Studio Work: Black & White Back-lit Hibiscus

[Manfred M]

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

You are assuming "total blindness". Vision loss has varying degrees and someone who is blind can have some degree of vision. For the blindness you mention, the person would not have any idea regarding greyscale either.

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.

When do you do your colour conversion to B&W? Do you process as you would colour and then convert later on?

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

For B&W work there were two schools; the "Pictorialists", led by the likes of Edward Steichen who did all interesting things primarily from the late 1800's through the early 1900s. The Modernists, like Ansel Adams and Edward Weston displaced that style of photography and it remained the predominant style right through current times. This group generally produced images that were sharp and displayed the full range of tones from pure black to pure white.

This is the approach I was taught and was in fact a requirement to get a B&W image published. These images reproduced well in the offset press process used in paper media like books, magazines, newspapers, catalogues, etc. Not having pure black and pure white values were the most common reason for having an image rejected by a photo editor.

Unlike with colour images, you do want a small degree of clipping at the black and the white end of the histogram. Note: I'm writing about the image, not the capture. In capture you don't want clipping.

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.

I prefer Tony's approach. It's a stronger image.

[JBW]

I agree with her.

[Manfred M]

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?? !

Actually this is not heated at all.

The point that I have tried to make is that B&W works well for certain genres / subjects and less well for others.

To generalize with flowers, animals and birds, colour is an important identifying feature, so most photographers work those subjects in colour. Like all photographic "rules" there are exceptions. Removing the colour from an image is applying a level of abstraction to the subject. Finding that level where to apply that transition and make it work well is the tough part.

[JBW]

Manfred, I shoot in B&W (then Capture 1 recreates it is colour) and if I am going to produce a B&W shot I switch to B&W very close to the beginning.

We are going to agree to disagree on Tony's approach

[lunarbo]

Actually this is not heated at all.

Well OK chaps if you say so....

To generalize with flowers, animals and birds, colour is an important identifying feature, so most photographers work those subjects in colour. Like all photographic "rules" there are exceptions. Removing the colour from an image is applying a level of abstraction to the subject. Finding that level where to apply that transition and make it work well is the tough part.

The vast majority of my photos are in colour but occasionally something definitely screams " gotta be mono" - often at the point of taking the shot but sometimes back at the desk when a crop or a contrast slide brings up interesting possibilities

Your thoughts above prompted me to seek online if there are any "rules" (ha ha!!) for mono. Words bandied frequently were texture, shape, clarity, contrast & light/shadow.

To that I will add my favourite photography word------- impact ! You've only got a moment to impress the viewer, there are a trillion other photos out there.

So in my book anything that gets that impact is what makes it work. I'd certainly agree with your generalisation about flowers and wildlife whilst totally accepting there are some stunning exceptions

I'm idly wondering why we see so many superb people portraits in B&W and maybe it's the imperfections (such as wrinkles) or the model's expression that adds to the impact.

Anyway I shall follow your post on B&W examples Manfred with great interest and maybe add an example or two ..

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I shoot in B&W (then Capture 1 recreates it is colour) and if I am going to produce a B&W shot I switch to B&W very close to the beginning.

We are going to agree to disagree on Tony's approach

I would suggest that if you have set your camera to B&W mode, then the screen display will be in B&W and any JPEG will be B&W too. The raw data will be colour, so that is what you are seeing when you open the file in C1. One of my college photo instructors recommended that approach as a reasonable way to learn how an image will look in B&W. It takes a lot of experience to "see in B&W", i.e. look at the tonality of the scene, rather than the colours in the scene, when shooting.

I use a slightly different approach to my B&W conversion, but that is because I use Photoshop, which means I am working in layers. adjustment layers, layer masks and clipping masks, something that is not available in C1. It allows for a finer level of control of the conversion.

I use the colour slides, much like I used physical filters in the B&W film days; darkening the sky (red, orange or yellow filters - yellow had a more moderate impact and red really darkened the sky), improve skin tones (green filter). I agree with you; just desaturating is not the best way to go. Quite a few photographers I know use Nik Silver Efex for their conversion work.

As for agreeing to disagree on Tony's approach. No problem. I don't think you and I have ever had a problem agreeing to disagree; after all it is your image.

[Manfred M]

Well OK chaps if you say so....





The vast majority of my photos are in colour but occasionally something definitely screams " gotta be mono" - often at the point of taking the shot but sometimes back at the desk when a crop or a contrast slide brings up interesting possibilities

Your thoughts above prompted me to seek online if there are any "rules" (ha ha!!) for mono. Words bandied frequently were texture, shape, clarity, contrast & light/shadow.

