Thought Process: Color vs. Black-and-White

[Mike Buckley]

Donald brought up his really interesting thinking in this post that "with B & W more so than with a colour image, you need to have an idea in your head as to what the final image is going to look like before you start the post-processing."

This is one of the few times that I disagree with his thinking; I believe that it's equally important to envision the look of the image regardless of the style of image being made. Moreover, I think that holds true before releasing the shutter, not just before starting the post-processing.

If it becomes helpful for me to further clarify my thinking, I'll be happy to do so. In the mean time, I look forward to an engaging discussion of ideas about this from all corners of the world of photography, not only among those of us who have a particular penchant for black-and-white photography.

EDIT: I imagine that this discussion has the potential to go farther and wider than perhaps in most threads. Let's please don't feel that we have to stick to the exact point that Donald made. I encourage everyone to take the gist of this first post to whatever related topic will be helpful and informative for whatever reason.

[Black Pearl]

I would have to whole heartily agree with him. When you take a photograph with monochrome in mind you have to be very aware that the colours you see that may have attracted your eye won't be there and that you have to concentrate very hard on the shapes, tones and quality of the light. I think it is a mistake that many make when they post a mono image that they have 'made' afterwards and more often than not it fails.
Monochrome should add significantly to an image not be just a lack of colour.

[Downrigger]

For an inexperienced person like myself, it seems that certain subjects or scenes simply invite monochrome, as they there is plenty of contrast, and strong elements for composition. Perhaps not so? Perhaps photographers who like monochrome results start with a scene or subject devoid of obvious monochrome suitability and manipulate the capture process to realize their goal.

Either way, I'd be interested in hearing from others what should happen then, in terms of how the image is captured, to capitalize on the monochrome potential one sees in a scene of subject. Should the choice of settings different when monochrome is an objective? Does "shooting for monochrome" have implications for composition as well?

[Downrigger]

For an inexperienced person like myself, it seems that certain subjects or scenes simply invite monochrome, as they there is plenty of contrast, and strong elements for composition. Perhaps not so? Perhaps photographers who like monochrome results start with a scene or subject devoid of obvious monochrome suitability and manipulate the capture process to realize their goal.

Either way, I'd be interested in hearing from others what should happen then, in terms of how the image is captured, to capitalize on the monochrome potential one sees in a scene of subject. Should the choice of settings different when monochrome is an objective? Does "shooting for monochrome" have implications for composition as well?

[Donald]

Mike - I'm glad that my thoughts prompted you to set up this interesting discussion. I hope many more people will join in.

Regarding

Donald brought up his really interesting thinking in this post that "with B & W more so than with a colour image, you need to have an idea in your head as to what the final image is going to look like before you start the post-processing."

I'd mention that I did precede that particular statement with "I think that ...". I didn't want it to sound like a dogmatic statement on my part, more of a personal opinion. But that, being said, I do hold to it.

I'd suggest that our respective, slightly differing views are about subtle shades of emphasis. You state "I believe that it's equally important to envision the look of the image regardless of the style of image being made." I'd say that I believe it's important, but not equally so. I think the demand is greater when B & W conversion is intended.

Moreover, I think that holds true before releasing the shutter, not just before starting the post-processing.

That's a comment I totally and completely agree with.

What I wrote in that other thread was specific to that thread; i.e. Craig had already made a colour image and was looking at what it might be like a as B & W. My own particular approach is to never make a colour image and then think of what it might be like as a B & W. I go out looking for B & W images and when I am setting up the shot, I am setting up for a B & W. That particular frame will never be produced as a colour image. That, for me, is the thing about 'seeing' in B & W.

So, 'seeing' the final image before you press the shutter is, I believe, one of the fundamental and essential skills in photography.

[Donald]

Does "shooting for monochrome" have implications for composition as well?

I would say 'absolutely'. I believe you're thinking in a completely different way about composition when you know that the image is going to be about line, shape, tone and texture, rather than an image in colour.

