Shoe vendor

[DanK]

I believe he is suggesting that one has to look at a scene in terms of luminosity, rather than colours in order to visualize what a scene can look like as a B&W image. That is a learned skill, but has nothing to do with the mechanics of B&W conversion from a colour image.

I think it does, for two reasons.

Look at the thumbnails in the article linked in the document that Ted linked. You'll see 7 B&W renderings of each color image. Which would you previsualize? Note that in the first row, the two that were on average rated both most pleasing and most accurate across images--decolorize and Smith 08--yield dramatically different results in that one instance. The methods apparently differ on several dimensions, but one of them is what you wrote about in post 17, that is, how much they darken specific colors:

Most people that do B&W conversion will also play around with the underlying colours to enhance the look, just like they did in the B&W film days; enhancing certain colours and downplaying others.

That is, a final B&W conversion is generally not simply a desaturation, or extracting the L channel data. Even the defaults in Photoshop and Lightroom aren't a simple desaturation. So, there are lots of conversions. Whatever you visualize, and whatever your camera does in creating a B&W thumbnail, may correspond to one of them, but only one. And if people could previsualize accurately, they wouldn't need to play around with underlying colors. They would know what adjustments to make--like adding a red filter in the days of B&W film.

It's for that reason that I wrote that I can sometimes approximately previsualize, but only approximately.

My second reason is a hunch. That is, I am very skeptical that the human visual system can accurately estimate luminosity differences independent of hue and saturation. I actually started constructing a test panel that would have a series of rectangles, mixing differences in luminance with differences in hue, but I got bogged down. For example, I would be willing to bet that when the luminosity difference is constant, people perceive it as larger when the adjacent colors are close to complimentary or highly saturated. However, I have no evidence to back this up. I'm pretty sure I have made this error myself, but I don't keep track of all of my mistakes. There is no library large enough.

Ted, do you know of any research that addresses this?

In any case, back to the earlier point: my advice to novices to try to previsualize, regardless of whether you aim for color or B&W. However, after the fact, feel free to make use of every tool you have to make the image into what you want. If you decide after the fact that the image is more pleasing or more effective in a different form than you planned, then be glad that you discovered that. The point of the effort is the final result, not the process.

Dan

[Donald]

I think any person quite new to photography could usefully study this thread and see that there are two fundamental approaches to the activity. One is a technical/scientific approach espoused by Dan and Ted and one is an artistic/emotional approach as espoused by me. Neither is right or wrong. Both are perfectly valid. This difficulty is that an advocate of one finds it hard to take on and accept the viewpoint of the other.

And that is a good lesson for newcomers to photography to learn and understand.

[Manfred M]

Dan / Donald / Ted - Photography combines a number of key aspects of both science and the arts. The key ones are physics (the area Ted tends to key in on) where optics, electronics, math, physics and mechanics come into play. This covers how our cameras, lenses and software are designed.

The second one is physiology and primarily extends to how our visual system works, i.e. the way our eyes and brains process data. I would also suggest ergonomics falls into this aspect of how humans have been put together.

The third one is psychology and here we get into things like composition, mood, etc.

In the days of film photography, there was a fourth element; chemistry.

All three are interlinked and many items related to photography are so interlinked that one aspect cannot be explained without looking at the other two.

When it comes to visualization, we are mostly dealing with the physiological aspects of photography and the psychological ones even though some aspects of physics are intertwined. Understanding how we want to map colours that we see into monochrome is definitely one of those aspects and here, as Donald points out, experience and practice play a major role. This visualization step is not a 100% process, just like it is not in colour photography. My brain can see an image that I want to take in my "minds eye", but it is often not what the camera captures and the software reveals in the end. That is why I cannot generally go to a place and take a single shot and come back with the "perfect shot".

[xpatUSA]

My second reason is a hunch. That is, I am very skeptical that the human visual system can accurately estimate luminosity differences independent of hue and saturation. I actually started constructing a test panel that would have a series of rectangles, mixing differences in luminance with differences in hue, but I got bogged down. For example, I would be willing to bet that when the luminosity difference is constant, people perceive it as larger when the adjacent colors are close to [complementary] or highly saturated.

Ted, do you know of any research that addresses this?

Dan

Dan, I have an article in mind but am heading off soon for a family occasion. So I'll look for it tomorrow ...

[DanK]

Manfred,

I agree. I have actually started on an article about this, prompted by a lot of discussion in one of the clubs to which I belong, but I will probably never finish it.

I think that drawing a distinction between the technical and artistic aspects of photography puts the dividing line in an unrealistic place, and I think that in turn hinders some novices.

Photography is a technical medium, and some mastery of technique is necessary to achieve one's artistic goals. No one (I think) argues, for example, that painters who spend countless hours mastering different types of brush strokes are mistakenly focusing on technique rather than art. I have known many musicians--both of my parents were musicians for part of their lives--and not a single one ever suggested that mastering technique--countless hours practicing scales and arpeggios, gaining better control over embouchure, etc., was "unartistic." Quite the contrary: they all saw mastery of technique as a necessary step toward being able to display their art. Bringing this closer to home, I've never heard anyone suggest that Ansel Adams (one of the strongest advocates of previsualization, by the way) was less of an artist because of the countless hours he spent on darkroom techniques.

