Studio Work: Black & White Back-lit Hibiscus

[JBW]

I taped the hibiscus to a plastic dinner plate. Propped it up against the flashlight. Moved things around a lot. Turned on the ceiling lights. Played around a lot more and took a bunch of shots.
ISO 100 ~ Shutter Speed 1s. ~ F/16 ~ Two Flashlights ~ Two Ceiling Lights ~ Sony Alpha a58 ~ Tamron 90mm 272E

[Manfred M]

I like the way that this technique is showing the texture and detail of the petals (as a firm believer in backlighting flowers). I'm not so sure about going monochrome is the best approach.

[JBW]

I like the way that this technique is showing the texture and detail of the petals (as a firm believer in backlighting flowers). I'm not so sure about going monochrome is the best approach.

but there are so many subtle shades of monochrome the shot

[Manfred M]

but there are so many subtle shades of monochrome the shot

There are many more in a colour shot. In monochrome JPEGs you are limited to a maximum of 256 shades. In colour that's up to 16.7 millions shades.

[JBW]

There are many more in a colour shot. In monochrome JPEGs you are limited to a maximum of 256 shades. In colour that's up to 16.7 millions shades.

I'm pretty sure that neither my eyes nor my monitor are capable of seeing or displaying 1 million shades of red

[Manfred M]

I'm pretty sure that neither my eyes nor my monitor are capable of seeing or displaying 1 million shades of red

As you can see the colours and I can't, I'll have to believe you.

That being said, I would be very surprised if the colours are just red. Most flowers will also have a yellow component, so regardless of the actual makeup of the scene, we are still looking at thousands of shades versus the roughly 230 shades in this monochrome version. You are not even using the full tonal range in B&W.

[JBW]

Manfred, try this mind experiment.

Picture a beautifully colored flower. Now take away all of the contours and shapes of the flower. You are left with a shapeless blob of colors.

Now put all of the shapes and contours back into the flower and remove the color. You still have beauty.

[Shadowman]

Nice, I've tried similar compositions using a scanner.

[JBW]

Nice, I've tried similar compositions using a scanner.

that would be interesting

[Manfred M]

Manfred, try this mind experiment.

Picture a beautifully colored flower. Now take away all of the contours and shapes of the flower. You are left with a shapeless blob of colors.

Now put all of the shapes and contours back into the flower and remove the color. You still have beauty.

My suggestion is that you go both ways and post the image and see what the members here think works better.

Flowers generally work better in colour. My experience is that most images work better in one rather than the other genre. I think I have around 6 - 10 shots that I can think of the are equally good in B&W and colour.

[JBW]

My suggestion is that you go both ways and post the image and see what the members here think works better.

Flowers generally work better in colour. My experience is that most images work better in one rather than the other genre. I think I have around 6 - 10 shots that I can think of the are equally good in B&W and colour.

Go ac/dc in pubic?

[Manfred M]

Go ac/dc in pubic?

Why not?

The colour versus B&W debate has been going on for a long time with passionate arguments on both sides. Some consider B&W the "purest" form of photography essentially along the lines of what you wrote in #7. The counterargument is that throwing away all the colour data should only be done if it results in a stronger, more compelling image.

Colour is the main distinguishing factor between different species of flowers and by removing that the photographer has destroyed what makes them unique and special. The same argument is often made for birds and animals as well. I tend to fall more into that school of thought.

That being said, I tend to be more pragmatic when it comes to B&W versus colour and the question I ask myself is which genre will result in a stronger, more compelling image. As we are dealing with personal preferences and tastes, I suspect no two photographers will end up with exactly the same point of view.

To your point, if you take away the colour from an image, all that is left are shades of gray. This means that the an image needs to overcome this limitation to be a strong image.

Regardless, this does give me an idea for a new post / thread.

[JBW]

Why not?

Colour is the main distinguishing factor between different species of flowers and by removing that the photographer has destroyed what makes them unique and special. The same argument is often made for birds and animals as well. I tend to fall more into that school of thought.