To that I will add my favourite photography word------- impact ! You've only got a moment to impress the viewer, there are a trillion other photos out there.

So in my book anything that gets that impact is what makes it work. I'd certainly agree with your generalisation about flowers and wildlife whilst totally accepting there are some stunning exceptions

I'm idly wondering why we see so many superb people portraits in B&W and maybe it's the imperfections (such as wrinkles) or the model's expression that adds to the impact.

Anyway I shall follow your post on B&W examples Manfred with great interest and maybe add an example or two ..

Barbara - I started out as a B&W photographer, when I first got into "serious photography". I shot nothing else for about 2 years, so I am 100% comfortable in that genre.

I find it a bit amusing when photographers that got into photography in the the digital age look at B&W work as something "special", and I guess it is to them, who grew up in the world of colour photography. Some photographers consider it the purest form of photography as it removes the influence of colour on the image. I personally don't subscribe to that theory, but if it works for others, who am I to argue with them?

I have found that people (portraits and street photography - look at the work of Karsh and Henri-Cartier Bresson), landscapes (including urban landscapes and seascapes - look at Ansel Adams) and architecture (interior and exterior) are generally good candidates for B&W work. Still-life can also be quite effective, although here the subject can be what ends up being the deciding factor; again, some of Edward Weston's images (thinking Pepper #30) are brilliant.

As for "rules"; to me B&W is all about tonality, so without that key "ingredient", the images don't work. Yes, texture, shape, light and contrast to enter into the equation, but only as vehicles for the carrying tonality of the scene.

The downside of B&W is that, in the case of JPEG images, we are constrained to using only 256 shades; from pure white to pure black. That is one serious constraint.

[JBW]

I would suggest that if you have set your camera to B&W mode, then the screen display will be in B&W and any JPEG will be B&W too. The raw data will be colour, so that is what you are seeing when you open the file in C1. One of my college photo instructors recommended that approach as a reasonable way to learn how an image will look in B&W. It takes a lot of experience to "see in B&W", i.e. look at the tonality of the scene, rather than the colours in the scene, when shooting.

I use a slightly different approach to my B&W conversion, but that is because I use Photoshop, which means I am working in layers. adjustment layers, layer masks and clipping masks, something that is not available in C1. It allows for a finer level of control of the conversion.

I use the colour slides, much like I used physical filters in the B&W film days; darkening the sky (red, orange or yellow filters - yellow had a more moderate impact and red really darkened the sky), improve skin tones (green filter). I agree with you; just desaturating is not the best way to go. Quite a few photographers I know use Nik Silver Efex for their conversion work.

As for agreeing to disagree on Tony's approach. No problem. I don't think you and I have ever had a problem agreeing to disagree; after all it is your image.

Capture 1 v11 has greatly improved and expanded their layers capabilities. I find their grey scale / mask refinement really handy.

[Manfred M]

Capture 1 v11 has greatly improved and expanded their layers capabilities. I find their grey scale / mask refinement really handy.

As a Capture One user, I know all about this functionality and suggest it could be described as "rudimentary" at best.

It really doesn't come close to what software like Photoshop, Serif Affinity, Corel PaintShop Pro, Gimp, etc. have implemented. Layers need to support blending modes and editable layer masks at a minimum; clipping masks I use all the time too. Yes C1 does have very basic layer masks, but they are quite limited in what one can do with them. In the absence of other editing tools, I'm not surprised that you find them useful, but there are much better and more precise tools out there.

[JBW]

As a Capture One user, I know all about this functionality and suggest it could be described as "rudimentary" at best.

It really doesn't come close to what software like Photoshop, Serif Affinity, Corel PaintShop Pro, Gimp, etc. have implemented. Layers need to support blending modes and editable layer masks at a minimum; clipping masks I use all the time too. Yes C1 does have very basic layer masks, but they are quite limited in what one can do with them. In the absence of other editing tools, I'm not surprised that you find them useful, but there are much better and more precise tools out there.

Undoubtedly there are. But V11 sure is improved over version 10. And as someone keeps reminding me the trick is to most of your work in camera

[Manfred M]

Undoubtedly there are. But V11 sure is improved over version 10. And as someone keeps reminding me the trick is to most of your work in camera

I agree 100% regarding getting things right in camera. Unless I am shooting is a studio, I can't control the light well enough to get things exactly the way I want them to be and I have to use the tools I have in my PP toolbox.

I expect C1 V12 to be even better, but even so, we are dealing with a parametric editor and there are some limitations inherent to that approach that can only be solved by switching to a pixel based editor.

