I made some really good B&W from jazz photos but now reading your site and now setting camera to monochrome and thinking B&W, it's totally different and not so "easy." The results now seeing them in LR Classic are not rewarding, overall. Maybe you can help.
For one, being on travel not is not best scenario for choosing B&W. Then in LR the images appear in color. (I shoot RAW) so my mind sees it in color and travel is often "color".
2) Clicking LR B&W becomes Adobe Monochrome. Changing to Camera Monochrome seems better. What is your take on that?
3) For the photos that feel right for monochrome, I seems I need more adjustments than in color. Does that make sense? Maybe the shot was just not good enough. I assume you will agree.
4) That brings me to your point that when you are asked to put color into B&W to look "better" it seems the reverse. Poor color image is worse in B&W.
5) Some shots really did work in B&W such as a fortress from year 300 and for that this was a great exercise. Flowers well, they are in color.
All of the above is just seeing the images in LR. When I return home it's the print that will tell me if and what worked.
I look forward to your having more on B&W. Thanks for listening.
I'm responding from Tanzania at the moment, so I'll have to be brief. I agree that shooting in B&W is not easy. I do have to disagree with you about travel not beiong ideal for B&W. I am just finishing a 3-week trip in the Serengeti and 90% of my images are in B&W. Some will make standout prints (I hope!). However, if you see in color, as you suggest, then by all means stay with that. I agree that you need to find a solution to the conversion process, so if Camera monochrome suits your eyem then start with that. In any case, digital post-processing allows us to ultimately get to virtually the same place. I also agree that at times it takes more work to process B&W. Tonality is paramount and may mean extra effort. Yopu also want some "drama" in your image as viewers will not have the comfort of color to help them decipher the story. Youir comment about the final print really says it all, and I totally agree with it!
Please don't give up on B&W. It's a truly creative, wonderful medium and I urge you to practice.
The comment made that color does not always translate to a good b/w image is true. Just the other day I was working with a color image and pushed the b/w button in RAW and it was a terrible image. If I do something in b/w that I want to have full tonality I will use Topaz B/W or Nik Silver Effects. There are plenty of choices and from one of the applications, you can manipulate from there.
Previsualization of the final image is an essential component to the final print. Dodging, burning and contrasts just like in the darkroom can really bring an image to life.
Probably 98% of my work is in color (and my eyes see in color, so I guess I'm biased), although I do test B&W conversions on many more images than I finalize in B&W. If I liked the color image, I usually like the B&W version. Thing is, I almost always like the color better. The rare exceptions for me are when the colors aren't playing well together but the shapes and textures are. A recent example was a studio shoot with a model. A nice antique lavender gown looked great against a red velvet background but when she changed into a green gown, as you might imagine the look was not good. BUT converting to B&W, the folds and shadows came to the fore instead of the jarring color combo.
I do shoot with a Leica monochrome - that it is an amazing camera is an understatement. I am comfortable composing in black and white as color can be intimidating for those of us who began shooting when B&W developing and printing was all we could afford to do. The beauty of monochrome is that the glamor of color is eliminated and one is left to contemplate just light, shadow. I recently have been setting my mirrorless Canon to square and monochrome. Try it!
Forgive me, but with over 6 decades of photography experience (20 years of which is with digital) and many images, both color and BW, in the permanent collections of museums, I'm going to disagree with your last missive. IMHO you could not be more wrong, both from a technical standpoint and from an artistic one.
Technically:
Digital cameras do not take "color" images. A sensor only measures luminosity (aka "Black and White"). It takes the image through three filters, red, green and blue, which is exactly the same thing as putting each of those filters on a camera filled with Black and white film. (In fact, that is how the earliest "color" images were created, back in 1861.)
You'd be correct if you're starting with a processed color image, such as a jpg, flattened TIFF, and so on, but surely you're shooting raw files and doing the post-processing yourself! You'd also be correct if you are hoping for excellence by pressing one magic button (such as saturation) instead of doing legitimate processing.
