Colour or no colour, that is the question...

[LaFoto]

So here I am back to using colour film for prints are just soooo much cheaper (by 300%!).

But I have felt inspired enough to try something out in Photoshop with some of my (primarily colour) photos.

Here's my question to you then: "Colour? Or no colour?"
Is it all a matter of taste only?

Have a look at a few "before" and "after" photos:

Winter tree

The River Wümme in winter

Dilapidated shed

Dramatic sky

 

[voodoocat]

Well the first one definately looks better in black and white IMO.

The second has potential but it's too blah. Not much contrast. very gray.

The third shot I think looks better in color.

Last shot looks good either way. Not sure which I like more.

 

[photogoddess]

They are all beautiful shots. Looked at the color ones and went "Aaahhh". Then looked at the B & W's and did the same thing. Different reasons though. The B&W gave them a timeless look. Nice contrast too. The color ones are just plain beautiful. Anyone else?

 

[Harpper]

I think it really comes down to the feeling you want for each picture. I can go either way on the first two because they look good in color and B&W but for different reasons. The third one I think looks better in B&W because it goes better with the abandoned feel of the building. The color makes it look too cheerful for a house like that. The fourth one really doesn't make a huge difference either way because there's not much color to really distinguish from the B&W.

 

[craig]

If that is not a loaded question I do not know what one is. Personally, of course it is going to be more dramatic in BW because our eye sees the world in COLOR. It is the artist choice without any right or wrong answer. We are lucky that technology has afforded the opportunity to go both ways.

 

[Dew]

#1 - the winter tree ... i think color looks good for the traditional aestetic appeal ... i think the b&w version looks more "avant garde" ... has an unusual look to it, almost infra-red ... so i think they both look good for different reasons

#2 - The River Wümme in winter .. i think this one works in color ... the b&w version doesnt have enough contrasting elements to seperate the foreground and background

#3- Dilapidated shed ... i think this one works in b&w with a little "burning" in photoshop on the trees behind the house (making them a little darker) .. b&w makes it looks more "classic" to me

#4 - Dramatic Sky ... i think this one works in b&w .. the b&w version makes the sky appear more dramatic .. speaks louder to me

im so glad u named these, made it much easier

im also particial to b&w photos as oppose to color, so dont listen to me

 

[vonnagy]

hi la photo!

glad you are experimenting with b&w very nice shots you have there. I usually convert to black and white when there is a lack of colour or when the colour distracts from the subject. I love b&w but not for everything... lol, my rainbow shots would really blow in black white - i have seen rainbows done in b&w and its not the same

first of all all these are very good pictures

1. either way... what a lovely blue sky and as dew said the b&w as an 'infrare' feel - my preference leans slightly to b&w

2. bw here - with a little dodging and burning (and contrast) this could be a really nice photo. It has a Clyde Butcher feel to it (Florida Swamp Photographer)

3. b&w - agree with the others comment. This would also look good hand coloured - terri can tell you more about that

4. either way here

Very nice Laphoto!

 

[mrsid99]

Color's the best in all cases but then I'm biased anyway.

 

[Lula]

Hi there
In my opinion i love the 1st and 2nd (no colors) but .......but the originals are good also
.....

 

[LaFoto]

Thank you all sooo much for your comments, I see that much of it is a question of taste, too, and of emotion, plus there are some clear tendencies in the individual towards either b+w or colour as a general "choice".

Just one direct question (I'm on the brink of getting "philosophical" again here, but don't want to bother you with my thoughts):

Dew, you say about the "Dilapidated shed" one that the b+w version could do with some "burning". Now where would I put my question on how to do that? Here? Now? Or in another section of this entire forum?

(For I'm only tentatively getting used to some features of my Photoshop, but since I hate manuals and am much for the "learning-by-doing" approach, I've only so far tried out very few of all the things that are "on offer" there. And "burning" has not yet been among them).

 

[Dew]

not sure if you're on a PC (im on a MAC) and the ps version may be different .. perhaps voodoo can answer that ... but i'll give it a shot

with my MAC Photoshop 7.0 ... i hit the "O" button/key and the burn tool comes in .. or on the left of my screen ... it looks like a hand ... "dodge" is also there .. its a brush that makes things lighter .. "burn" makes things darker


i did a screen shot of my ps ... this is an enlarged version

this is the "normal" size of my screen .. its the little hand .. but it may have a submenu with a dodge in there as well

the sub-menu

u just take the brush and trace along the areas that u feel are too bright, u can set the opacity as well to control the flow .. i always set mine on about 4-5% so i can have more control .. i like to do it a little at a time

sorry for the "gunshot" quick and sloppy explaination . maybe voodoo will give a full detailed version up on the tutorials ... but this is a quick way

(plus its 3am in the morning as im typing this.. about to drop dead )

 

[Dew]

hehehehe ... another thing (before i pass out to sleep ) ... you're probably wondering, "where the heck am i to do all this "burning" on this photo"

i just took another peek at the photo .. if it were me ... i would trace along just on the outside of the shed on top ... in the trees ... u see the white area in the trees over the shed? ... its like a patch? ... thats where i would get in ... once that area is about the same as the rest of the trees .. then i would go in and "burn" all of the tree area and even a little bit of the foreground to make the house "pop out" a little more

but its your photo and u have full artistic control :roll:

but perhaps a landscape specialist can assist u further


*** edit*** not sure if i would touch that foreground too much .. maybe a quick trace at about 2% opacity ... but otherwise, i wouldnt dig in too much on the foreground ... i might even "dodge" the shed a bit and "burn" the foreground a smidgit (that means a little)