The significance of B&W Photography?

[ajohnw]

I have a problem with digital black and white. I have shot and processed a lot of B&W on film. To me digital shots often can't seem to show the same level of tonal variation unless the subject is ideally suited to it and doesn't have that wide a range. I suspect this is down to PC screens and is why most shots that are about look what I refer to as gritty - also possible on film just by changing a paper grade or more extremely by playing with film type and it's development. The same applies to extended tonal range as well especially in relationship to film type and it's development.

In my view so called true colour and gamma settings add another dimension to this and get round screen limitations. There are comments about that sRGB doesn't really match the human eye's capability. I've seen suggestions that 12 bits might and I suspect that would allow B&W's full capabilities to be realised, maybe even exceeded. Problem - PC screens really. Cameras too to a lesser extent.

It's interesting to search around about sRGB and gamma.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

IMHO it is therefore more difficult to take a good colour picture than a good B&W one, because you have more parameters to control

I could just as easily argue that a good B&W picture is more difficult to make because there are fewer characteristics to exploit. Fortunately, I won't make that argument because the level of difficulty of making a photo has nothing to do with whether the photo is worthwhile. I only care about whether a photo moves me, not how difficult it was to get it to that point.

[Bobobird]

I do not do many black and whites but for street I do most that way.

Here is one that is a capture of a school girl taken a couple of days ago. The colour version just shows a somewhat happy looking girl either returning or going to school. However the b/w conversion makes it a much stronger image due to the lighter right in front of her and the darker area behind her. Seems to show that she is walking towards hope or leaving a dark world behind.



Slightly closer crop

[Ady]

Hi Andre,

I don't do much processing in true B&W or monochrome but I do like to reduce the colour palette for reasons that aren't always apparent even to me. Though often its to increase clarity of the subject or add drama through contrast that just doesn't work when an image is in full colour. I find the tonal contrast filter in the NIK Color Efex Pro particularly useful for this.

Reading the post from John about B&W film did make me realise that more often than not I find myself reaching for a bit of artificial grain using DxO FilmPack when working on a B&W or colour reduced image, which is something I very rarely do with full colour images. I'd like to be able to give you a more precise explanation of why but all I can say is it seems to reduce the 'digitalness' of many images I work on in B&W, particularly when printed.

Cheers,
Ady

[drjuice]

Mebbe, Andre, you could work on making your first 10,000 images (see GrumpyDiver's quote from Cartier-Bresson at the end of his posts) in B/W. One of the images I took of a very old oak tree at Charles Pinckney National Historic Site in South Carolina came out of my alpha700 almost as a monochrome image, just because it was the middle of winter. I converted it the rest of the way. Note that a number of the Spanish moss strands hanging from the oak tree's branches are tilted slightly to the right. The wind was blowing just a bit. Here it is in B/W. v

[GrahamS]

One more thought - when I used to shoot B&W film, I would venture forth to create a photograph with my mindset in "monochrome" mode. I would "think" grey-scale, I knew the response of the film I was using intimately, and I could visualise the printed end result at the instant that I tripped the shutter. Now, using digital capture, I have to do the opposite. Because I don't have a particular film response in mind, I shoot first, knowing the image has been captured in colour (I shoot RAW) and then I have to "translate" the result into B&W in post, without a clear visualization of the end result until I have actually played with the channel mixer or the multitude of pre-sets I have available to me in Lightroom. Maybe I should just shoot RAW and then, during import, apply a conversion pre-set to simulate a particular film, say Tri-X and never see the colour image? Would I then stay awake nights worrying that I may have missed something in the colour shot? Or that I could have made a better image with a different conversion pre-set? Would I go back to the RAW backup in the wee hours to try another way and never be satisfied? Yes, I would because I do!

[cienfuegos]

It is a book. Ansel Adams in color. Publisher is Little Brown and Co. 1993. Most of his famous works are printed in the book. In itself, whether he took the photos in color or b&w hardly matters. It is the final result that counts. It is just a little known fact. By the way, I do own the book.
I like some b&w, but mostly I use color. The examples in this forum look very good in b&w.

[Manfred M]

It is a book. Ansel Adams in color. Publisher is Little Brown and Co. 1993. Most of his famous works are printed in the book. In itself, whether he took the photos in color or b&w hardly matters. It is the final result that counts. It is just a little known fact. By the way, I do own the book.
I like some b&w, but mostly I use color. The examples in this forum look very good in b&w.