With three filtered gray-scale layers (channels) as data, a skilled photographer can manipulated each one individually, almost infinitely, and then combine them to produce a vastly superior B&W image when compared to one from a single data source. Photoshop is set up for this kind of creativity.
Artistically:
Finally, there's this old horse: color or B&W (black and white)? For some folks this is actually "color versus B&W" - most commonly heard as "B&W is the only true photography." That is nonsense, of course: some images are better suited to B&W than to color, but equally, some are better in color.
Have doubts? To make the point easily, please consider Steve McCurry's "Afghan Girl" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl). Just how effective would that photo be in B&W?
In choosing, it is the photo itself that will call out its needs to the artist, (including paper.)
Here are some of the differences to the viewer between color and B&W:
Color admits the viewer past the plane of the image (because it's "natural" - we see in color, not B&W.) B&W tends to stop the viewer at the paper's surface (unless the tonal range is exquisite) and makes it obvious that this is tone-on-paper.
This leads to one therefore to contemplate the image differently between the two: B&W as a thing you can hold in your hand, vs the more immediate dimensional realism of color. (That is why McCurry's image is so much more powerful in color.)
Color tends to be time-specific while is more B&W time-agnostic.
Closely tied to that time-nature is this: color makes a factual statement; B&W allows more interpretation. That interpretive aspect of B&W is what makes its adherents so dogmatic, I expect. But color allows for interpretation as well, if it is used subtly.
Another way of expressing the above is this: in B&W you are asking a question while in color you are making a statement.
And finally, more on the artist's side, this comes into play: B&W can be significantly altered through tone and contrast, but correct color fits only within a very narrow range.
So, you can see that the artist's intent when creating the image (and often dictated by the image itself) determines whether a given photo is best in B&W or color.
Les is in Africa at the moment but I'll speak with what I believe his intent was in this post...
First and most important: Not all scenes are best rendered or represented in black and white.
Second which I believe you are commenting on... His use of setting his camera to B+W to assist in previewing the scene without color. He shoots RAW as most do so that the RAW image is later processed into a black and white with use of color channels later etc, etc. His use is only as an aid when previewing the scene and didn't imply any technical advice or any discussion on how sensors, bayer filters, etc, etc work.
A modern digital Fujifilm camera allows the photographer to specify a Fuji film type. Whether you're capturing RAW or JPG, the display shows the composition rendered for this film type. ACROSS is Fujifilm's B&W film. The rendering even allows simulation of a green, red, yellow or no filter. In the case of RAW capture, the film rendering is stored in the metadata. How it's handled depends on the software used to process the file. I use Capture One for my Fujifilm GFX 100S. There, the file can be processed with any of their film types, regardless of the film specified at the moment of capture. It's also possible to process the file in multiple versions with any of the Fujifilm renderings, so you could have several B&W versions as well as several color versions (Velvia, Provia, etc.) The bottom line is that specifying a B&W Fujifilm film results in a B&W image on the LCD, but it's not permanent unless the photograph is captured as a jpeg file.
I believe my Nikon D850 will display a photograph captured as a RAW file as a B&W, but the file saved is still color. It's been awhile since I've done this, so don't hold me to that.
Moving to Tracy's last comment about some photographs working better as either color or B&W, here's a measure of how wishy-washy I am: I like some of my photographs equally well as color or B&W.
The tone and contrast of a black and white image and film can certainly make a more impactful statement then color. Architecture photography in black and white makes a very bold statement as long as you are aware what emotion and statement you want to make. Being familiar with how color filters can affect a black and white image will certainly determine whether you make a statement or not.
Being interested in film showed me how you can make a definitive statement particularly in film noir. The brutality of the city, the crime and the moral turpitude of the characters could only be effectively shown in black and white. In photography, Brett Weston's images in Hawaii are a celebration of texture, and this is where your statement of black and white being more interpretative is absolutely correct, and a beauty not normally seen by our eyes in color. The Surrealists were always interested in destroying the usual interpretation of what we see especially in color. Black and white strips away the pretensions and allows one to face the strip down reality and forcing you to re-interpretate your own desires and dreams.
