Shooting for black and white versus colour: Of concern or not?

[tbob]

Maybe the gurus on the site can enlighten me as to where I am missing a crucial point. Maybe it us just my subject material; old buildings and farm machines on the prairie that is confusing me. I have read several books and articles stating that one should either shoot for Black and White or Colour as the final image. One cannot shoot for both. They talk of composing for tonal variation and shadow versus light when shooting for Black and White. These aspects being of lesser import for colour renditions.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how to shoot at the time for colour versus black and white. Seems to me that basic structure and composition for a good image still applies. Once I have the image the conversion seems to be the crucial bit. The two variants are done differently; at least in my hands. And some images obviously have to be one or the other. ( images with dry dead grass surrounding weathered wood/metal never convert to black and white, the tones are the same).

I ask because I have done a number of conversions now and I am stuck on a crux. Seems to me both variants of the same image work equally well most of the time . They are different but equal options in my eyes. It seems if the capture is the crucial bit then this should not be true.

Should I even be concerned about this or just shoot and see what can be done when in front of the computer?

Here is the latest image as an an example. Different end results in terms of the impact, purposely so. But both equally valid. At least in my estimation

[Downrigger]

I'll wait for the gurus too, Trevor, to weigh in on your great question. But two thoughts:

First: We have much more powerful tools to achieve separation between tones with digital processing than we did with film. The constraint of close tones is not as great as it used to be and permits us to "think" black and white more in terms of matters such as form, feel, and taste.

Second: I am much more fond of the first version (black and white) of this really excellent composition than the color version.

[Donald]

Second: I am much more fond of the first version (black and white) of this really excellent composition than the color version.

Mark - Can you say why you think this is so?

[Mike Buckley]

I have read several books and articles stating that one should either shoot for Black and White or Colour as the final image.

Personally, I believe that advice is heavily overstated in most situations, which is also true of much of the generally accepted advice about photography. The humor of it for me has to do with the similarly overstated advice of the importance of shooting using a RAW File format. Ironically, the primary reason that advice is given is that the RAW format provides so much latitude for allowing the photographer to make changes. So, at the very least, if you're using a RAW format, that logic dictates that you shouldn't have to be concerned about whether the output will be in color or black-and-white.

I almost always envision which style I will use before I release the shutter. So, for me, I am "thinking" about that from the outset and that follows through until the image is made. In that sense, there is a difference. However, I can't remember a situation in which my camera settings would have been different depending on my choice of color or black-and-white.

It's the composition that will differ the most depending on my choice of color or black-and-white. I might choose a composition that emphasizes the color. Lacking that, I'll choose a composition that emphasizes other characteristics of the scene. As an example, if the sky is cloudless, I might choose a composition in which the sky takes up most of the photo if it is to be in black-and-white. Not so, if it is to be in color. That's because, the vast, plain quality of a cloudless sky in a black-and-white image is appealing to me in a certain situation, whereas it's usually unappealing and often a distraction for me in a color photo.

The other issue for me is that strong mid-day shadows are usually less appealing for me when displayed in a color context than when displayed in a black-and-white context. I have no idea why that's the case, but it is.

[Downrigger]

Mark - Can you say why you think this is so?

There is something beyond grasping and melancholy about the passage of time, the ending of things, their disappearance into the eddies of waters gone by. Here once may have been vitality, stuggle, love, and heartbreak but in time not even this sad monument will remain. As such, bright sun and blue skies rob me of the chance to fully experience the emotional journey this scene invites.

[flashback]

I am handicapped in that I can only see in color. That being the case it's virtually impossible for me to 'imagine' a scene in B&W prior to shooting it. I mean, I can kind of guess if a scene will work in B&W but honestly I'm never sure until I view the image on my comp. So I shoot with the intent of capturing a moment, something that perhaps will tell a story, engage the viewer for second at least. What I've found is that oftentimes that image will tell that story, or tell it better in B&W. So my answer to your post question is; shoot for the scene, the image or story you want to convey. How you get there is up to you and, more importantly, what works best for you.