I would strongly disagree with your statement. Black and white prints from B&W negatives were make on orthochromatic paper; and these were available in a range of contrast grades (i.e. a high contrast negative would be printed on a paper to reduce contrast and a low contrast negative would be printed on a high contrast paper). There were variable contrast papers whose contrast could be varied by using filters between the light source and the negative and worked much in the same way as different paper grades. The nice thing about orthochromatic papers is that they were relatively insensitive to certain wavelengths of light; primarily yellows and reds, so one could work under dim lighting in the darkroom.

Colour negatives would have to be printed on special B&W paper that was polychromatic. So far as I know, Kodak's Panalure papers were the only ones that were made to handle all wavelengths of light. Panalure was only available in one contrast grade and had to be worked in total darkness.

I'm not sure when Panalure was introduced, but it was certainly well after Adams did most of his work (I remember using it in the 1970s). He certainly used Ilford Galarie and Oriental Seagull papers in his work. These were orthochromatic papers. I don't ever remember reading that he used Panalure (to darn limiting for his printing technique.).

[drjuice]

Hi, Graham -

One of my friends did what you're suggesting. He's got the specs for PlusX, TriX, and (sorry I don't remember the name) the very slow Kodak B/W 35mm film worked out so that when he imports his RAW images to (I think) PhotoShop, he has done exactly what you used to do in your head with visualizing what the B/W image would look like. He's getting so good at it that, when he once made a typo, he knew exactly what the problem was when he saw the image, went back, and re-imported it without the type. I view this skill as outstanding, but scary!

virginia

[cienfuegos]

I was recently in Paris and in Madrid. I went through both Le Louvre and Museo del Prado. I did consider the color, and how they focused our attention in the subject the painter wanted. Most of the pictures were comissioned so it was to please the patron. There were no black and white paintings.
There are no tv stations in b&w any more. I expect no one turns the color off in tv/movies.
Color prints from the 60's faded rapidly. Only dye transfer prints had any permanence. B&W were fairly permanent.
Now, do most photographers wish to be color blind? You believe that is a myth?
Read the book. I gave the reference. Editor was Harry M Callahan. The introduction "...Ansel Adams began to photograph in color soon after Kodachrome was invented in the 1930's and shot more than 3,000 color images during the course of his lifetime." I type this with the book right in front of me.
The book has 54 color photographs. Also a myth? I did quote the source, you have not.
The real myth is how b&w has been elevated to a godly stature just because of nostalgia. As a photographer, you have the choice of what you want to present. If you want B&W, go for it. I just don't see the world going back to B&W. Is that a myth? Name the movies in b&w. Name the tv shows in B&W. Don't call what I said myth since you have not checked it out.
FYI, I like some B&W. My initial post was simply to stimulate thought, and not to piss people off. However, I am not missleading anyone with myths.
I do want to apologize for one thing, what I was trying to get accross was that the "king" of b&w photography also shot in color. He obviously had an appreciation for the image in color. I am sure he used many different films. I just thought very few people were acquainted with the book.

[Manfred M]

the very slow Kodak B/W 35mm film

That would have been the ISO 32 Panatomic-X. I used to enjoy shooting it and Agfapan-25 (ISO 25). Nice, fine grain film; but you needed to shoot it under fairly bright conditions. Both were lovely to work with.

[FootLoose]

I am not familiar with the life and works of Ansel Adams, but for those following the debate here, an overview (from which cienfugos quotes) and an excerpt from the book Cienfuegos mentions can be read here http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/anse...ams/1000377771

"Color presented three issues of artistic concern that plagued Adams throughout his life: reality, control, and aesthetics. Each in its own way prevented him from ever fully engaging the medium as an artistic endeavor. These concerns are examined in depth in the text that follows. Moreover, Adams maintained deep feelings of self-doubt in respect to his own color efforts. Late in his life he wrote:
"I have done no color of consequence for thirty years! I have a problem with color-I cannot adjust to the limited controls of values and colors. With black-and-white I feel free and confident of results.

"However, I have done some color in the past which is acceptable.... The Kodachromes have lasted the best of all. I am perplexed over what to do about the good transparencies, as some are worthy of preservation."