The useful distinction, I think, is between technical issues that are useful for artistic purposes and those that aren't, and that division in turn depends on the kinds of photography one does. To get the results I want in urban night photography, for example, I need to know something about the changes in ambient light temperature as dusk progresses and the characteristics of various artificial light sources. this is useless information for people who do some other types of work. Similarly, to do macro work, I had to master a number of technical skills that aren't relevant for many other kinds of photography. In contrast, I am curious about some of the optical issues involved in lens design, but that is merely curiosity; I never find this useful in deciding how to create a photograph. (I might find it useful in selecting a lens for purchase, but that is another matter.)

I writing this, I am not commenting on Donald's postings. I'm thinking about an ongoing debate in the club I mentioned. Frankly, I think a few of the people in that group draw the line where they do because they don't want to bother learning the brush strokes, or are intimidated by it. The result is that they have a more limited toolkit than they would otherwise have and have less control over the final product--that is, less artistic control.

I've also been thinking about this because I have done a bit of teaching of photography and have been thinking of teaching a basic postprocessing course in a community education program. This issue pops up right away: to have reasonably full control over tonality--which is where I would start--you need to understand the histogram. That's math, and some people would find it intimidating.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Dan - what I find with novice photographers is that they often feel that the reason that their images a not good is purely due to lack of technical skills and are convinced that once they conquer the tool (be that camera and / or post-processing software), they will be a good photographer. At the end of becoming comfortable with their tool, some will discover that they are still not producing great pictures while others will be happy and won't develop any more.

At that point they start thinking about something they have heard or read about called "composition" and figure that once they conquer the "rules of composition", they will be good photographers. If they could only figure out which rule to apply when.... Some will discover that the "rules of composition" are really a sham and great photographers really don't use them while others will look at the rules rather mechanically and try to find the best rules to apply to each specific situation. Some will be happy with where they are while others will try to move to the next level.

The most promising ones end up realizing that they need to find ways of making a connection with their viewer and the ones that master this will end up creating strong images. In my view, this is the toughest part of any craft or art and most will never hit this level on a consistent basis....

[Donald]

Connected to the discussion above is an article I was just reading in 'On Landscape' magazine (online posted on 20 December 2019), by Len Metcalf.

"One of the arguments that often surfaces is the perceived difficulties between photographing in colour versus creating in monochrome. I have read countless accounts on both sides of the argument. Each claiming that the other is much harder. This in itself tells us something. It tells me that loving one or finding one easier is actually a preference. This implies that they each have different skillsets and knowledge bases. Perhaps you are right in the middle and find them both equally difficult, or equally challenging or maybe even equally as easy? I don’t. Most photographers I have found, in my travels as a photography teacher, have a preference for either monochrome or colour photography. They definitely are better in one over the other, particularly when we look deeply into their portfolios and work."

[Manfred M]

Donald - while your quote is specific to landscape photography, it also rings true for other genres including street photography and portraiture, among others.

Where I would disagree is that while most photographers have a preference for one or the other, there are some photographers who have told me that they have a specific preference or bias for B&W or colour work, they are equally adept in both genres. This is not universally true as there are some examples of bodies of work I have seen where there is definitely a quality difference in the photographers B&W or colour work. I can think of one photographer who prefers B&W, but in my view, his colour work is stronger.

[DanK]

Donald,

Your quote definitely strikes a chord with me. I think this extends beyond the choice between B&W and color. People have different skills as well as different interests, and it makes sense that both influence their photographic directions.

Many people figure out what genres play best to their strengths and interests and focus on those. I do too, but I also enjoy dabbling in genres that I do less well and less often.

Dan

[VirginieMedhurst]

The joy of street photography (and also the hard part) is that you want to capture a moment without the person even knowing you are there.
I really like this moment.

[Manfred M]

The joy of street photography (and also the hard part) is that you want to capture a moment without the person even knowing you are there.
I really like this moment.

That is not necessarily the case. Often the person does know I am there and am taking their picture. Sometimes I also take "stealth" pictures where the person is unaware of my presence.

You get people arguing both ways, but I find it depends on both the subject (it is challenging to shoot some subjects unless they do not see you), while at other times (like in the image in this thread) the subject is aware that I am there and is looking at me.

[billtils]

Connected to the discussion above is an article I was just reading in 'On Landscape' magazine (online posted on 20 December 2019), by Len Metcalf.

"One of the arguments that often surfaces is the perceived difficulties between photographing in colour versus creating in monochrome. I have read countless accounts on both sides of the argument. Each claiming that the other is much harder. This in itself tells us something. It tells me that loving one or finding one easier is actually a preference. This implies that they each have different skillsets and knowledge bases. Perhaps you are right in the middle and find them both equally difficult, or equally challenging or maybe even equally as easy? I don’t. Most photographers I have found, in my travels as a photography teacher, have a preference for either monochrome or colour photography. They definitely are better in one over the other, particularly when we look deeply into their portfolios and work."

Wise words Donald.