The above said and relating to the two images you've included; I prefer the B&W and I prefer it because, once you remove color (something our eye is well designed to pick up on) you are left with tones, shapes and forms. So to me your B&W version of the abandoned building works infinitely better in B&W because I am left to contemplate the scene in its entirety. What I mean by this is, I am not distracted by the blue sky, nor by the rather leafless environment, the weathering of the clapboards, nor do I wonder is it spring or fall. What I do see is something that was once a...dream, a home, a place where families lived, were born and maybe died. It was a place of security and warmth, hard work and hearth, comfort and heartbreak. To me that story comes across resoundingly clear when you contemplate the present nature of the house, in B&W. In color the color is a distraction, it keeps my mind too busy viewing rather than thinking. There is also a timelessness about an image in B&W, and it certainly amplifies the sense of (in the case of your photos above) abandonment and isolation. Color just makes it look too cheery. But this is me, there are many who prefer color and I suspect do so maybe just because color can make a scene (more) cheery. Dunno if this helps or not but it's how my operating system seems to function.

[James G]

I'm now going to post an insane and unscientific proposition, which is in my twisted mind somehow relevant to Trevor's question, but I doubt I could argue for coherently!
I think we can be placed into a number of different groups based on the way we 'see things'.
Crudely I think there are those who see or have a preference or bias for the contrast and form/structure in what they are seeing. Then there are those who veer toward 'seeing' tone and vibrance, and finally those who are 'in between'.

I think when 'actively' visualising a capture, those in the first category will tend to compose for monotone, with those in the second category going for colour. Those in the last category I suspect work comfortably? between the other two, until like me they try to think about shooting for monotone.

I, like Trevor find myself generally incapable of deciding in advance that I am shooting for monotone, the 'default' position usually being that l decide when I look at them out of camera.
What I think Im aware of is that when I actively think something could be a 'monotone' at the capture stage, it is 'obviously' to me in the first category.

As I said its a proposition, and I'm not totally sure in this instance where I'm getting it from.......

[Manfred M]

I am definitely someone who takes that advice; I plan an image for one or the other. I virtually always plan for shooting in one or the other genre and find I follow through with my plan in the end, a good 99% of the time. I do make the occasional misjudgement and will change my mind at the processing stage. I learned how to "see" in B&W a long time ago; a skill that I haven't lost.

That being said, I am primarily a colour shooter and will tend to shoot that way, if for no other reason than colour is probably the harder of the two to work with. It is far less forgiving and far easier to get a less successful image; there are so many more things that can (and do) go wrong. It wasn't always that way; I was pretty well a B&W shooter for the first five years I got into serious photography, so I am extremely comfortable going either way. When I say B&W, I really mean monochrome, as I will sometimes go for a toned look, just as I did in the wet darkroom. Warmish tones with a sepia colour or cold white backgrounds with blue or cool black tonality are two of my favourite directions.

In B&W we limit ourselves to three tools:

1. Luminance - how bright or dark we make the image;

2. Tonality; the number of steps between the darkest and lightest tone. Back when I first got into B&W photography, the "rule" was that a good B&W image needed to contain a pure black and a pure white value. This is still often correct; and

3. Contrast - the range of difference between the light and dark tones (i.e. a high contrast image has a steeper tone curve than a low contrast one).


I tend to have three reasons for going B&W:

1. Use as a compositional tool to simplify the image; something that has a lot of colours can be too busy and reducing it to tonal ranges can be extremely effective. For this to work, you need the tonality to be there; a whole lot of similar tones usually ends up looking flat and boring.;

2. Period pieces - old buildings, cars, etc will work when I am after that "period look: and

3. Uninteresting skies in travel photography - when I am on the road and passing through a place, I usually have no chance of going back for a re-shoot. If the sky is overcast, a colour picture will often look terrible, but by going monochrome and thereby reducing the complexity of the image, one can often get a really decent shot.

Now, let's look at your images from my viewpoint:

I would definitely go for the colour version, simply because the warm tones of the grass against the warm tones of the wood make the shot. In addition, the cool colours in the sky contrast the warm tones (remember that blue is the complement of yellow), so this mix works very well.

As it is a "period" piece I would have considered going B&W, but not with that light. The scene does not need to be simplified due to excessive colours and the sky is quite nice with a mix of blue and white.

When I look at your images; the B&W is a good image, but the colour version is great. I suspect if I came across the same building on a cold, overcast snowy winter's day, I strongly suspect I might have opted to go B&W.


As one gains experience in both B&W and colour photography, I find the decision becomes simpler. A B&W image means throwing away all of the colour information in the scene. To me, there has to be a good reason to do that.

[Shadowman]

It's not an issue, but I think the end results are vastly different. While both depict a seemingly abandoned structure, the mono version has appears more eerie; while the color version more inviting.

