Shooting for black and white versus colour: Of concern or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downrigger

Sure, lots of great portraits nowadays are color but I perceive that black and white has survived unusually in the portrait arena.

---

That might be due to the origins of black-and-white portraits of people in the performing arts, whether it is an opera singer, a movie star, or whatever. In the earliest days, printing in newspapers, magazines, books, marketing pieces and program booklets handed out at performance venues were printed in black-and-white. Once they were printed in color, very often the portrait of the person in performing arts was still printed in black-and-white. In my area, it's only recently that some of those portraits are printed in color in the marketing pieces and I've never noticed a marketing piece that printed all of them in color. Similarly, the program booklets are printed in color perhaps only on the covers and in other select areas; I don't remember seeing a program booklet in which all portraits are printed in color.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

That might be due to the origins of black-and-white portraits of people in the performing arts, whether it is an opera singer, a movie star, or whatever.

---

Yes, Mike, I think similarly - I was thinking of mentioning historical tradition being a contributing factor, but pulled back on that because there is such a great B&W tradition in landscape has not seemed to have equally persisted into contemporary work. But your added emphasis on the role of tradition in performing artists may be a key.

That said, I still wonder at the seemingly singular power and intimacy of the monochrome portrait. I think it is a genuine and intrinsic effect, not a result of imposing an interceding internal construct from looking at too many Steichens, but do not understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downrigger

looking at too many Steichens

---

That's an oxymoron in my mind; there can never be enough of them.

Especially in the context of tis discussion, it is important to recognize that "Black and White" is one type of "Monochrome".

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17894496-md.jpg

Whilst the above is an example of "Monochrome"; it was achieved (digitally) as a facsimile of "Toning". (i.e. "Print Toning" a wet darkroom technique applied to a B&W Print).

The Digital Darkroom allows for many other Monochrome formats than those (by comparison) limited few which were originally available via "Toning".

WW

One thing to remember is that humans eyes are mostly B&W sensors; our colour vision is largely a minor add-on.

Our eyes have somewhere around 120 million B&W sensors that are rod-shaped and around 6 - 7 million cone-shaped colour sensors. The roughly half of the colour sensors are for green wavelengths and the other half is divided between red and blue ones (which is why the Bayer array on our cameras has twice as many green sensors; it matches the way our eyes are built). The rod sensors are much more sensitive to light than the cones. If you head out into the country, away from city lights on a moonlit night, and you are watching for it, you will notice that you are (for the most part) seeing in B&W.

I suspect this is why we handle B&W imagery so well; we are designed to be that way. And of course, it makes a lot of sense; not that long ago, there was limited to no artificial light around and humans had to survive at night. Predators and other dangers could lurk in dark shadows, so being attuned to seeing these threats was part of our basic survival mechanism.

That information about the cones and rods is really fascinating, Manfred. Are you aware of any scientific thinking as to whether a human's eye has evolved over time from an eye that perhaps originally had only rods or only sensors? You mentioned that the color vision is an "add-on," but I don't know if you were being so literal as to think that the cones came to be after the human's eye had rods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

That information about the cones and rods is really fascinating, Manfred. Are you aware of any scientific thinking as to whether a human's eye has evolved over time from an eye that perhaps originally had only rods or only sensors? You mentioned that the color vision is an "add-on," but I don't know if you were being so literal as to think that the cones came to be after the human's eye had rods.

---

I'm not a biologist, Mike, so I have no in-depth knowledge here.

What I did read somewhere is that the theory as to why we have more green cones than either red or blue one is that we evolved in grasslands and forested areas, which have a high green colour component. Much like spotting predators at night, the predators in the African grasslands where our ancestors are believed to have originated, would have hidden here, so an increased level of green sensitivity would have been beneficial to our noticing danger in the grasses and trees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbob

Maybe the gurus on the site can enlighten me as to where I am missing a crucial point. Maybe it us just my subject material; old buildings and farm machines on the prairie that is confusing me. I have read several books and articles stating that one should either shoot for Black and White or Colour as the final image. One cannot shoot for both. They talk of composing for tonal variation and shadow versus light when shooting for Black and White. These aspects being of lesser import for colour renditions.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how to shoot at the time for colour versus black and white. Seems to me that basic structure and composition for a good image still applies. Once I have the image the conversion seems to be the crucial bit. The two variants are done differently; at least in my hands. And some images obviously have to be one or the other. ( images with dry dead grass surrounding weathered wood/metal never convert to black and white, the tones are the same).

