How to spot a fake B&W?

[flea77]

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.'

Did I do something to you in another life? You insult me by saying "little opinion" and saying my work might "suck". What have I done to you? Why is my opinion making you so mad? Do you attack everyone who does not share your views like this?

Allan

 

[abraxas]

Actually you're mildly entertaining. Would like to see some of your work.

 

[flea77]

Actually you're mildly entertaining. Would like to see some of your work.

So you get entertainment from insulting people and their opinions for no reason?

Allan

 

[abraxas]

So you get entertainment from insulting people and their opinions for no reason?

Allan

Just the ones that in my opinion are fake.

 

[flea77]

Just the ones that in my opinion are fake.

So, my opinions are "little" and "fake", and you suspect my work sucks, even though I am pretty new here and you have never met me, never seen my work, all because I said I do not think digital conversions to B&W are ascetically appealing to me. That's just sad.

Allan

 

[Sherman Banks]

If we analyze your argument here, we may better see why people disagree with your statement. First, you define any digital conversion of color to B&W as "fake". So that would define any image converted from color to B&W on film as "true". A simple web search for definitions of “fake” is as follows: One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham, having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent. Now you've said that you use the term as a means to say that a digitally converted B&W image does not carry the authenticity of an image converted by film (as noted by the tonal range differences, and grain quality vs. pixilation statement), and does not fit your taste due to these inferior qualities. While many would argue that a B&W shot on film might have a much nicer feel to it, or might have more appealing characteristics, it’s doubtful they would define a digital conversion as “fake”. In essence, your argument goes beyond B&W digital vs. film, and actually encompasses the old argument of digital vs. film. If you don’t like a B&W digital rendering because of the noted quality differences, those differences are often seen in color images as well and would indicate that digital color renderings are also “fake”. Nobody here is trying to question the authenticity of another person’s work, and certainly nobody is calling anyone a fraud for the methods they create their images with, so your usage of the word “fake” is what everyone is upset about, not your opinion of the image itself. I’ll apologize for initially calling you a snob as I think you’re being misunderstood due to the words you’ve chosen to describe other’s work. Hopefully the argument can just go away now.

 

[sdianne]

I noticed flea77 called out bluemary in the thread "http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...structive-criticism-my-photography-style.html". flea77 spotted bluemary's B&W photos as fakes assuming that means they were shot in color and converted to B&W during post.

How do can you tell/whats the advantage of shooting in B&W?



Thanks

Personally I prefer to adjust my photos in RAW format after they are shot. I don't really care for the black & white settings on my camera. There is more control over tones and depth when you adjust manually.

What are "fake" photos anyway? I don't think I've ever seen one. As long as it's pleasing to the eye of the beholder, who cares?

 

[abraxas]

...
I do not think digital conversions to B&W are ascetically appealing to me. ...

If you would have initially stated your thoughts as quoted above, possibly you wouldn't have revealed what I believe was your actual intent.

Just my opinion, but since you fail to substantiate, or back up your opinion by showing you have some type of vested interest in photography, it appears to me as if your opinion is designed to attack anyone making a black and white photo from a color digital image. Your intent, again in my opinion, is a deliberate attempt to dupe, deceive or trick the photographers here into believing, or accepting, that your opinion is real and based on an aesthetic, when in fact it is not ... it is insulting and fake.

So, let's see what you got. Post something that you've done that demonstrates your aesthetic, your sense of beauty.

 

[flea77]

If we analyze your argument here, we may better see why people disagree with your statement. First, you define any digital conversion of color to B&W as "fake". So that would define any image converted from color to B&W on film as "true".

In my opinion that is not true, I defined my use of the term "fake" as conversion from the original captured format. Following that logic, the medium on which it was captured (film or digital) doesnt matter. Color film converted to B&W would still be as "fake" in my opinion, just less noticeable. I might add that the noticing is what gets me. I really could care less how an image is made, but the B&Ws I see so often converted from color digital images look really bad, to me.

A simple web search for definitions of “fake” is as follows: One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham, having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent. Now you've said that you use the term as a means to say that a digitally converted B&W image does not carry the authenticity of an image converted by film (as noted by the tonal range differences, and grain quality vs. pixilation statement), and does not fit your taste due to these inferior qualities. While many would argue that a B&W shot on film might have a much nicer feel to it, or might have more appealing characteristics, it’s doubtful they would define a digital conversion as “fake”.

That about sums it up, I see a B&W conversion and it does indeed look not authentic or genuine to me. To me, I see it, and it looks untrue, not like a B&W "should" look, and in my mind at least, the first work that jumps in is the word "fake". Perhaps I could use the word "unrealistic" instead?

In essence, your argument goes beyond B&W digital vs. film, and actually encompasses the old argument of digital vs. film. If you don’t like a B&W digital rendering because of the noted quality differences, those differences are often seen in color images as well and would indicate that digital color renderings are also “fake”.

