How to spot a fake B&W?

[flea77]

?

Seems like saying a digital black and white image is a fake is the same as saying any digital image is a fake, especially since almost no one using a digital camera uses the B&W settings (or at least no one I've ever known). But also, these methods for picking out a fake black and white image didn't really have anything to do with the color, or lack there of. They had more to do with picking out a digital image. But, even then, it would seem like those methods would never work on the original image in question. It's just too small.

I dunno. I've worked with both formats for a long time and as of late, distinguishing the two just isn't that easy, or at least not where it counts.

It may seem that way to you, but to my eye the B&W conversions makes these factors stand out more and make the image less pleasing in my opinion. Just my two cents.

Allan

 

[abraxas]

...
What exactly did I say wrong other than use the word "fake"?

Honestly curious,

Allan

That's all it took- A lack of social conscience.

Let's see what you got. Show us something 'real.'

 

[Dao]

I consider myself a advance beginner. So my question is, can a digitally captured image be processed to a point, it will looks like a photo taken with a B&W film?

Personally, I will believe so.

 

[flea77]

I consider myself a advance beginner. So my question is, can a digitally captured image be processed to a point, it will looks like a photo taken with a B&W film?

Personally, I will believe so.

I have seen some that completely fooled me, the last one I saw was taken with a D3x and processed in some software specifically for that purpose (don't remember if the guy mentioned a name or not since it really did not interest me). I do seem to remember it was not a quick and easy thing to do.

Allan

 

[flea77]

That's all it took- A lack of social conscience.

Let's see what you got. Show us something 'real.'

It was not a lack of social conscience, many people refer to over processed HDR images as looking fake, but I do not see you jumping them for it. I expressed what they look like to me, and to me, the word that comes into my mind first is the word 'fake'. If you can not handle what people think of your pictures (not you in particular, just people in general), then do not ask for opinions.

Something 'real'? Try The Ansel Adams Gallery

Allan

 

[jdwyer]

I never claimed the picture in the other post was a fake, I flatly stated it was by my definition

......interesting. it's not a fake - but it is?


I read the whole post just assuming you meant "fake" as in hitting "desaturate" in photoshop rather than adjusting levels manually.

 

[Joves]

What's the point anyway?
Isn't it a waste of time? Shouldn't the matter be whether you enjoy the photograph or not?

You are correct.

 

[Sherman Banks]

Oh no, this thread is not going to go away...

Where's this week's rant to stir things up? I'm tired of this one.

 

[TheOtherBob]

Actually, color film has always existed but the world itself was, until recently, just b&w. At one point in time the world changed from b&w to color. That, curiously, coincided precisely with Kodak introducing a film with the name of Kodachrome(r). Films from that time on showed the world in color because then it was in color, excepting only those films which were changed to produce a b&w instead of a color print. That change also occurred when the world changed from b&w to color. The change was made to accomodate those people who were used to looking at a b&w world and wanted to continue to do so. ;-))

Oh, yeah -- I remember when that happened, actually. I was in a house, there was this tornado, and then some old lady flew by on a bicycle.

Frankly, after that things got a little trippy and over-saturated...

But I think they sorted it out.

 

[LWW]

Actually, color film has always existed but the world itself was, until recently, just b&w. At one point in time the world changed from b&w to color.

It happened in 1958 under the Eisenhower administration. Color technology was reverse engineered from the remnants of the crash at Roswell, NM in 1947.

LWW

 

[abraxas]

It was not a lack of social conscience, many people refer to over processed HDR images as looking fake, but I do not see you jumping them for it. I expressed what they look like to me, and to me, the word that comes into my mind first is the word 'fake'. If you can not handle what people think of your pictures (not you in particular, just people in general), then do not ask for opinions.

Something 'real'? Try The Ansel Adams Gallery

Allan

So, in a round-about way you're saying you can't produce your work, a sample of your vision of 'real?'

 

[flea77]

So, in a round-about way you're saying you can't produce your work, a sample of your vision of 'real?'

Whether or not I can is irrelevant. When you are driving down the road and pass a new car you think is ugly, can you design, engineer and build one that is better? When you go to an art gallery to view renaissance art and see one you do not like, can you do better?

One's ability to produce an item has no bearing on one finding an item attractive or not.

Why are you so bent out of shape about my opinions of what is, and what is not aesthetically pleasing to me?

Allan

PS. And no, I am not saying I can not produce 'real' B&Ws, I have lots of them, what does that prove?

 

[abraxas]

...

One's ability to produce an item has no bearing on one finding an item attractive or not.

Why are you so bent out of shape about my opinions of what is, and what is not aesthetically pleasing to me?

Allan

PS. And no, I am not saying I can not produce 'real' B&Ws, I have lots of them, what does that prove?

I think your choice of wording in your little opinion is out of your frustrations rather than aesthetics. I'd like to see your work to examine the potential application of the word, 'suck.'

 

[Dao]

Come on guys .. just relax ...

 

[abraxas]

Come on guys .. just relax ...

Just an opinion.