I ask because I have done a number of conversions now and I am stuck on a crux. Seems to me both variants of the same image work equally well most of the time . They are different but equal options in my eyes. It seems if the capture is the crucial bit then this should not be true.

Should I even be concerned about this or just shoot and see what can be done when in front of the computer?

Here is the latest image as an an example. Different end results in terms of the impact, purposely so. But both equally valid. At least in my estimation


http://i59.tinypic.com/2wec2km.jpg

http://i58.tinypic.com/30ro4g0.jpg

---

Trevor,

Have you ever attempted shooting the same subject solely in monochrome? I know it's suggested that you expose for color and then convert, but some subjects can be preconceived prior to the shot (old architecture is a good example) and captured successfully with the limits of your camera system. I tend to go for clean, crisp mono conversions. but sometimes a gritty, grainy capture is a refreshing change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

That information about the cones and rods is really fascinating, Manfred. Are you aware of any scientific thinking as to whether a human's eye has evolved over time from an eye that perhaps originally had only rods or only sensors? You mentioned that the color vision is an "add-on," but I don't know if you were being so literal as to think that the cones came to be after the human's eye had rods.

---

The current thinking is primates have colour to differentiate ripening/ripe fruit from the background leaves. Ripe fruit is a high value food item, turning from green to red or yellow as it ripens. Yellows and reds stand out poorly from greens in black and white, leap out of the background with colour vision. Flowering plants and fructivores evolved symmetrically, the plant gets to spread its progeny and the animal is rewarded with a high value food, but only when the seeds are in a mature state as signaled by the colour change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbob

Yellows and reds stand out poorly from greens in black and white

---

That's true in photography when desaturing the color to arrive at black-and-white. However, when converting using a color filter:

• When using a red or yellow filter, red and yellow are differentiated very well from green.
• When using one particular shade of a green filter, yellow but not red is differentiated from green.
• When using another shade of a green filter or a blue filter, red but not yellow is differentiated from green.
• When using a pink filter, red, yellow and green appear the same.

Very interesting stuff!

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful discussion. Helpful as always.

I do shoot some things with the sole intention of black and white (or actually monchrome as I tend towards very subtle brown toning). I should have known that once again there are no absolutes. Only choices. So now I can be at peace that I am not being some sort of anarchist by shooting and then deciding on the post processing in a lot of instances. The art police will not haul me away if I find myself liking both options in the final analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

Trevor,

Have you ever attempted shooting the same subject solely in monochrome? .

---

I find that using Silver Effex gives me too much freedom of expression/artistic latitude to ever think of using the camera software. If that is what you mean. I do shoot a few things with the sole intent of monochrome, a colour version is never contemplated. Although I do transition through a colour version in processing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbob

I find that using Silver Effex gives me too much freedom of expression/artistic latitude to ever think of using the camera software. If that is what you mean. I do shoot a few things with the sole intent of monochrome, a colour version is never contemplated. Although I do transition through a colour version in processing.

---

Hi Trevor,

Yes, the camera software, in-camera monochrome capture. From what I understand when shooting in RAW, the camera does record color data it's just not adjustable during processing.

One commercial photographer I know fairly well uses the B&W mode in his camera when he plans to take a B&W image (jpeg + RAW). His comment is that his results are not a lot different than shooting with B&W film and he can always tweak his images in Photoshop to get the effects of using B&W filters.

I've tried this technique and it does work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

One commercial photography I know fairly well uses the B&W mode in his camera when he plans to take a B&W image (jpeg + RAW). His comment is that his results are not a lot different than shooting with B&W film and he can always tweak his images in Photoshop to get the effects of using B&W filters.

I've tried this technique and it does work.

---

Glad to know others are receptive to trying alternative methods. I shot with B & W film myself and was reasonably happy with the results. It's interesting to see how digital has redefined our imagery tastes, there was a time when film had that honor and digital was seen as a fad.