[Mike Buckley]

Cienfuegos,

Nobody participating in the thread has questioned your assertion that Ansel Adams produced color images. Instead, some of us have questioned your assertion as I understand it that the book you are referencing states that all of his black-and-white images were produced from color negatives. Until you or someone provides a direct quote from the book supporting or at least clarifying that assertion, I have to believe there is simply a big misunderstanding.

[GrahamS]

Hi, Graham -

One of my friends did what you're suggesting. He's got the specs for PlusX, TriX, and (sorry I don't remember the name) the very slow Kodak B/W 35mm film worked out so that when he imports his RAW images to (I think) PhotoShop, he has done exactly what you used to do in your head with visualizing what the B/W image would look like. He's getting so good at it that, when he once made a typo, he knew exactly what the problem was when he saw the image, went back, and re-imported it without the type. I view this skill as outstanding, but scary!

virginia

Now I have a new mission .......

[dabhand]

Now I have a new mission .......

If you haven't already, you may like to check out http://www.presetsheaven.com/presets...odak-bw-films/ - really useful !

[MattNQ]

Not sure I can add anything of consequence to the above discussion, but my thoughts are;

To a certain degree, I find mono is harder than colour, in that it will show up poor composition and exposure, creating a flat boring image.
There are gazillions of colourful sunrise shots that look pretty, but have poor composition. It is not until you strip the colour away that you can see what is missing.

When shooting, I tend to think in black and white - ie I usually know which images I will later pp in mono. That said, I am often suprised by other images that I didn't think would work, and they do.
This shot I knew from the start it would be mono.


If you want to convey mood & atmosphere, I find mono is more effective than colour.
This next one, the colour was boring. Mono lets me darken the mood, darken the distracting background, enhace detail in clouds, and make it spooky


The most important tip I can suggest for mono landscapes is to pick the right colour filtering when you convert to mono - I tend to use the red filter a lot for darker skies, or green if there is a lot of foliage,but you need to try a range of colours to see what is most effective

So in answer to the OP's questions
1.) What is special about B&W photography and do you prefer B&W to colour?
B&W lets you bring out something unique and special from an image that you may not achieve in colour. Personally I enjoy creating mono images, and find it more of a challenge to get right - to create something that jumps out at you.

2.) What makes a B&W image really special and outstanding?
A strong B&W image will grab your eye with its composition, hold your attention with its detail, and evoke a response from you, whether it be more of an intellectual fascination with the subject, or an emotional response to what is captured and/or the implied story behind the image.

Just my 2c worth. Feel free to ignore.

[AB26]

Hi Matt,

Not sure I can add anything of consequence to the above discussion, but my thoughts are;

A much valued post from you. The “Little House on the Prairie” is a great shot and it works perfectly in B&W.

If you want to convey mood & atmosphere, I find mono is more effective than colour.

I cannot agree with this:
It might be true in many cases but as much as it can be said for B&W it is applicable to colour. There are images that will simply not have the same mood and atmosphere in B&W as it has in colour. In many cases, I believe, it is due to lack of skill that we fail to convey mood and atmosphere either in B&W or colour.

A strong B&W image will grab your eye with its composition, hold your attention with its detail, and evoke a response from you,

As will a strong colour image.

What will this image look like in B&W? Will it have the same impact?



Can we think of the one as superior to the other? No, I do not think so.

[MattNQ]

Can we think of the one as superior to the other? No, I do not think so.

I guess that ultimately sums it up. We make a judgement call based on what suits each individual image. Like deciding before hitting the button whether to use a wide angle vs tele, shallow vs deep DoF, there is often no right or wrong decision, but a creative choice is made.

[mknittle]

"I believe, it is due to lack of skill that we fail to convey mood and atmosphere either in B&W or colour."
Andre, you hit the nail squarely on the head!
I am a big fan of black and white. but there are truly images that simply will not work in monochrome. That said the opposite is also true.

[mknittle]

This is my favorite style of black and white images!

2.)" What makes a B&W image really special and outstanding?
A strong B&W image will grab your eye with its composition, hold your attention with its detail, and evoke a response from you, whether it be more of an intellectual fascination with the subject, or an emotional response to what is captured and/or the implied story behind the image."

Goal achieved on both images!