Working with a view camera and black and white film did teach me how effective certain images would be with whatever color filter I placed on the lens. That training eliminated any need to adjust my picture style in my old Canon 5ds-R to monochrome. Black and white conversion is being done in my mind as soon as I look in Live View.
Your summary should be taken to heart by every photographer. How to translate the artist's intent in the creation of a photographic image and knowing the processing limitations of black and white and color.
I totally get your point about color to black and white conversion. Lately I have been dealing with “people” shots with lighting issues that require color correction which never really seem to get corrected. I have found that choosing the right B and W profile in light room, for example, there are many other choices, I get a very decent portrait photo that I can live with. The trick is to not get the color cast from the filter. I’ll accept all suggestions!
I made some really good B&W from jazz photos but now reading your site and now setting camera to monochrome and thinking B&W, it's totally different and not so "easy." The results now seeing them in LR Classic are not rewarding, overall. Maybe you can help.
For one, being on travel not is not best scenario for choosing B&W. Then in LR the images appear in color. (I shoot RAW) so my mind sees it in color and travel is often "color".
2) Clicking LR B&W becomes Adobe Monochrome. Changing to Camera Monochrome seems better. What is your take on that?
3) For the photos that feel right for monochrome, I seems I need more adjustments than in color. Does that make sense? Maybe the shot was just not good enough. I assume you will agree.
4) That brings me to your point that when you are asked to put color into B&W to look "better" it seems the reverse. Poor color image is worse in B&W.
5) Some shots really did work in B&W such as a fortress from year 300 and for that this was a great exercise. Flowers well, they are in color.
All of the above is just seeing the images in LR. When I return home it's the print that will tell me if and what worked.
I look forward to your having more on B&W. Thanks for listening.
Karin,
I'm responding from Tanzania at the moment, so I'll have to be brief. I agree that shooting in B&W is not easy. I do have to disagree with you about travel not beiong ideal for B&W. I am just finishing a 3-week trip in the Serengeti and 90% of my images are in B&W. Some will make standout prints (I hope!). However, if you see in color, as you suggest, then by all means stay with that. I agree that you need to find a solution to the conversion process, so if Camera monochrome suits your eyem then start with that. In any case, digital post-processing allows us to ultimately get to virtually the same place. I also agree that at times it takes more work to process B&W. Tonality is paramount and may mean extra effort. Yopu also want some "drama" in your image as viewers will not have the comfort of color to help them decipher the story. Youir comment about the final print really says it all, and I totally agree with it!
Please don't give up on B&W. It's a truly creative, wonderful medium and I urge you to practice.
The comment made that color does not always translate to a good b/w image is true. Just the other day I was working with a color image and pushed the b/w button in RAW and it was a terrible image. If I do something in b/w that I want to have full tonality I will use Topaz B/W or Nik Silver Effects. There are plenty of choices and from one of the applications, you can manipulate from there.
Previsualization of the final image is an essential component to the final print. Dodging, burning and contrasts just like in the darkroom can really bring an image to life.
Probably 98% of my work is in color (and my eyes see in color, so I guess I'm biased), although I do test B&W conversions on many more images than I finalize in B&W. If I liked the color image, I usually like the B&W version. Thing is, I almost always like the color better. The rare exceptions for me are when the colors aren't playing well together but the shapes and textures are. A recent example was a studio shoot with a model. A nice antique lavender gown looked great against a red velvet background but when she changed into a green gown, as you might imagine the look was not good. BUT converting to B&W, the folds and shadows came to the fore instead of the jarring color combo.
