Thought Process: Color vs. Black-and-White

[davidedric]

I have struggled so far to see in B&W . However, I have recently purchased a micro 4/3 Lumix G5 - which has an evf (electronic viewfinder). This means that if I set the picture style to B&W I get the monochrome image in the viewfinder, as well as on the lcd (I actually shoot in RAW). This seems to me to be a good way of learning to see in B&W (I guess depending on the veracity of the evf). Has anyone tried this, with what success, and am I missing something?

Dave

[Donald]

Has anyone tried this, with what success, and am I missing something?

Not as far as I'm concerned. This is exactly how I shoot.

I picked up the tip from an Australian former contributor to this forum. Picture Style set to 'Monochrome' on my 40D And although I'm always shooting RAW and retaining all the colour info for later conversion, what I see on the back screen is a B & W jpeg. That allows me to confirm whether I'm in the right ballpark so far as tonal range is concerned.

To make the transition between shooting 'in' B & W and shooting for a colour image on those few occasions when I do that, I change the picture style to 'Faithful'. That, for me, is part of the mental discipline of switching from colour to B & W. Probably a stupid idea for many people, but it helps me get my head into the right place to get the shot.

[Mike Buckley]

Great points, Jack, especially...

But if I'm pushing the button then clearly I've visualized something.

Yes. Even if you release the shutter using a two-second delay and toss the camera high into the air for 5 seconds, you probably wouldn't to that unless you visualized something about the results.

My one point of disagreement...

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?

Not in my mind. While it's possible to visualize the SOOC version and that's fine if that's what we want, it's also possible to visualize the final results that cannot be produced in-camera or at least are not nearly as practical to produce in-camera.

[Mike Buckley]

Does Canon really have a picture style called "Faithful?" Does it apply to marriages also?

[Mike Buckley]

Just to clarify things, setting your camera to display B&W images on the LCD isn't the same as seeing in black-and-white. My fear is that I don't lift the camera to my eye because I don't see my surroundings in B&W, in which case I have many lost opportunties.

[davidedric]

My fear is that I don't lift the camera to my eye because I don't see my surroundings in B&W, in which case I have many lost opportunties.

Which is why I was wondering about using b&w in an evf. I do lift the camera to my eye, and so can look around the scene.

[Donald]

Just to clarify things, setting your camera to display B&W images on the LCD isn't the same as seeing in black-and-white.

I agree. I never intended that the reader should interpret me meaning that one was the same as the other. Apologies if that was a confusing statement. The task I set myself is to envision what I think the picture will be like in B & W by standing beside my camera and looking at the scene. That act also informs me as to what exposure settings I think I'll be using. Pressing the shutter and looking at the back-screen is my 'comfort blanket' that lets me know that I haven't got it too wrong ... or very wrong as is sometimes the case!

[Tringa]

A way of seeing in black and white is with one of these -

http://www.adorama.com/TFVFBW.html

I did not realise they still existed.

Dave

[DanK]

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

Now, now. Not to hijack the thread, but one of my oldest friends is a Liberal Democratic politician. He is very smart, exceptionally well read, and honest to a fault. On the other hand, he doesn't know a damned thing about black and white photography.

[Mike Buckley]

A way of seeing in black and white is with one of these -

Never heard of it. I'm going to put it on last year's Christmas list and complain that I didn't get it. Seriously, thanks for mentioning it. That device seems far more preferable simply for viewing purposes than using a viewfinder or LCD.

[Donald]

Never heard of it.

Michael Freeman, in 'The Complete Guide to Black & White Digital Photography', ILEX, 2009, writes (p142), " ... it does two things. First, by darkening the view it throws the eye's response for a few moments towards the rods rather than the cones. Second, its amber tint counters the eye's extra sensitivity towards yellow-green."

[ajohnw]

I have a problem when it comes to black and white. I expect the shots to have the same tonal gradation levels as could be achieved by various means on film and paper. If the full tonal range that it was possible to produce this way along with the gradation as well I don't think a PC screen could reproduce it. It's remarkably like colour printing in that respect and from what I see in galleries and for sale at odd places I am not convinced that digital colour from the usual cameras can match up with well produced colour negative processes either.

I've mentioned this before and I can't find away round looking at peoples results in this way. I see very few shots that match my expectations. Out of interest I had a nose round the web and found some shots to try and explain what I mean.

The 1st one is a bit done to death and is good but not perfect as I suspect PP has been used to bring the tonal range down to suit a PC screen. It' spoiled it a little. It's at the top of this page

http://urielreyes.deviantart.com/art/Oleg-184417517

The next one is nigh on perfect, also done to death mostly via lighting but again the tonal range fits in well with a PC screen. It's not at it's best on a white background.

http://fineartphotographysite.com/wp...-portraits.jpg

I then tried to find something landscape like and failed but did find this. Can't say that I like the shot but it does contain a sensible tonal range that even shows detail and shape in most of it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/weeman7...n/photostream/

All to often shots don't show shape via tone in many parts of an image or even lack it in essential areas and I can't help feeling that's a miss use of the media and the shot wasn't really suitable for conversion or needed far better production methods.

