Shooting Only Mono

[JosephW]

This holiday, I decided to shoot exclusively monochrome the entire trip, taking the creative decision that colours, while expressive and vibrant, can't invoke and agitate like mono does. I also underexposed somewhat to give the photos a dark feel. How do you feel about monochrome?

Examples:

 

[Designer]

How do you feel about monochrome?

I like monochrome for some shots, but not all, unless one is going around looking for monochrome shots.

 

[minicoop1985]

I like black and white film more than converting digital, personally. Some things need to be black and white, too.

 

[KmH]

The monochrome setting of digital cameras produce b&w images that lack depth and tonal range.

Most of the photos posted are under exposed.
The scene that includes the Sun or the Moon in the sky behind a cloud has that part of the cloud over exposed. Ideally a graduated ND filter was needed to lower the brightness of the sky.

 

[timor]

And I thought you were shooting only Mono Lake. Too bad you're not...
This shots are kind of lacking brilliance, the "blacks" and "whites" are not very crisp.

 

[Derrel]

The monochrome setting of digital cameras produce b&w images that lack depth and tonal range.

Ummmm, that's a pretty broad and outdated statement. It might have been true 12 years ago, but no longer. Of course, a person has to actually shoot images with the tone curve set appropriately to the lighting and subject matter. Based on my own personal experience of about a little over half a decade with the Canon 5D Classic and the 20D, Canon digitial SLRs released at least since the 20D can make FABULOUS, rich, monochrome images...I shot hundreds of sets of in-camera B&W JPEG + RAW several years ago for my personal photos of my wife and young son. Canon offers color toning and filter effects that counteract the tendency toward tonal "blandness" that some people seem to think is inevitable. But it's not how the conversions are made that's the key to B&W images.

Even the original Nikon D1 made a gorgeous JPEG MEDIUM B&W image, straight out of camera; but the TONE curve HAD TO be set RIGHT...or the images could be too contrasty, or too flat.

The idea that channel mixer in Photoshop is the best and only way to arrive at a monochrome image from a digital camera is an old idea that still has not died in the minds of many people. I found that actually experimenting with DOING IT showed me that the Canon brand's in-camera JPEG process using Sepia Tone, Yellow FIlter effect, hard sharpening, RAW+ JPEG, the appropriate tone curve, and the camera set to write either Medium- or Small-sized with Fine compression yielded exquisite SOOC sepia-toned images that had lovely "depth" and exquisite tonal range. Every time I see the old saw that in-camera B&W or in-camers JPEG sucks, I challenge it because it is no longer true. DOwn-sampling the full-sized image suppresses noise very effectively, and also leads to a perceived boost in overall acuity of the image created in-camera.

OP: your images need more exposure, and also need more tonal differentiation. These are what is commonly called "muddy" Black and White images. They need more overall contrast, and also more of what is called local contrast. If you keep working at it, I am sure you can get better B&W images, but like most things, there is something of a learning curve. And there is more than just One way to set up your camera or workflow to arrive at B&W images.

Unlike many people, how I feel about monochrome is that to shoot the best monochrome, a person needs to have the courage of his convictions, and he needs to SHOOT with the camera set to monochrome display, so he can literally SEE and review the LCD images in monochrome. Monochrome is not just about tonal relationships: also important are line, shape, mass, texture, repetition, dissonance, harmony,variety, and so on.

Secondly, seeing a color image in the field or studio only interferes in the evaluation of the lighting that maximizes a B&W image's unique characteristics. If you want to end up with B&W images, shoot that way: Look for optimal b&w lighting scenarios, and evaluate the shot images AS B&W images, at the time you have the chance to make the best B&W-related lighting and exposure decisions. You'll soon learn that the 3:1 lighting ratio that looks good for color looks SUCKY in B&W; perhaps that might be why so many people insist that the issue is the "camera" making the B&W images suck, rather than the fault being placed on the photographer for not understanding or realizing that B&W uses lighting ratios in a VERY different manner than shooting in color, then messing around with the RGB channels in order to try and get some differentiation that should really,ideally, should have come from the LIGHTING present in the scene. Again: the nice, soft light and 3:1 lighting ratio that looks so nice in a color portrait shot with a 60 inch "soft,mushy light" umbrella is going to suck when it's dropped to B&W in Photoshop. Do what the old B&W fashion shooters would do: use 30-inch umbrellas, for more shadow/highlight contrast, or use metallized, silvered modifiers, which give more specularity on the highlights. You do not WANT to light for color, then ditch the color. You want good B&W images? Then light for B&W.

Shoot B&W in harder light. Look for pictures that hold up based on line, shape, mass,texture, and other elements, rather than on pretty color and color harmonies.

My opinion, as stated above, really pisses off a lot of people, but it's based on basically six years' worth of of experimenting to see what making the best B&W images, with different cameras from Nikon, Fuji, and then Canon. The secret to good B&W pictures is not in the format the images are captured in, per se: it's in LIGHTING FOR B&W...not in lighting for a COLOR image, but lighting FOR B&W. You still have a RAW image with full RGB data, but you get to SEE the effect of using the right lighting, with the proper tone curve, and some sharpening, so you can evaluate the shooting process. See--it's the shooting process that's the KEY to good B&W images. It's not what you do later in Photoshop--it's finding the right way to light that is optimal for B&W...not color. And finding scenes and shots that WORK well as B&W, and which do not rely on color information for their impact. I am mystified why so many people do not clue in to this essential concept.

 

[JosephW]

The monochrome setting of digital cameras produce b&w images that lack depth and tonal range.

Most of the photos posted are under exposed.
The scene that includes the Sun or the Moon in the sky behind a cloud has that part of the cloud over exposed. Ideally a graduated ND filter was needed to lower the brightness of the sky.

I know, you can't achieve the same effect in camera without an ND filter, but alas, I am broke!

 

[JosephW]

OP: your images need more exposure, and also need more tonal differentiation. These are what is commonly called "muddy" Black and White images. They need more overall contrast, and also more of what is called local contrast. If you keep working at it, I am sure you can get better B&W images, but like most things, there is something of a learning curve. And there is more than just One way to set up your camera or workflow to arrive at B&W images.

I appreciate the CC. I did believe that they were all underexposed, a problem I faced a lot due to shooting a faster shutter speed, and being quite obsessive about not going under the f/6.3 mark so I don't lose sharpness.