Black and White Imagery

[Shadowman]

I often hear the phrase "f/8 and be there" as a mantra to documentary photography (street, photojournalism, travel), yet also hear that one of the keys to successful black and white photography is to deemphasize the background. I combine both phrase/mantra because documentary photography is often said best presented in black and white. So how do you deemphasize the background of your composition if you are shooting at f/8? One way would be to position yourself so that potential subjects will appear against a bland background, but how would a photojournalist control such a scenario? I would guess the photojournalist would have to ignore the "f/8 and be there" mantra or at least the first part of it.

[Manfred M]

John - just like all mantras, there is a bit of fact and a bit of fiction around it. Mostly fiction, in fact. The same goes for documentary photography is best done in B&W. Just because Cartier-Bresson shot mostly B&W, some modern street and documentary photographers seem to feel that this somehow this is the only way to go. The statement is just as absurd as suggesting only the Leica M series with a prime lens should be used for this type of work. A lot of the "classic" documentary and street photographers shot B&W because that was the best material available at the time they started this type of work.

Let's also be honest about what B&W does for composition - it uses the one great compositional technique called simplification. With things like colour out of the way, the whole image is visually simplified, so this is a great help. Of course that means you don't need to worry about messing things like white balance or shooting in mixed lighting conditions either.

Let's address the f/8 as well. A lot of street photography was done with a normal to wide angle lens using a focusing method called "zone focusing", i.e. you would set up your camera to give you an acceptably sharp range (due to the DoF f/8 provides) and shot in that range. That aperture would give you a shutter speed that you could live with in those days of low ISO films. Let's not forget that B&W film had a pretty decent dynamic range of probably somewhere around 10 stops. Being preset that way and understanding the light meant these photographers had set up their gear to work as little more than point & shoot cameras.

The other mystique around f/8 is that this is close to the "sweet spot' of many lenses (2 to 3 stops down from wide open), so image quality is going to be good. So anything from an f/2.8 through to an f/4 lens would be in the range. Likewise, you are not getting to aperture settings below f/11 where some might start worrying about diffraction.

Let me just conclude that while there is some logic in the mantra, I can assure you that I did not buy fast lenses so that I could shoot at f/8. I did not buy a camera body with a high colour bit depth so that I could shoot in B&W. I will shoot landscapes at f/8 or f/11, but with street and documentary photography, I will shoot at or close to a wide open aperture (to get that narrow DoF) and in colour, if at all possible.

[Shadowman]

John - just like all mantras, there is a bit of fact and a bit of fiction around it. Mostly fiction, in fact. The same goes for documentary photography is best done in B&W. Just because Cartier-Bresson shot mostly B&W, some modern street and documentary photographers seem to feel that this somehow this is the only way to go. The statement is just as absurd as suggesting only the Leica M series with a prime lens should be used for this type of work. A lot of the "classic" documentary and street photographers shot B&W because that was the best material available at the time they started this type of work.

Let's also be honest about what B&W does for composition - it uses the one great compositional technique called simplification. With things like colour out of the way, the whole image is visually simplified, so this is a great help. Of course that means you don't need to worry about messing things like white balance or shooting in mixed lighting conditions either.

Let's address the f/8 as well. A lot of street photography was done with a normal to wide angle lens using a focusing method called "zone focusing", i.e. you would set up your camera to give you an acceptably sharp range (due to the DoF f/8 provides) and shot in that range. That aperture would give you a shutter speed that you could live with in those days of low ISO films. Let's not forget that B&W film had a pretty decent dynamic range of probably somewhere around 10 stops. Being preset that way and understanding the light meant these photographers had set up their gear to work as little more than point & shoot cameras.

The other mystique around f/8 is that this is close to the "sweet spot' of many lenses (2 to 3 stops down from wide open), so image quality is going to be good. So anything from an f/2.8 through to an f/4 lens would be in the range. Likewise, you are not getting to aperture settings below f/11 where some might start worrying about diffraction.

Let me just conclude that while there is some logic in the mantra, I can assure you that I did not buy fast lenses so that I could shoot at f/8. I did not buy a camera body with a high colour bit depth so that I could shoot in B&W. I will shoot landscapes at f/8 or f/11, but with street and documentary photography, I will shoot at or close to a wide open aperture (to get that narrow DoF) and in colour, if at all possible.

Manfred,

Regarding the photojournalist side of the genre, most if not all publications were printed in B & W and the imagery presented (especially the crime scene photos) were pretty graphic yet somehow seemed designed for a monochromatic presentation. Night scenes were usually captured with flash and we all know what those temperatures can do to certain colors.

