Opinion Wanted for Colour vs B&W - Water

[RobFellows]

I took these a while ago with limited equipment and poor technique. I have since been dabbling in B&W conversions and I would like to know what you reckon on these as B&W images.

1.


V's

2.



3.


V's

4.



And these ones for good measure.

5.



6.

[Donald]

For me, B & W is all about Line, Shape, Tone & Texture. I think the conversion work is very good, but I feel it's the wrong subject for a good B & W.

If we take the first two as examples, I feel that if you were much tighter in on the waterfall, then you'd be looking at a much, much stronger image. All that foliage and rock around about has, for sure, lots and lots of texture. But does it have line? Does it have shape? Does it have good tonal variation? I'd say 'No', most particularly in relation to the last of those - Tonal variation.

Sure, there are spots of light and areas of dark, but the overall impact is of a 'oneness' of tone.

Like I say, my view (and it is only my view) is that if you had been pretty tight in on the waterfall, you'd have a couple of really, really good B & Ws.

So, no worries about the ability to convert to B & W. That is very good. It's about working on subject choice and deciding what's going to work well in B & W.

[RobFellows]

Thanks Donald, I will re-crop them (I might have a tighter shot already) and take another look.

I have looked at your work so I really respect your opinion on this.

[Manfred M]

Moved to a more appropriate forum.

I totally agree with Donald's view. Selecting to go B&W in an image is a compositional choice that needs to be considered when you take the picture and you need a good, solid computational reason to do so. As Donald suggests, simplification of the scene is one of those reasons and probably the most common reason I would tend to convert an image to B&W.

I will also use it when shooting for a "period" look, i.e. to give an image a more historical look, say when I am shooting a buildings from the first half of the 20th century. The other common reason I use it will be to simplify colour issues in an image, say a mixed lighting situation where a combination of fluorescent lights and tungsten lighting make colour correction impossible.

The other way I tend to look at it is that an 8-bit sRGB jpeg can handle ~ 16.8 million distinct colours, whereas in an 8-bit B&W image is down to 256 distinct shades. I need a really good reason to eliminate 99.998% of the data that could be in an image.

I find that going to gray scale in these images, you have actually complicated the images even more from a visual sense the colour ones work a lot better for me.

[NorthernFocus]

Color, definitely color.

[bnnrcn]

I agree with the other comments about tighter crops for B&W waterfall images. Color images are very nice too. I would tone down or clone the white stuff on the tree trunk at the bottom left corner in #2

[Shadowman]

I like them, the conversion on #5 has a gritty quality to it, however the scene overall is a bit compressed and thick. The individual trees should be more defined and the foliage should be more pronounced.

[John 2]

Definitely colour for me. I agree with Donald. These are not the best images for mono. Apart from which the colour, for instance the colour of the water, adds so much to the feel of the environment.

[pnodrog]

Colour adds to the enjoyment of theses scenes so why not use it. (If you've got it flaunt it )

There are some photographs where colour is either a distraction or makes no contribution to the image and therefor work better in B&W. It should never be used on the basis that B&W photography is more serious, artistic or fashionable.

I like #3 and I suspect I would like #6 in colour.

[RobFellows]

ok, here are a couple of edits.

hopefully a bit stronger with the closer crop.






The rest are a lost cause. :-)

[Donald]

What is your own views, Rob, as to whether this strengthens the pictures?

[bnnrcn]

The crops look better Rob. I would crop the first one even tighter to eliminate the tree trunk on the left

ok, here are a couple of edits.

hopefully a bit stronger with the closer crop.






The rest are a lost cause. :-)

[RobFellows]

Hi Donald,

I think I like the first one of the edits, I prefer the darker image and the stark contrast between the white water and the crushed black trees. The tree probably needs to go.

The second one is a better composition but I think I will carry over the develop settings.

[Rebel]

Images not working for me?

[Wavelength]

When it is landscape, poeple mostly prefer color. But at the same time all your conversions of the water fall images have really worked well. The only image i did not like is #5

[mugge]

I would increase shutter speed by a fair margin as the water fall looks like a sheet. That is only my opinion.
Cheers Ole

[Donald]

Hi Donald,

I think I like the first one of the edits, I prefer the darker image and the stark contrast between the white water and the crushed black trees. The tree probably needs to go.

The second one is a better composition but I think I will carry over the develop settings.

I'm okay with the tree.

Overall, I feel these are far, far stronger images that the originals. In fact, I think they are very good. I know some people don't go for the slow shutter speed and the 'milky water' look. I'm one of them. But I don't think that's the key discussion/learning point in this thread. What you've done is now made a clear subject in the image and made, in my opinion, what amounts to a couple of strong pictures. Well done.

[Manfred M]

Rob - A couple more thoughts as you are progressing through your edits.

The first thing I noticed is that with each subsequent edit you are trimming more and more superfluous material from the image, i.e. part of the reason that the composition is getting stronger is that you are using a key compositional tool' "simplification". That brings me to one of my favourite photographic quotes, from Robert Capa, the great photojournalist / was photographer. "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough". By removing more and more of the image in subsequent edits, you are in fact getting closer and closer to your subject. This has the unfortunate side effect of removing more and more pixels from the image. Had you done this "getting closer" when you composed the image, you wouldn't have to throw away as many pixels (or in fact perhaps no pixels at all).

My second thought is that in my experience has shown me that images tend to work best in either colour or B&W. Generally an image that works well in colour does not work as well in B&W and likewise an image that works well in B&W doesn't work as well in colour (although there definitely are exceptions). This means I will generally decide which way I am planning to go at the time I take the picture and will compose colour images differently that I would compose a B&W one.

[Donald]

Generally an image that works well in colour does not work as well in B&W and likewise an image that works well in B&W doesn't work as well in colour (although there definitely are exceptions). This means I will generally decide which way I am planning to go at the time I take the picture and will compose colour images differently that I would compose a B&W one.

Absolutely agree. 100%.

Which is why when I capture a photograph, I do so in the knowledge that it is either going to be a B & W or, more rarely for me, a colour image. And I NEVER change my mind. If it doesn't work in the intended way, it's binned. I NEVER stop to ask if it would work in colour or vice-versa. That's just a rule I have imposed upon myself since Day 1.

Not everyone goes with that and indeed the majority decide at the time of PP whether it will be colour or B & W. What I do works for me.