Not true. As I have already stated, for whatever reason color images shot in digital do not have the same problem, at least to my eyes. I know of course they are exactly the same as the digital B&W, and if I force myself to look closely I can of course see they are the same, but in B&W images the differences just scream out to my eyes whereas the color ones do not. I do not pretend to know why, that is just the way I perceive things.

Nobody here is trying to question the authenticity of another person’s work, and certainly nobody is calling anyone a fraud for the methods they create their images with, so your usage of the word “fake” is what everyone is upset about, not your opinion of the image itself.

I certainly agree that no one is questioning the authenticity of the photos, and am not calling anyone a fraud. What happens is this, I see frequently people stating that over processed HDR images appear "fake" to them, I see what they are talking about as they look "fake" to me too (some of them), and the converted B&W images to me look just as unrealistic as over processed HDR images do so I choose to use the same term, "fake". I find it interesting that when someone uses the same term to talk about HDR images, there is no problem. But God forbid someone use the exact same word to describe a B&W image!

I’ll apologize for initially calling you a snob as I think you’re being misunderstood due to the words you’ve chosen to describe other’s work. Hopefully the argument can just go away now.

Apology accepted.

Allan

 

[flea77]

If you would have initially stated your thoughts as quoted above, possibly you wouldn't have revealed what I believe was your actual intent.

Just my opinion, but since you fail to substantiate, or back up your opinion by showing you have some type of vested interest in photography, it appears to me as if your opinion is designed to attack anyone making a black and white photo from a color digital image. Your intent, again in my opinion, is a deliberate attempt to dupe, deceive or trick the photographers here into believing, or accepting, that your opinion is real and based on an aesthetic, when in fact it is not ... it is insulting and fake.

Your argument falls flat when I clearly stated in the original thread that there was nothing wrong with B&W conversions, they just did not appeal to ME. I also stated I would like to have seen the original color versions. There was no "attack" as you put it. I did not go through every post in the B&W forum and do the same thing. Clearly stating that it was just my opinion makes it impossible for me to be duping, deceiving, or tricking anyone.

My opinion is my opinion. Everyone's is different. Why should anyone have to "prove" their opinion? That is absurd! Why would anyone have to have a "vested interest" to express their opinion? That too is absurd! Currently my opinion is that you just want to start a fight for whatever reason. I can not fathom how anyone could attack someone else for what they find ascetically pleasing in a photograph.

Now to see how that ignore feature works on this forum.

Allan

 

[Dao]

my opinion is ......

we should lock this thread.

and then take a short break .....

and then grab a beer or ice cream or .... something you enjoy ..

and then :hug::

 

[Sherman Banks]

I certainly agree that no one is questioning the authenticity of the photos, and am not calling anyone a fraud. What happens is this, I see frequently people stating that over processed HDR images appear "fake" to them, I see what they are talking about as they look "fake" to me too (some of them), and the converted B&W images to me look just as unrealistic as over processed HDR images do so I choose to use the same term, "fake". I find it interesting that when someone uses the same term to talk about HDR images, there is no problem. But God forbid someone use the exact same word to describe a B&W image!

I think people are often referring to this as a fake representation of reality, not just as being a "fake" photo due to the processing. It's different from your B&W argument as both film and digital do capture reality but with some technical differences that come with the mediums. HDR's tend to manipulate reality by oversaturating colors and creating elements that no image would ever capture in reality (halos, etc.).

A note to your statment about capturing color then converting: most of us shoot in RAW, so no matter what the setting on our camera may be, it still records the image as color and we have to convert in post processing. I feel that those of us who do this use a method that yeilds better results as we dictate the conversion process, not the camera. Even with a jpeg conversion, the user still controls a lot of the elements of the conversion (or can at least), which in many cases may create results you don't find appealing due to the user defining the conversion characteristics. But to say the camera will always do a better job processing the image to B&W isn't true because a camera can't judge an image's quality beyond the programming it was given. In some cases, the camera's programmed judgement may be better than that of the user, but it's not always a constant.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

 

[KmH]

Classic examples of circular arguments. Round and round and round we go.

A black and white image recorded on film does not record the all the hue's that impinge on the film because the film is designed to lack that capability.

The film image is pre-processed as a black and white rather than post-processed as a digital file would be. But both are surely processed. Fake is not the proper word but it does incite discussion.

There is no way to convince flea77 otherwise, but continuing to go round and round at least keeps him and the others from other mischief.

 

[rfosness88]

Flea77 I see what your saying and I agree, I also see how tossing around the word "fake" on a photography forum can be a little risky. Maybe a more clearly defined definition during your critiquing. Thanks for answering my questions, I am now an expert on the subject lol.

Lastly, I believe fake is a completely appropriate word to describe the process of the camera or computer TRYING to interpret(fake) B&W by it's conversion that was PROGRAMMED into it.

Sorry if the thread caused you or anyone else emotional damages.

I had only good intentions

 

[rfosness88]

I've heard this software can fake it the best, if anyone is interested. Plug in for Photoshop, Lightroom and Aperture.

The Power of Black and White