Flash is considered intrusive, overpowering, and counterproductive for street photography, but used sparingly can create some interesting effects. Travel photography in B&W can provide a timeless scene, yet color really makes the setting pop.

[Shadowman]

I was taking a break from playing with the 18-55mm kit lens and lined up this shot. The only reason I converted to black and white is I didn't like how the skin tones looked. The camera settings were already set and I didn't really pay much attention to the background, yet the background doesn't seem to distract much, however the layers do seem a bit compressed.


f/7.1, ISO 100, 1/320sec, 48mm.

[rpcrowe]

The f/8 and be there slogan was in vogue when most newspaper photographers used 4x5 inch press cameras that were equipped with lenses of 127mm to 150mm or so. The rangefinder on these cameras was in a separate window from the viewfinder and was not all that easy to use!

Most of us used zone focusing and needed the extra DOF of f/8 to get our images in a decent focus...

The f/8 aperture was also decent to get a fairly good exposure.

BTW: The newspaper photos of that era were certainly no works of art!

[xpatUSA]

I was taking a break from playing with the 18-55mm kit lens and lined up this shot. The only reason I converted to black and white is I didn't like how the skin tones looked. The camera settings were already set and I didn't really pay much attention to the background, yet the background doesn't seem to distract much, however the layers do seem a bit compressed.


f/7.1, ISO 100, 1/320sec, 48mm.

If the layers had successively a bit less focus going toward the building at rear, would that give greater separation and impression of depth, do you think? By which, I'm hinting at focusing as sharply as possible on the Asian lady at about f/3.5 or f/5.6 at most.

Just speaking theoretically - I'm not a street shooter myself.

That kid in wheel chair adds a certain something to the image, I reckon. Being off to one side, he's almost an observer looking at both the photographer and the scene. Quite common in Renaissance art . . .

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Regarding the photojournalist side of the genre, most if not all publications were printed in B & W and the imagery presented (especially the crime scene photos) were pretty graphic yet somehow seemed designed for a monochromatic presentation. Night scenes were usually captured with flash and we all know what those temperatures can do to certain colors.

Flash is considered intrusive, overpowering, and counterproductive for street photography, but used sparingly can create some interesting effects. Travel photography in B&W can provide a timeless scene, yet color really makes the setting pop.

If you are looking a a book of Wee Gee's images (Arthur Fellig), then he worked in B&W in the 1930s and 1940s with his Speed Graphic camera, flash and all. Colour film of that period was a specialty product and was not really commonly used in day to day photography until the 1960s and 1970s, just for cost reasons.

Wee Gee was a press photographer, so getting the images to the newspapers quickly for their print run was critical. These were B&W images, because that is all the news paper presses of the day were capable of running. Night time photography had to use flash, the films of those days were quite slow, but for crime scenes, that harsh light somehow worked and created tension in the product.

While flash photography tends to be counterproductive for street photography, I have used it from time to time, especially in developing countries where street lighting is minimal to non-existent.

When it comes to travel photography, I find I prefer colour as colours are in important element in capturing the look and feel of places I visit. I may do the occasional B&W on compositional grounds, but for me, these are the exception, not the rule in travel photography.

[Shadowman]

The f/8 and be there slogan was in vogue when most newspaper photographers used 4x5 inch press cameras that were equipped with lenses of 127mm to 150mm or so. The rangefinder on these cameras was in a separate window from the viewfinder and was not all that easy to use!

Most of us used zone focusing and needed the extra DOF of f/8 to get our images in a decent focus...

The f/8 aperture was also decent to get a fairly good exposure.

BTW: The newspaper photos of that era were certainly no works of art!

It's interesting that you say film cameras were more difficult to focus with, I've read some who think the focusing mechanism was easier as some used a focusing ring/split prism.

[Shadowman]

If the layers had successively a bit less focus going toward the building at rear, would that give greater separation and impression of depth, do you think? By which, I'm hinting at focusing as sharply as possible on the Asian lady at about f/3.5 or f/5.6 at most.

Just speaking theoretically - I'm not a street shooter myself.

That kid in wheel chair adds a certain something to the image, I reckon. Being off to one side, he's almost an observer looking at both the photographer and the scene. Quite common in Renaissance art . . .

Hi Ted,

It might've been possible to get some of the background less focused, however some of the objects are so large I doubt if the effect would be obvious. It will be something to consider when I get the next opportunity. Thanks for commenting.

