Black and White = Gray Scale?

[runnah]

So after seeing a bunch of BW images in the gallery that I thought were flat and lacking in contrast IMO, I wanted to get people's take on what makes up a properly exposed B&W image.

In my opinion a B&W photo MUST have full black and full white and everything in between.

Am I wrong in this? Is there some philosophical rule I am violating? Am I making sense?



Not my photo, but a stock photo that I paid for.

 

[ceeboy14]

In 99% of the cases in B&W conversion it is a matter of not properly setting the black and white points prior to making the conversion. It is a simple task and makes all the difference in the world. The second biggest mistake I see is not making use of channels to make the conversions, and instead relying only on desaturating. It is quite obvious the image on the right lacks decent contrast, good blacks or good whites. Good editing on your part.

 

[gsgary]

A good starting point in channels is 68,24,8

 

[Tuffythepug]

I agree with your premise that a good black and white image should have a pure black, pure white and full spectrum of grays in between if possible. This was the basis for Ansel Adams zone system and others who attempted to achieve this look in their b & W work. I guess today most of the "rules" have gone out the window in favor of personal "style" and current trends but I still try to achieve a full range in my b/w shots, none-the-less.

 

[spacefuzz]

I think your question about black and white points being present is a matter of artistic licence. high key, low key.....art.

 

[amolitor]

A full range of tonal values is a school of thought, but it is most definitely not the only way to make black and white images.

Must all color images all contain some suffciently wide set of colors from the gamut?

no.

Each image should contain such color and tonal values as will well express what the image is attempting to express. Ansel Adams used a full range of tonal values to great effect in his work, but there is more to life and art than Mr. Adams.

 

[runnah]

A full range of tonal values is a school of thought, but it is most definitely not the only way to make black and white images.

Must all color images all contain some suffciently wide set of colors from the gamut?

no.

Each image should contain such color and tonal values as will well express what the image is attempting to express. Ansel Adams used a full range of tonal values to great effect in his work, but there is more to life and art than Mr. Adams.

Good to know. I wasn't sure if it was an artistic statement or a technical mistake. Which is always my conundrum when I comment on something.

 

[John27]

I've begun to dislike black and white for two reasons;

1) It's often done just to do it. Black and white for the sake of black and white. There's really no REASON to add the drama or contrast of black and white.

2) As you mentioned, it's not 'properly' done. Just set the camera to black and white and shoot! The result is muddy flat nastiness. (Not that I can do any better, but, that's why I don't really shoot B&W!)

I'm also not a fan of black and white babies. I know that's bread and butter type stuff but, I dunno, a grey baby doesn't appeal to me.

THAT SAID, when it's done right, it can really blow you away. To me, black and white is supposed to be really dramatic. Didn't Ansel Adams have a quote about his images being of places that had so much drama, so much detail, that color would only distract? I think if black and white is done with a real reason in mind, it's fantastic. So yeah, I agree with you. Sharp contrasts, yes! Mud, no!

 

[amolitor]

Certainly it's not always clear whether it's a mistake or a choice! There's never any harm in proposing an alternate choice, I feel. Especially if critique has been asked for.

 

[Tuffythepug]

A full range of tonal values is a school of thought, but it is most definitely not the only way to make black and white images.

Must all color images all contain some suffciently wide set of colors from the gamut?

no.

Each image should contain such color and tonal values as will well express what the image is attempting to express. Ansel Adams used a full range of tonal values to great effect in his work, but there is more to life and art than Mr. Adams.

I, for one, do not advocate sticking to some arbitrary rule or guideline for black and white photography; either film or digital. the great thing about the photographic art form is the incredible variety of avenues one can pursue. My usual preference is to try and achieve a pretty good range of grays along with a good strong black and white tone in my own b/w photos. But I don't live or die by that standard. Some images work better with very high contrast while others benefit from a more tonally balanced approach. No right or wrong here. It's up to the photographer to choose how he treats the subject and the viewer to accept or reject that treatment.
Many years ago I got stuck trying to make every print have my own "look" to it. I standardized on my metering, developing, printing, etc to achieve a certain look. Everything was shot on Kodak Plus X, developed in HC-110, printed on Oriental Seagull grade 3, etc. I've long since learned that I need to be more flexible and circumspect in my approach and I think the general quality of my images have benefited. Of course there is more to life than Mr. Adams. But his images have stood the test of time because his vision continues to be veiwed favorably by so many people. Still, I admit his way of doing things isn't the only way.

 

[KenC]

There are some great low-key and high-key images out there that don't have a full range of tones. There are also images of a foggy or misty scene that would look very bad with a full range of tones from black to white. It all depends on the image. You have to do what works and there are times when full tonal range doesn't. For example, the edit in the OP makes the out-of-focus snow on the windows brighter and more distracting, along with the candle on the table and the shoulder of the girl's shirt. At most, some very selective brightening needed to be done here (perhaps just the faces).

 

[BobSaget]

Two Thoughts,

1. Full range can look better, but when processing, one should realize they may be compromising detail for contrast.
2. You do not need a reason to shoot or process in B&W but there are things to watch out for. If your subject is , for example, blue and background is the same brightness in green, B&W would kill the contrast between the two (without filter). Also, Many objects are Identified by their color, stop signs, American flags etc.

 

[PlanetStarbucks]

Having a full tonal range in black and white is a rule. Yes, I said it...it's a rule. Just like every other rule in photography, you follow it most of the time, and break it when it needs to be broken.

 

[runnah]

2. You do not need a reason to shoot or process in B&W but there are things to watch out for. If your subject is , for example, blue and background is the same brightness in green, B&W would kill the contrast between the two (without filter).

This is why I tend to lean for the harder light to make up for the lack of color contrast with more tonal contrast.

 

[deeky]

I'm not sure harder light is really a good solution to this issue, though. Most of the time I only end up losing in harsh light - contrast, detail....

There are definitely times when black and white is great and times when it just will not work (for all practical purposes). If it makes sense, learn to see black and white through your own eyes. Understand how different colors, light intensities, and textures will translate in a black and white shot. Then adjust your white/black points, contrast, etc to either replicate what you see in real life, or take it into a more artistic realm diverging from reality. Your choice, just know how to move either way. Even if you prefer one style over the other, understand both methods for greatest ability in your own style.