I suppose if people have never seen exhibition quality black and white they look at this aspect in an entirely different way. I can't.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

John,

You might want to Google Carolyn Guild. She shoots almost exclusively black-and-white landscapes in the style of the old masters though using digital cameras. Though almost all collectors and curators refuse to acquire black-and-white prints made on a digital camera largely for the reasons you mention, her work is owned by both museums and collectors. That's because her prints are so good that the buyers assume they were captured on film until she eventually tells them otherwise.

[ajohnw]

Thanks for that Mike. Many of the shots in her portfolio show that it can be done and also that most of Mr Adam's 10 tonal steps can be made use of too. She shows them at the bottom of each page. It's more a case of just having enough of each end in a shot rather than trying to get only 5 in.

I was following this thread with some interest but as is often the case things get bogged down on composition in all areas and not the photographic quality of the results. A bit of a lead balloon I suppose but people should at least try and not just on low tonal range shots either..

John
-

[Black Pearl]

Every time we press the shutter we should endeavour to make it the decisive moment and the very best slice of time we possibly can.

That said I honestly believe that you need a different outlook to achieve a great monochrome image - not a better one - not an elitist one - but one that you can only gain with experience. It is a separate discipline and in my opinion the only way to get a convincing monochrome image is to envision it before you press the button - not afterwards when you are wondering what to do with the files you have in front of you.

[ajohnw]

I don't see it like that Robin. At one time the only media many of the types of people on this forum could realistically use was black and white. Later colour negative became more available but with scrapped paper and chemicals it was an expensive hobby to learn. Many used slide instead. Some tried slide to paper as a final stage with shots they liked. Slide copying to negative was also popular route to a print even getting a professional to look after that aspect. Your suggesting each of those needs a totally different choice of shots. I don't see it that way. I did find some guidance on black and white conversion on youtube and I feel that the route suggested could cause people to see it that way. It was logical though - start from a well adjusted colour shot. i suspect black and white has become a sort of fashion like HDR has. Neither HDR nor black and white have to look like they often do.

What I had seen about on the web had convinced me that close black and white look a likes on a PC screen were not possible. Looks like that isn't the case. I'm going to have a go. I have tried one or two hit the button conversions and not liked the results at all. There looks to be a good starter for 10 on a couple of "theartofphotography" video's on youtube. I just had a go at producing a typical wedding shot from black and white days. It's close. Not totally happy with the toning but the ladies dress on the left looked awful if I applied it all over so just did mid tones up and that has also tended to leave the blacks a bit black. The only real fault in the original shot was slight clipping in small areas of the brides flowers. I'm posting it as my thoughts on black and white ignoring composition. I chose this one because it would be difficult to get right on film and would need funny developing to get finer gradation.



John
-

[Mike Buckley]

in my opinion the only way to get a convincing monochrome image is to envision it before you press the button - not afterwards when you are wondering what to do with the files you have in front of you.

Nobody believes in the importance more than I of envisioning the image in black-and-white before releasing the shutter. Doing so improves the probability of producing convincing monochromes both in the short and long run. However, to say that we can't make a wonderful monochrome image out of an image that we initially conceived only in color is taking the idea to an extreme that in my opinion just isn't true.

I have lots of images that are convincing for me that I converted to monochrome decades after I captured them on color slide film never thinking that they would ever be converted to monochrome. The one shown below was captured that way in 1990 and post-processed in a sepia presentation 23 years later. Even if you believe the image isn't convincing, it's surely not because I initially envisioned it in color and changed it to monochrome later.

[DanK]

Mike,

I think that is a great image. And I agree with your point. Alhough I grew up doing only black and white (and my own darkroom work), I don't often set out to do monochrome. However, sometimes when you look at an image--just as when you look at a scene--the idea of monochrome seems appealing. E.g, you may see that what attracted you was lines and contrasts and that color doesn't contribute much. I recently did a black and white candid portrait that way. When I took the photo, I was thinking only of the face and expressions. When I looked at the image, I realized that the range of color was very limited, while the interesting parts of the image were contrasts and textures. So, I converted to monochrome, and it was quite good--and much better than the color version.

Dan

[lukaswerth]

Just a thought: the question does not need to be only colour vs monochrome. The above image has a sepia sepia tinge, you might even try a more reddish hue. I have a recipe for silver bromide sepia toning in different hues from colder to warmer; it really makes sense to pay close attention to this. There is also cold, bluish, purplish, and, of course, the beautiful shades of platinum/palladium, the blues and pinkish hues of cyanotypes, the blues, reds, purples, browns of chrysotypes, and the whole range of non-linear color of pigment printing (gum, carbon, oil etc.). Beautiful splits are possible!
And, come to think of, color also may give a whole range of possibilities. Personally, I almost never check the white balance; I rather to for colors and temperatures which deem best to me.

Lukas

[Mike Buckley]

You make a good point, Lukas. However, if I understand you correctly, I wonder if you have a misunderstanding of what the term, "monochrome," means. A monochrome image can be black-and-white or it can be in shades of any one color. So, a sepia image is a monochrome image, as are all of the other toning styles that you mentioned.