums) convert their colour images to B&W because the conversion "hides" the imperfections.
Jedo

That is exactly correct. They also do it to hide distracting coloured objects in the background, which they should have thought about when they were framing the shot or choosing the lens or zoom ratio.

Quality black and white shots have always been judged by the range of tones and a considerable grey scale from dark black to pure white. In film this was done through considerable work in the darkroom dodging and burning in certain areas and of course choosing the right film and developing paper. In digital it is NOT done at all, which is why the results are generally so bad. It can be done using the dynamic range settings on some cameras, HDR, film simulation software, speciality conversion software such as Silver FX by Nik software, etc. but that is assuming that one begins with a technically excellent, well composed shot with an effective centre of interest in the first place which is seldom the case.

Black and white actually takes a lot more effort and work to get right than colour, NOT less which tends to be the attitude of those that do not know what they are doing in photography.

skieur

Alpha · Oct 19, 2008

holga girl said:
you also have to remember that black and white film itself is a more 'forgiving' film, allowing a person to shoot under circumstances that were not favorable and still be able to produce a pleasing result.

back in the days of film i often took black and white along with me for situations that i knew would need a bit more forgiveness in exposure. why should it be so different with digital?

also remember that in the days of film, you had to get it right the first time, everytime, in the camera. in the days of the super over pp digi images, i see no fowl in converting a slightly blown/noisy image to black and white. i find less harm in that than brides that appear to be air-brushed models from the latest issue of elle.

I think this is a perfectly acceptable strategy on occasion. But with all due respect, if you habitually leaned on film's wide dynamic range as a "forgiving" safety net rather than taking advantage of it for strictly pictorial reasons, then you really weren't making the most of your time shooting film.

holga girl · Oct 19, 2008

Alpha said:
I think this is a perfectly acceptable strategy on occasion. But with all due respect, if you habitually leaned on film's wide dynamic range as a "forgiving" safety net rather than taking advantage of it for strictly pictorial reasons, then you really weren't making the most of your time shooting film.

I never said that i habitually leaned on black and white film or that i used it as a cop-out. I am simply pointing out that black and white film is more forgiving, and yes, in certain situations i used it, not so much as a safety net... not just shooting and praying that something came out... but using it knowing that its exposure latitude would allow me to capture the different ranges in a scene.

to me, that is using it for pictorial reasons. sometimes a certain subject/scene is best captured in black and white, and sometimes (not all the time) but sometimes, those reasons include the dynamic range that black and white film offers.