[Shanghai Steve]

Modern Street Photographers do often use techniques and an aesthetic based on the glory days of film and this can result in good or bad images depending on many factors. Last time I used zone focussing was in the private stallholder markets in Sanya. This was due in part to the fact that I was using a camera with inadequate autofocus, but also because all the tables and work-stations were the same. Despite being forced at times to to use a very large aperture (no-one I think has ever said "f/2 and be there"!), I managed to get some usable shots very quickly due to the preset focal length.

But in the normal course of events, zone focussing is used for the simple reason that many Street Photographers rely on speed, flicking from the hip or at the side of the head. Although this is necessarily rather hit and miss, with practice, one can produce shots which are difficult to attain in any other way. The shot below was taken very sneakily, due to a very large police presence amid political tensions.

As for isolating subjects, this of course depends entirely on how much light you have to play with and the environment which the subject is found in. I often feel blessed to be shooting in China, with so much going on, so many different cities to visit, so many interesting sites and people. I find that often, if I am lucky and or choose my time/place correctly, there is so much going on that I can capture multilayered images.

Usually the need for isolation is obvious; a thoughtful individual in a crowd, a runnning child or whatever. In this image, the isolation was crucial to the composition. I chose to keep this polychrome simply as I liked the colours.

As to the choice of monochrome, for me at least just seems natural. I have to have a reason to shoot in colour- mono is my default and if I can capture a scene without any obviously modern elements, I am most happy. This shot was taken during a mad 30 minutes when I decided to just push the ISO and f-stop up high and concentrate on getting the subjects in the frame, without pondering every setting or trying to eek out every last oz of resolution or dynamic range.

[Manfred M]

I have to have a reason to shoot in colour- mono is my default

I would say I look at it slightly differently, Steve. I'm going to just use 8-bit jpegs that we use to display images on the internet, although the final numbers will be the same for any bit depth.

When we shoot a colour image, there are up to 256 distinct shades in each of the red, blue and green channels. If we multiply 256 x 256 x 256 we get 16.8 million distinct colours.

When we convert to B&W, all three colour channels are set to the same value, so we have pure black, pure white and 254 shades of gray. By choosing to shoot B&W we are throwing away 99.998% of all of the data our cameras are capable of recording. I personally need a very, very good reason to throw out that much information.

I do shoot B&W, and I spent the first two years when I first got into serious photography shooting almost exclusively in B&W, so I am quite comfortable working in that genre. I would say that 5% - 10% of my images are still done in B&W, but for the reason given above, it is not my default.

[Dave Humphries]

When we convert to B&W, all three colour channels are set to the same value, so we have pure black, pure white and 254 shades of gray. By choosing to shoot B&W we are throwing away 99.998% of all of the data our cameras are capable of recording.

I absolutely agree if you shoot jpg only and the conversion is done in camera, but if you're shooting digital RAW (or RAW + jpg), surely it isn't lost - it can be recovered and the monochrome conversion optimised for the colour palette in shot. Unless I have mis-understood something.

[John 2]

Oddly enough, I heard the mantra "f/8 and be there" for the first time on this forum but certainly in the UK, mono was prevalent right up to the late 70s for no other reason that colour film was slow by comparison. If there was a common element it was that nearly all news photographers preferred Nikon for reliability, at least until the Olympus OM series came out, and they used Tri X simply because it could be pushed in development from its native ISO of 400 ASA to as high as 1200 ASA if the circumstances dictated. The fastest colour film was probably Ektachrome at 64 ASA. I suspect that anyone trying to capture motion, including street photographers, would have thought the same way.

[Shadowman]

[QUOTE=Shanghai Steve;616027]


Nice series, I was going to say that shots like this, the in your face style of SP; seems so common and often intrusive however after really seeing the composition I find it quite inventive and a lucky capture.