[tbob]

I am still mulling over the responses. I am going to go back outside and sit on my deck in the unseasonably warm March sun with a pale ale, I find it concentrates my thoughts until all is clear and the world is revealed to me. Actually it does nothing of the sort but any justification will do after the winter.

I will say I am humbled that both Jack and Mark both got exactly the intent of the black and white version. Nice that it carries through. The colour is exactly that, I love the colour of the weathered wood. Not a lot beyond that. The black and white is the deeper variant.

So far the responses have been very revealing and helpful for me to consider my mindset, or lack of, at time of shooting.

[blakeshinn]

As to the original question, thinking color vs monochrome, one must think in contrast as opposed to tint perhaps? a photo of an easter basket full of pastel colored eggs will be a basket of grey eggs in monochrome. A basket of brightly colored eggs will be a basket of grey, light grey, and black eggs. I was struck by Donald's question of "why" because I too preferred the B & W photo, when he asked the question I scrolled back up and contemplated the two. Mark's response sums things up nicely but I can say that I am just more comfortable with the monochrome. I wonder if age has anything to do with it. I am 59, had B & W TV, a B & W darkroom. Could not afford color in either department. My sons have never seen black and white except in museums. I am sure they would both prefer the color shot.

[William W]

Shooting for black and white versus colour: Of concern or not?

Yes. It is indeed ‘of concern’.

Composition factors for B&W, including, but not limited to, those you quoted (tonal variation and shadow versus light) are important considerations. But, I stress, not limited to those. The overall composition is then considered to maybe juxtapose or to interlace . . . and so it goes on.

*

They (the two sample final images) are different but equal options in my eyes. It seems if the capture is the crucial bit then this should not be true.

Non sequitur:

Certainly you can evaluate and opinionate that the two samples are “equal option final images”.

But as these two final images were derived from the SAME image file, so therefore it is illogical to draw the conclusion that is proof that if you HAD made two different image files with concern to OTHER ASPECTS of composition, the results would not be any different.

*

. . . Here is the latest image as an example. Different end results in terms of the impact, purposely so. But both equally valid. At least in my estimation.

In this summary, I believe that you have answered your own question about the “crux” where you now sit.

“DIFFERENT results in terms of IMPACT”

It occurs to me that having already the image file, you then set about creating the DIFFERENT results.
What I mean is, your VISION for the FINAL IMAGE was created, or at least finally determined AFTER you released the shutter. That’s fine. That’s what happens lots of times, innumerable times.

But, I suggest that you now try creating the FINAL VISION for your image BEFORE you release the shutter, and include in that vision whether it be Monochrome, or Black and White, or Colour or Bas Relief or whatever.

It probably won’t be easy. There will likely be mistakes. But having an all encompassing Final Vision, you will I am sure move out of the crux which you fear, and I am sure, that you are in.

WW

[barrydoig]

I am no guru but, to add my small bit of wisdom, all the advice I have received is that you get better results if you shoot in colour and convert to black and white in Lightroom. I think it also makes sense. You have all the original tones at your disposal, and you can play with the sliders to your heart's content. This is the advice of Piet Van den Eynde in his excellent e-book The Power of Black & White in Lightroom and beyond. (Craft & Vision.com) 'Don't use your camera's built-in black & white options. You haven't spent 300 USdollars on Lightroom to let some camera engineer decide how your black & white images should look' Barry

[FootLoose]

As Mark (Downrigger) said above, colour means something. You cannot simply discard it (by desaturating, for example) and hope to produce a good B&W picture. Whether we realise it or not, we have ingested colour's meaning by looking at pictures and watching movies all our lives. It makes us 'feel' certain ways about things. Mark has given a good example of this by articulating his reaction to Trevor's two images. The B&W invokes certain feelings in him (and me) about the subject, and the coloured version, an entirely different response. The subject may be the same, but because of the different rendering - colour v B&W - they are two very different images which tell different stories. So, it pays to decide how you feel about a particular scene before you shoot, and what the story is that you want to tell. (JMHO)

[pnodrog]

........ One cannot shoot for both. They talk of composing for tonal variation and shadow versus light when shooting for Black and White. These aspects being of lesser import for colour renditions.

Sorry I do not agree. The tonal variation and shadow versus light are still of crucial importance when shooting for colour, maybe different but certainly not lesser. The fact that the addition of hues widens the options regarding successful tonal values does not diminish their importance.