[Mike Buckley]

Robin,

While I agree with you that everything that you mentioned has to be kept in mind when making a monochrome photo, I think the same is true when making a color photo. It's perhaps more difficult for most of us to "see" in black-and-white (it certainly is for me and I have not come close to mastering that task). Even so, I don't believe that makes it more important.

For me, to believe that it's more important to think everything thoroughly through when making a monochrome image implies that doing so is less important when making a color image. It also implies that we can be less careful when making a color image to achieve comparable results and I just can't wrap my brain around that possibility.

[Downrigger]

I think the demand is greater when B & W conversion is intended. So, 'seeing' the final image before you press the shutter is, I believe, one of the fundamental and essential skills in photography.

I get this, it's clearly an essential, fundamental point about taking good photographs and much harder to do than it sounds.

But my question is: When "B&W conversion is intended", what steps or considerations come into play (other than subject selection) "before you press the shutter" if a final result in B&W is the goal?

[Mike Buckley]

I'd suggest that our respective, slightly differing views are about subtle shades of emphasis.

You might be right but I'm thinking at least for now that they aren't so subtle. Let's hold that thought until the thread progresses further, allowing us to re-evaluate it later.

[Mike Buckley]

"B&W conversion is intended", what steps or considerations come into play (other than subject selection) "before you press the shutter" if a final result in B&W is the goal?

For me, the same steps and considerations come into play when making a color image as when making a black-and-white image except of course the details that pertain only to the various colors as opposed to the various shades of black, grey and white. I'm interested in learning what details are different for some people when making the two types of photos. Perhaps I'm missing something and can look forward to learning about that.

[Tringa]

An interesting thread. As has already been noted the brightly coloured (and highly contrasting) areas of a scene may not make the same impact in black and white. Remember in film days when orange filters were used with black and white film because, with no filter, white clouds and blue sky could appear the same brightness?

I think it is useful (those I very often forget) to look at a scene that you are going to record in colour as if it were black and white. This emphasises the shapes and lines, and general composition. It is easy to be overtaken by the colours in a scene and fail to look at other elements. I'd rather not count the number of what I thought were going to be great sunset shots to be rewarded with little more than a few pretty colours.

Dave

[chauncey]

I'm one of those guys that has no clue about anything, except exposure, when I squeeze that shutter.
It's not until that image is downloaded do I begin my evaluation process and the direction of PP and, as often as not, it resembles a groping process...trying this and that until reaching some semblance of satisfaction.

The Egrets that I do often lend themselves to a dramatic B&W "look", I use the term "look" as oftentimes it's not a true converted image but merely extreme contrast between subject and background.

Aside from the birds, in general, I reserve B&W conversions to anything manmade and/or anything shot in
harsh sunlight. With my being a fan of selections, I will often convert each selection differently than others.

One more habit is that, I will open the B&W adjustment layer>convert that layer to luminosity and do adjustments on the different colors...it sometimes works out better than the H&S adjustment layer.

[Manfred M]

Mike - I'm with Donald on this one (having started out as primarily as a film B&W photographer in my high school days). I could not afford colour film and processing...

This does mean you have to learn to "see" in B&W, i.e look for tonal range in the image, rather than the colour. I do work some B&W work, but I generally prefer colour. B&W to me offers me two major compositional directions. The first is the "vintage look" so I will use it for that effect, old houses, people in traditional dress, etc. The other time I will go in that direction is if I find the mix of colours in the scene too distracting and I then use it to compositionally simplify the image.

One good way to "learn" to see in B&W is shoot in jpeg + RAW mode. That way your camera will display the image in B&W and you can get a pretty good idea as to what the final image will look like. Eventually, you will train your brain to recognize which shots will look good as a monochrome (I also shoot with a tint in mind - ususually sepai, but sometimes blue tone). The other technique I find I use more than pure B&W is to partially desaturate an image, as that also provides me with a different look, without going fully into B&W.

[DanK]

Donald brought up his really interesting thinking in this post that "with B & W more so than with a colour image, you need to have an idea in your head as to what the final image is going to look like before you start the post-processing."

This is one of the few times that I disagree with his thinking; I believe that it's equally important to envision the look of the image regardless of the style of image being made. Moreover, I think that holds true before releasing the shutter, not just before starting the post-processing.

