Old House #3 Critique and Comment welcome

[tbob]

This time I did the colour and two black and white. The discussion between Manfred and Mike was the stimulus. Not a definitive experiment given the operator's skill set but an intriguing exercise.

The colour was done first, then a monochrome from fresh version and then four hours later a version done from the colour version. The time interval was for two reasons 1) I went out photographing and 2) Intentionally so I would approach the version with no memory of the prior conversion and thus no attempt to replicate. I worked each version until I was very happy with the result. The interesting thing to me is the difference. I cannot be sure this represents technique variant or my changing vision.



From fresh


From the color.

[Mike Buckley]

I prefer the first monochrome over the second one because it displays the detail in the grass so much better. Even so, I prefer the treatment of the barn in the second monochrome; incorporating it in the first monochrome would be ideal for me.

In all versions, consider eliminating the clouds in the upper right corner.

[Donald]

In terms of the B & Ws, the tonal range and distribution of tone in the last of the series above make it a much stronger B & W for me that the one preceding it. Particularly, look at the tone variation between the roof of the building and the sky immediately to its left above. That works much better for me in the latter of the two above.

[Geoff F]

With the image at the current size, where the grass becomes one of the main subjects, I prefer the first B&W with more contrast. However, a crop to reduce the grass by around half, with a different image size ratio, so the building now becomes the sole subject would work better with the second option.

[flashback]

I'm liking the (b&w) one from the color. For me the sky and foreground just seem to look better, the tones are better and I get a better feel for the whole image. (I've been following along on houses 1 & 2 as well, it isn't just B&W vs color but that your photos are spectacular in any rendition. It would seem your long, long, loooong winters are the price you pay for such amazing opportunities.)

[Shadowman]

Nice conversion, I still prefer the color though. Have you ever tried B & W SOOC, meaning no color version just relying on the camera to capture the monotones?

[tbob]

With the image at the current size, where the grass becomes one of the main subjects, I prefer the first B&W with more contrast. However, a crop to reduce the grass by around half, with a different image size ratio, so the building now becomes the sole subject would work better with the second option.

Coming soon to a site near you (perhaps; if my internet connection remains stable!) an image where the house dominates. I try to shoot both because the environment (as in this instance) can be as important or more than the building. The shoots with the building less dominant gives the isolation and abandonment of the building. You need a clean uncluttered (bushes and trees are my nemesis) foreground and background or the image descends into confusion.

[tbob]

I'm liking the (b&w) one from the color. For me the sky and foreground just seem to look better, the tones are better and I get a better feel for the whole image. (I've been following along on houses 1 & 2 as well, it isn't just B&W vs color but that your photos are spectacular in any rendition. It would seem your long, long, loooong winters are the price you pay for such amazing opportunities.)

Funny you should say that. My wife and I were discussing this morning whether winter makes spring, summer and fall all the sweeter. We decided it was just rank justification for living with snow 5 to 6 months. Our conclusion: Winter sucks.

[tbob]

Nice conversion, I still prefer the color though. Have you ever tried B & W SOOC, meaning no color version just relying on the camera to capture the monotones?

Never tried this, may be an option for future shots. Thanks

[Shadowman]

Never tried this, may be an option for future shots. Thanks

More challenging, harder to edit if there are severe flaws but a nice exercise.

[mknittle]

#3 for me too, very nice Trevor.

[Manfred M]

Never tried this, may be an option for future shots. Thanks

One of the commercial photographer I know shoots jpeg set to B&W + RAW. That way he has both versions to look at when he gets back from a shoot. I don't find this particularly helpful, as I tend to tweak the sky and vegetation colours during my B&W conversion process, and the jpeg does not reflect this at all and looks quite different from my finished B&W shot.

I tend to work a bit differently, as I generally start out shooting specifically for either colour or B&W. This affects my composition decisions and I rarely find that I get a "winner"; i.e.I was shooting with colour in mind and the B&W works out better. The converse is also true.

[Mike Buckley]

In From Oz to Kansas, Vincent Versace has the following to say about shooting in B&W:

Page 61: "When you set the camera to black-and-white mode, the camera creates a file that has equal values of R,G and B. That means that there is no difference in grayscale value among the three channels...and that all three channels will be light and dark in exactly the same places. As a tonal reproduction curve goes, all you have recorded is merely luminance...This means that your file will have all the file size of a full color capture and none of the interplay among all the colors that is the key ingredient to creating the best possible image. In other words, you have a file that is the same size as the one with which you began, but with two-thirds of the data missing. In addition, the file is 8-bit and not 16-bit, so the bit depth that is needed to help in the minimization of artifacts during the image editing process leading to conversion from a color image to a chromatic grayscale image is also lost."

Page 62: "The main reason to consider ever using this mode [the black-and-white mode] in either camera system [Nikon or Canon] is to aid in 'learning to see' in black-and-white."

His book was copyrighted in 2013. Perhaps the technical information is no longer accurate with regard to more recent digital cameras; perhaps it is still accurate.