Regardless, this does give me an idea for a new post / thread.

A blind person may tell what flower is before them by touch or even smell. At night you or I know a rose by it's shape not it's color. Colour came about as a survival factor not as a defining factor (if one believes in evolution). To me color is a part but not the most important part. Perhaps because I'm a natural born night owl.

However, the bottom line for me is that this shot has inspired you to try a new project. Both my inner artist and my slumbering social activist find this a pleasant thought.

[Cogito]

Manfred, try this mind experiment.
Picture a beautifully colored flower. Now take away all of the contours and shapes of the flower. You are left with a shapeless blob of colors.
Now put all of the shapes and contours back into the flower and remove the color. You still have beauty.

Now picture a beautiful B&W. Take away all of the contours and you're left with a shapeless blob of black and white. Please justify?

A blind person may tell what flower is before them by touch or even smell. At night you or I know a rose by it's shape not it's color. Colour came about as a survival factor not as a defining factor (if one believes in evolution).

Are you suggesting that a blind person cannot envisage colour? Again, please justify!

why not do as Manfred suggests and show both a colour and a B&W image and then accept the consensus?

Regarding your original image, Manfred is correct in saying you have not used the full tonal range.
Additionally, I'm not sure that the outline of the plate adds anything to the image....

[JBW]

Now picture a beautiful B&W. Take away all of the contours and you're left with a shapeless blob of black and white. Please justify?



Are you suggesting that a blind person cannot envisage colour? Again, please justify!

why not do as Manfred suggests and show both a colour and a B&W image and then accept the consensus?

Regarding your original image, Manfred is correct in saying you have not used the full tonal range.
Additionally, I'm not sure that the outline of the plate adds anything to the image....

Colour is visual. If you are blind from birth how would you envisage colour.

I don't know how you create a black and white shot. However I don't just desaturate a colour shot. I work it up as I would a full colour shot. I don't have the creativity to constantly pp both ways.

According to my histogram I'm using just about everything I can without stuffing it right into the corners.

The plate is the bg that filters the light and adds context and texture. The circle helps to delineate the negative/empty space that is crucial to the shot. Without it it's just blaaa.

[lunarbo]

I hesitate to put my head above the parapet in what now seems like a full scale squabble.

Brian has tried something new with his flowers in B&W and it seems he likes the result. Others may not but he's had a go & made us think. Can't see too much wrong with that

Does it often get heated like this on here?? !

[billtils]

I hesitate to put my head above the parapet in what now seems like a full scale squabble.

...

Does it often get heated like this on here?? !

Barbara

No not often, so don't be put off. And I'd like to join you on the parapet! There are probably many ways you could look at this (I'll boil "this" down to 'which is better, mono or colour') and there is no absolute and objective answer since unless there is a stated aim with explicit rules there is no universal 'better'. Brian is exploring B&W, Manfred is exploring the representation of the flower, both are correct.

[lunarbo]

Bill- Phew, thanks!

[JBW]

I hesitate to put my head above the parapet in what now seems like a full scale squabble.

Brian has tried something new with his flowers in B&W and it seems he likes the result. Others may not but he's had a go & made us think. Can't see too much wrong with that

Does it often get heated like this on here?? !

Bill's right. On most things we get along famously. However, it does get adversarial when we talk about B&W versus colour. Especially colour flowers.

Please accept my apologies and a promise to behave better from now on.

[James G]

Interesting... having just posted to a parallel thread that Manfred initiated, about monochrome and colour versions of images, and now reading this thread, I'm prompted to post an image I took many years ago of my 'favourite' scented rose.

I remember being a bit dissatisfied with the colour version, taken on a relatively dull day in my garden. To reprocess to a monochrome version came when I considered the name of the rose, 'Jude the Obscure'.
You may or may not agree with me, but I thought then, and still do, that the monochrome version is somehow more in consonance with the name.






My late wife, preferred the monochrome version and had it in a frame on her dressing table.