Mike and Donald,

I agree with both of you.

Yes, I think it is important to think about what an image will look like in advance. Where I agree with Donald is that it is far less obvious what a monochrome image will look like. You have to envision the scene without color, focusing on lines, textures, and tonality. An image that looks good in color can be entirely boring in B&W, and vice-versa. As someone who grew up doing only B&W, I still find the process far harder for monochrome images.

However, in both cases, digital does allow a luxury that we didn't have in the film days: rather than just squinting through a rectangle formed by your fingers, trying to envision a shot in the advance, you can at no cost take a shot and look at the lcd. I often do that with macros of flowers. A single flower image of the sort I do is quite time-consuming--I have to set up and adjust lights and then shoot up to 25 differently focused images for stacking. I then have to stack them before I can see even a draft product. That is a lot of time to gamble. So, to get a better idea what the shot will look like before investing the time, I often take small-aperture (for large DOF) high-ISO test shots that I treat as artist's sketches (not that I consider myself an artist).

Dan

[Donald]

I agree with both of you.

If you were in the UK, we'd call you a Liberal Democrat!!

[DanK]

If you were in the UK, we'd call you a Liberal Democrat!!

Uh-oh. Doesn't that mean 'relegated to the margins most of the time?'

[kintatsu]

For me, personally, I set out to make a shot in B&W. I like the chance to explore things without the color distraction. I shoot loads of color, too, but generally prefer to know which ones work without color without having to look at a camera back.

I also shoot film, so using the digital to make monochrome produces different results that the film.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with both of you.

Not fair.

[flashback]

I have to admit that, were I a person who'd only just gotten into photography, this conversation would be highly intimidating.
The admonition to be able to pre-visualize, to understand tonality and contrast would make one turn in their fancy DSLR and go back to camera phone photography. At least that was fun and there was no pressure.

I'm getting a sense of (for lack of a better term and meant with no disrespect) superiority here with regard to color v b&w. It's kind of hard to argue with success and Donald certainly has it dialed in with his B&W photography, but how he does it, I think, is a method that particularly works well for him. But pity the poor photog noob who, wanting to cut his or her teeth on B&W, stumbles into this discussion and with a sinking feeling discovers the he or she has to first learn to see in B&W, and then to actually be able to see the finished image before they push the button, and then have a predetermined outcome in PP for that image. Oh the humanity.

It's almost as though this could become a discussion of purism: Color is for tourists and B&W is for the true photographer. I bet there would be a lot of lens caps flying in that discussion. Don't get me wrong, if being a purist gets you the image(s) you want, or intended then by all means be one but there are other ways to skin a cat.

A well composed landscape, properly exposed may or may not make a good B&W, and likely with experience a person can make that assessment before pushing the button. And it was probably truer back in the days of *only* B&W, but in the digital age there's so much more that can be done in 'processing' that any image might be better than first intended.
And to the point, if indeed that image should be visualized before pushing the button, then shouldn't the image SOOC be the finished product? Should the whole pre-visualization process have led one down the one and only correct path to an image that shouldn't need any PP? But if we're going to go in and fiddle around in PP then really, did we get the image we wanted, that we had visualized?

In my 35mm days I shot landscapes and wildlife, in color and mostly slides and so in sleeves reside my earlier life in photography. Nowadays I prefer B&W street photography. And I'm not out there visualizing, analyzing, assessing tones and contrasts, it's more like skeet; an image calls 'pull' and I take the shot. And if I bother to look at my camera it's only a quick glance at the histogram, I'll review and cull when I get home. So I'm very much more about taking the shot than analyzing the scene.

But if I'm pushing the button then clearly I've visualized something. And maybe therein lies the truth. We shoot what interests us. Like so many things, practice makes perfect. So maybe it shouldn't be about dogma but rather exploration and experimentation. After all, with camera in hand it doesn't cost us a cent to fire one off.

[ajohnw]

If you were in the UK, we'd call you a Liberal Democrat!!

But in the UK that might also imply that some one is lying or really didn't have a grasp of basic facts.

John
-