[James G]

I started out as a B&W photographer, when I first got into "serious photography". I shot nothing else for about 2 years, so I am 100% comfortable in that genre.

I find it a bit amusing when photographers that got into photography in the the digital age look at B&W work as something "special", and I guess it is to them, who grew up in the world of colour photography.

+1

[JBW]

I agree 100% regarding getting things right in camera. Unless I am shooting is a studio, I can't control the light well enough to get things exactly the way I want them to be and I have to use the tools I have in my PP toolbox.

I expect C1 V12 to be even better, but even so, we are dealing with a parametric editor and there are some limitations inherent to that approach that can only be solved by switching to a pixel based editor.

Manfred, help me out here (and possibly others too). I've just don e some research into parametric versus pixel based. As with most things each side has it's defenders. Seems that your goto is pixel based. Care to explain why? (asks someone who is quickly becoming a post process fanatic)
B.

[Manfred M]

Manfred, help me out here (and possibly others too). I've just don e some research into parametric versus pixel based. As with most things each side has it's defenders. Seems that your goto is pixel based. Care to explain why? (asks someone who is quickly becoming a post process fanatic)
B.

Simple Brian - parametric is fine for basic tweaking, but pixel based is far more accurate and powerful. While the parametric editors are getting better, they have limited local controls controls and there is limited capability for any really detailed editing work. An analogy might be comparing the capabilities of your superzoom camera to your current Sony mirrorless. Both take good pictures, but there are limits to what you can do with each.

The underlying issue with a parametric editor is that every time you change something, it has to redo (re-interpret) each step that has already been performed. Changes made in a pixel based editor are "permanent" and each step does not have to be recalculated every time a change is made. This means complex calculations are challenging to implement because they take time to do, so by simplifying them to get the speed, it limits how complex they can be.

The second issue with a parametric editor is that the programmer has to come up with a formula for each type of edit. If things cannot be described easily using a formula, it can't be implemented in the editor. In a pixel based editor, a change can be applied down to a specific pixel level; no complex mathematical formulas are required.

Finally, in a pixel based editor that supports layers, the person editing can determine the order in which means that the user can not only make an edit on a level down to an individual pixel, but can also determine the order of how the edits are applied and can easily jump around and control complex interactions between layers. Blending modes, layer masks, clipping masks, etc. etc. make editing fast and easy, once you know the tools.

Every advanced photo editor I know or have communicated with uses a pixel based editor. There are difference in views as to how and when to do the handoff from a parametric editor, but they all end up at least fine tuning their edits in a pixel based editing tool.

[JBW]

Simple Brian - parametric is fine for basic tweaking, but pixel based is far more accurate and powerful. While the parametric editors are getting better, they have limited local controls controls and there is limited capability for any really detailed editing work. An analogy might be comparing the capabilities of your superzoom camera to your current Sony mirrorless. Both take good pictures, but there are limits to what you can do with each.

The underlying issue with a parametric editor is that every time you change something, it has to redo (re-interpret) each step that has already been performed. Changes made in a pixel based editor are "permanent" and each step does not have to be recalculated every time a change is made. This means complex calculations are challenging to implement because they take time to do, so by simplifying them to get the speed, it limits how complex they can be.

The second issue with a parametric editor is that the programmer has to come up with a formula for each type of edit. If things cannot be described easily using a formula, it can't be implemented in the editor. In a pixel based editor, a change can be applied down to a specific pixel level; no complex mathematical formulas are required.

Finally, in a pixel based editor that supports layers, the person editing can determine the order in which means that the user can not only make an edit on a level down to an individual pixel, but can also determine the order of how the edits are applied and can easily jump around and control complex interactions between layers. Blending modes, layer masks, clipping masks, etc. etc. make editing fast and easy, once you know the tools.

Every advanced photo editor I know or have communicated with uses a pixel based editor. There are difference in views as to how and when to do the handoff from a parametric editor, but they all end up at least fine tuning their edits in a pixel based editing tool.

Ok, that makes sense. To go back to the camera analogy you used. I only moved up in camera and lens once I had approached the limits of my gear.

I'm nowhere near the limits of C1 which means that I still have a lot of learning to do with what I've got. I have GIMP on my computer and I'll play with my shots in it but most of my effort will be in C1. You know my style and my subjects where would you suggest I start in GIMP. Or would you suggest a different pixel program?

[Manfred M]

Or would you suggest a different pixel program?

Serif Affinity - the functionality is similar to Photoshop but the price is far lower. The interface and usability is better than Gimp. From the software I have used, it is probably the most cost effective and has some of the content aware functionality that I use all the time in Photoshop.

[JBW]

I tried to dl it 6 times. The gods must not want me to have it.