Side bar:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

. . . What we did find is some lighting setups from the 1940's and 1950's could be used in B&W, but did not work as well in colour (which might be why they are no longer in common use). To some extent when one says the shot looks equally good in B&W or colour can apply to studio shots as well; but just as in other shooting, that is a small subset of the images. . .

---

That's interesting.

Specifically my question is: Did the you use Hot Lights and Globes, typical of that period for the "lighting setups from the 1940's and 1950's" - or did you use Flash?

The reason for that question is: working under the Hot Lights of that period and also int the 70's and 80's, the (Professional) Model suffered a lot of Eyestrain - but they, being 'professionals' just "had to deal with it".

However, the Pose and also the Lighting would often be set to minimize that Eyestrain, when working in the Studio for "Family Portraiture" and the like.

I was taught about this, not at College, but at the first studio where I worked, would have been around 1974~5 - when I set some old Hot Lights in a traditional 3 Light, Key/Fill/Backdrop for a Corporate Head Shot session - and the Boss re-set the Key Light farther away and further off-axis; and brought in an Hair Light as a Kicker, on the KEY Light Side, the sole reason being to provide less strain, on the (amateur) Subject's Eyes.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

Specifically my question is: Did the you use Hot Lights and Globes, typical of that period for the "lighting setups from the 1940's and 1950's" - or did you use Flash?

The reason for that question is: working under the Hot Lights of that period and also int the 70's and 80's, the (Professional) Model suffered a lot of Eyestrain - but they, being 'professionals' just "had to deal with it".

---

We were using Mole-Richardson hot lights (1500 - 2000W range if I remember correctly). These had a large cast body with lots of fins to dissipate the heat and the light stand that we used was rather "solid". The light came through what looked like a fairly heavy duty glass Fresnel lens.

Hot was an understatement - the studio warmed up considerably during the shoot and the victim (sorry, subject), got hot and bothered (and sweaty) quite quickly. We had some heavy duty leather gloves with thick leather palms that were used when adjusting the lights.

This is a shot that was taken of me during the session, so I speak of personal experience here...

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7595/...2d9b9c48_k.jpg

A single light was set up level with my head and pointed directly at me. Two V-flats were arranged on either side of the light to cut off any stray light. The light hitting me came through a slit created with the two V-flats that was perhaps 30cm / 12in wide.

Thanks Manfred

Your descriptive paints a great picture of the oven-studio - good looking Bloke too. You don't appear Grumpy at all!

*

On the down side: a woman whose Agency I worked with during 80 to 90, was an ex Professional Model (well known and much sort after). She relates that is was common to work in the 50s and 60 and also the early 70's in Studio and a Catwalk - 18 hour days. Whilst we moved to Flash in the Studio, Catwalks had (low Elevation & direct almost eye level) Hot Light Gantries for a long time. She'd be about 75 now and is nearly blind. Her eyes began rapid degeneration around 55 years old. Very sad.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

You don't appear Grumpy at all!

---

He also doesn't appear to be a diver.

As opposed to some photographers, I don't normally shoot with a specific monochrome aim. Rather, I will sometimes decide that a color image might do well in B&W or some type of monochrome that includes toning and, will then post process that image in monochrome.

However, in my film days., I was quite into monochrome (I had B&W processing and printing set up in my personal darkroom) and I had a variety of contrast and correction filters that I would frequently use. I loved the red filter for B&W landscapes. The limitation with that technique is that once an image was shot using a filter, it could not be reverted. We in the digital age, have the freedom do do just about anything we want with an image.

About the closest thing to shooting with the limitations of film is when I use my old Canon 60D (note: not the recent 60D) which I had converted to full-time infrared. However, this means that I need to carry an extra full size DSLR on my photo jaunts if I want to capture both "normal" and IR imagery. I really wish that I had a smaller camera modified to full time IR. It would be easy to slip into the pocket of my photo vest to shoot IR when I desired...

I can do a pseudo infrared processing on my color shots but, they don't come across as vibrant as a true infrared image that has been converted to B&W; such as this one...

http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/Yos...ra%20red-L.jpg