Many scenes/subjects will work well as either B&W or colour images (with minor variations required being easily performed in PP). However there are some scenes/subjects that simply will not be successful unless the appropriate choice is made. With experience these scenes/subjects will be reasonable obvious at the time of taking the photograph but only a few will require a different approach regarding composition or exposure.

I find using the improved dynamic range of a modern senor and shooting RAW there is little penalty in delaying the final decision until PP even if it was apparent at the time of taking the photograph what the choice will be. The only rare exception is using a specific filter for a specific effect.

[Mike Buckley]

I don't make formal portraits, so I'm curious: Do those who do make them in a studio setting traditionally use different lighting or compositions depending on whether the photo will be black-and-white or color?

[William W]

I don't make formal portraits, so I'm curious: Do those who do make them in a studio setting traditionally use different lighting or compositions depending on whether the photo will be black-and-white or color?

I shoot Studio Portraiture. Studio Portraiture is a 'controlled shoot'

No. Not necessarily a different composition; nor not necessarily a different pose, but sometimes a different pose.

Definitely different choice of clothing dependent upon whether the final is Black and White or Colour.

But, for a controlled Portrait shoot, for it to be assigned / commissioned as Black and White, that is not the norm, so there would be a reason for the choice of B&W in the first place. A good example is the recent thread about the Portrait Shoot for a fellow who wanted enter into Local Politics, this thread here.

So BECAUSE there would be a reason for Black and White to be commissioned, then the shoot would be addressed as a Black and White shoot, separate to any Colour Portrait Sessions, that we might also shoot. So in this regard I do not shoot a session and just 'convert' a few shots into B&W from the intended Color Files by whim or fancy: but it is a defined procedure with B&W being the planned, end result.

Just as one aside - shooting with digital media it is much easier to dress the Subject for a specific shoot in B&W for Studio Portraiture, than to spend time with sliders adjusting tones in Lightroom. Time is money.

Up until about 18 months ago, I also offered Hand Finished B&W (wet) prints, ex medium format negative, from a Studio Portrait Session.

WW

[Manfred M]

I don't make formal portraits, so I'm curious: Do those who do make them in a studio setting traditionally use different lighting or compositions depending on whether the photo will be black-and-white or color?

Yes and no, Mike.

I participated in a portraiture workshop a few years ago and we explored that topic in the studio.

From a contemporary lighting standpoint, positioning, power levels, not really as you still have to get the exposure to look right. The shadows falling on the subject to sculpt the face are every bit as important in both B&W and colour. What we did find is some lighting setups from the 1940's and 1950's could be used in B&W, but did not work as well in colour (which might be why they are no longer in common use). To some extent when one says the shot looks equally good in B&W or colour can apply to studio shots as well; but just as in other shooting, that is a small subset of the images.

The other thing that definitely made a difference was the way your model dressed and how and where any props might be positioned. That purple chair looked fine in B&W, whereas the it will look terrible in colour. You can often mix and match more freely because of the simplification that is inherent in a B&W shot.

Metamerism (where colours look different under different lighting conditions) is largely not a problem. Conversely, colours that work together in a colour image may not give you the tonal separation you want in a B&W.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to Manfred and Bill for such helpful responses about making formal portraits.

[Downrigger]

Mike’s question is interesting to me because it seems to me that black and white imaging has persisted more strongly in portraiture and the depiction of the human person than in other areas of photographic art.

For example, here: http://lightbox.time.com/2013/12/12/...ts-of-2013/#40

Sure, lots of great portraits nowadays are color but I perceive that black and white has survived unusually in the portrait arena. If I am right I wonder why this is so. It is though color is treated as though it might complicate our apprehension of the person within – be a distraction or perhaps a concealment. There seems to be a lot of power in the black and white and also sense of intimacy. It is as though the person within – the person to be revealed – IS black and white and that the hues we present express the contrived self we choose to show others, and even ourselves.

Again, Mike’s question: What considerations, applicable in particular to the goal of an honest and engaging monochrome image, are best applied to setting, lighting, and instrumentation? Manfred addresses this well, but I wonder if there isn't more - maybe hidden somewhere in his "shadows falling on the subject to sculpt the face" that makes the really successful portraits (think: Steichen) so compelling.

And why do good results work so well – how come this approach has survived so well in a time when we can be so articulate with color?