[Shanghai Steve]

Thanks man
That shot was a total fluke. I was using a D5100 plus 50 D, which of course, cannot AF on that camera, so it was a day of experimenting with hyperfocal distance and generally larking about with a couple of friends. Just before this shot was taken I had quickly walked into an antique shop in a touristy part of the city and literally stepped into the shop window to get an unusual view of the street. This woman walked past at the instant of capture- it was not my intention to photograph her. So yes, very lucky and a bit unusual. Street Photography is very difficult to get right. It is invasive by its very nature and as such, calls for a lot of sensitivity, respect and judgement. I never intentiionally annoy people but I have on ocassion- I always apologise and delete any photograph I am asked to. The trick is to be discrete, walking a fine line between sneak and participant, between presence and invisibility. I have got this wrong at times of course and thrown out many many frames but over the years, I have got better at it and I have very rarely been the subject of agression. In some ways I have an advantage; being a foreigner I am either quirky tourist or irrelevant fool. But I also have had some lovely interaction with people. Chinese people, at least in my experience, tend to want their friends and children to be photographed as a joke. I have often been asked to photograph a child or been thanked if I take one off the cuff, whereas in The West, I would risk offense or much worse if I started taking shots of children for no apparent reason. Of course, with so much going on, one person can get lost in the crowd more easily. Noisy places are great as it means the shutter isn't heard, nor footsteps. In the shot below, I was at a crowded market in the back of beyond...a few miles outside Dali and these people were so busy haggling and arguing that they didn't notice I was there!

[Manfred M]

I absolutely agree if you shoot jpg only and the conversion is done in camera, but if you're shooting digital RAW (or RAW + jpg), surely it isn't lost - it can be recovered and the monochrome conversion optimised for the colour palette in shot. Unless I have mis-understood something.

Dave - you are definitely misreading what I am saying.

The comment is meant for the amount of data the photographer has purposefully chosen to ignore when creating B&W image FOR A SPECIFIC IMAGE.

Let me put this another way - if I went the same way with the number of pixels my camera can capture by cropping part of an image, on my 36MP camera, throwing away 99.998% of the pixels would only leave me approximately 550 pixels to use in that image. People would likely jump all over the photographer for that much of a crop, unless they really liked small thumbnails. Not too many people would accept that I still have all that data sitting on my hard drive in a raw file.

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ted,

It might've been possible to get some of the background less focused, however some of the objects are so large I doubt if the effect would be obvious. It will be something to consider when I get the next opportunity. Thanks for commenting.

That is an interesting POV, John. I really did mean "a bit less" focused. For example, the wall at the rear has visible texture and even halos on the horizontal joints. The youth sitting at the back almost has some hair detail. Coming forward, the 'no standing' sign behind the people is as sharp as they are. In other words, there appears to be a large depth of field which could explain why it was said that the layers looked "compressed". My suggested f-numbers of less than 7.1 were intended to apply a slight blur behind the pedestrians the blur increasing of course with distance toward the wall . .

No disrespect intended as to the shot itself which I like a lot.

[Shanghai Steve]

Dave - you are definitely misreading what I am saying.

The comment is meant for the amount of data the photographer has purposefully chosen to ignore when creating B&W image FOR A SPECIFIC IMAGE.

Let me put this another way - if I went the same way with the number of pixels my camera can capture by cropping part of an image, on my 36MP camera, throwing away 99.998% of the pixels would only leave me approximately 550 pixels to use in that image. People would likely jump all over the photographer for that much of a crop, unless they really liked small thumbnails. Not too many people would accept that I still have all that data sitting on my hard drive in a raw file.

"Each to his own" is what I say. Photography is one of those disciplines where some results are impossible without a high degree of technical knowledge, others rely on instinct. I remember admiring a colleague's shots and being astonished when checking the exif to learn that she had used automatic mode with a kit lens and didn't know what RAW is. If everyone worked like me, they would produce work very similar to mine. I've lost count of the number of shots I've admired that I would never have taken, or frankly, don't know how to produce.
Good luck to everyone in all their photographic ambitions.

[Shadowman]

If you are looking a a book of Wee Gee's images (Arthur Fellig), then he worked in B&W in the 1930s and 1940s with his Speed Graphic camera, flash and all. Colour film of that period was a specialty product and was not really commonly used in day to day photography until the 1960s and 1970s, just for cost reasons.

Wee Gee was a press photographer, so getting the images to the newspapers quickly for their print run was critical. These were B&W images, because that is all the news paper presses of the day were capable of running. Night time photography had to use flash, the films of those days were quite slow, but for crime scenes, that harsh light somehow worked and created tension in the product.

While flash photography tends to be counterproductive for street photography, I have used it from time to time, especially in developing countries where street lighting is minimal to non-existent.

When it comes to travel photography, I find I prefer colour as colours are in important element in capturing the look and feel of places I visit. I may do the occasional B&W on compositional grounds, but for me, these are the exception, not the rule in travel photography.

I was doing a bit of reading about WeeGee (Fellig) and even though he his credited with the "f/8 and be there" he normally set his camera at f/16, 1/250sec. I guess it didn't have the same ring to it.