Flying across the face of Half Dome to Cathedral Peak, Yosemite

[Dave Humphries]

Why does a black and white photo have to have 'decent black' in it?

I didn't say every B&W has to, but (IMHO) most do benefit from it.

I'm sure I recall one of Donald's other Yosemite images also being 'all grey' and I was happy with that.

I just thought that the closest details in this shot (on extreme RHS) did warrant a 'more decent black' than they had, that's not to say I measured to ensure that some were 0, 0, 0 - I have no idea if that's the case or not, I just think it looks better.

YMMV, Dave

[Donald]

Why does a black and white photo have to have 'decent black' in it?

Conventional thinking states that a B & W should have a black point and a white point. Many of the lerading B & W photographers hold strongly this view. Others (e.g. Paul Strand) have explored the world of grey, working with a much reduced tonal range in which there was no absolute black nor absolute white. This is an approach that appeals greatly to me and which is a feature of many of my images.

[Manfred M]

Why does a black and white photo have to have 'decent black' in it?

The one rule on B&W photography that was solidly imprinted on my brain when I first got into serious photography was that "every B&W image must have a pure black and pure white value". If one submitted a print for publication or exhibition without doing so, the shot would be rejected on technical grounds. I was being mentored by a commercial photographer at the time, so who made sure that all my work met that standard.

Jump forward a few decades to last year when I was taking some advanced photography courses at a local college, the professors were still pushing that same rule. The reason is simple - there are only a limited number of tones in a B&W image (256 in a jpeg) and the image will have a washed out look if the full tonal range is not shown.

I know Donald is exploring photography from a slightly different perspective that I do, so he explores his imagery from a slightly different viewpoint.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I guess my never having had any formal training in photography has me at an advantage then, as I'm not restricted by such rules or conventional wisdom.
Thank you, Dave, Donald and Manfred, for the explanation.

[Manfred M]

I guess my never having had any formal training in photography has me at an advantage then, as I'm not restricted by such rules or conventional wisdom.

I actually don't see that as an advantage.

It is not so much as knowing the rules, but understanding what they help you achieve photographically. The formal training gives one that and exploring when and how to break them (or when not to) is a much faster track to getting superior images.