I do shoot with a Leica monochrome - that it is an amazing camera is an understatement. I am comfortable composing in black and white as color can be intimidating for those of us who began shooting when B&W developing and printing was all we could afford to do. The beauty of monochrome is that the glamor of color is eliminated and one is left to contemplate just light, shadow. I recently have been setting my mirrorless Canon to square and monochrome. Try it!
Forgive me, but with over 6 decades of photography experience (20 years of which is with digital) and many images, both color and BW, in the permanent collections of museums, I'm going to disagree with your last missive. IMHO you could not be more wrong, both from a technical standpoint and from an artistic one.
Technically:
Digital cameras do not take "color" images. A sensor only measures luminosity (aka "Black and White"). It takes the image through three filters, red, green and blue, which is exactly the same thing as putting each of those filters on a camera filled with Black and white film. (In fact, that is how the earliest "color" images were created, back in 1861.)
You'd be correct if you're starting with a processed color image, such as a jpg, flattened TIFF, and so on, but surely you're shooting raw files and doing the post-processing yourself! You'd also be correct if you are hoping for excellence by pressing one magic button (such as saturation) instead of doing legitimate processing.
With three filtered gray-scale layers (channels) as data, a skilled photographer can manipulated each one individually, almost infinitely, and then combine them to produce a vastly superior B&W image when compared to one from a single data source. Photoshop is set up for this kind of creativity.
Artistically:
Finally, there's this old horse: color or B&W (black and white)? For some folks this is actually "color versus B&W" - most commonly heard as "B&W is the only true photography." That is nonsense, of course: some images are better suited to B&W than to color, but equally, some are better in color.
Have doubts? To make the point easily, please consider Steve McCurry's "Afghan Girl" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl). Just how effective would that photo be in B&W?
In choosing, it is the photo itself that will call out its needs to the artist, (including paper.)
Here are some of the differences to the viewer between color and B&W:
Color admits the viewer past the plane of the image (because it's "natural" - we see in color, not B&W.) B&W tends to stop the viewer at the paper's surface (unless the tonal range is exquisite) and makes it obvious that this is tone-on-paper.
This leads to one therefore to contemplate the image differently between the two: B&W as a thing you can hold in your hand, vs the more immediate dimensional realism of color. (That is why McCurry's image is so much more powerful in color.)
Color tends to be time-specific while is more B&W time-agnostic.
Closely tied to that time-nature is this: color makes a factual statement; B&W allows more interpretation. That interpretive aspect of B&W is what makes its adherents so dogmatic, I expect. But color allows for interpretation as well, if it is used subtly.
Another way of expressing the above is this: in B&W you are asking a question while in color you are making a statement.
And finally, more on the artist's side, this comes into play: B&W can be significantly altered through tone and contrast, but correct color fits only within a very narrow range.
So, you can see that the artist's intent when creating the image (and often dictated by the image itself) determines whether a given photo is best in B&W or color.
The is no one "best and only" to it.
Les is in Africa at the moment but I'll speak with what I believe his intent was in this post...
First and most important: Not all scenes are best rendered or represented in black and white.
Second which I believe you are commenting on... His use of setting his camera to B+W to assist in previewing the scene without color. He shoots RAW as most do so that the RAW image is later processed into a black and white with use of color channels later etc, etc. His use is only as an aid when previewing the scene and didn't imply any technical advice or any discussion on how sensors, bayer filters, etc, etc work.
Thank you for the clarification! :-)
For those who don't use Fujifilm cameras:
A modern digital Fujifilm camera allows the photographer to specify a Fuji film type. Whether you're capturing RAW or JPG, the display shows the composition rendered for this film type. ACROSS is Fujifilm's B&W film. The rendering even allows simulation of a green, red, yellow or no filter. In the case of RAW capture, the film rendering is stored in the metadata. How it's handled depends on the software used to process the file. I use Capture One for my Fujifilm GFX 100S. There, the file can be processed with any of their film types, regardless of the film specified at the moment of capture. It's also possible to process the file in multiple versions with any of the Fujifilm renderings, so you could have several B&W versions as well as several color versions (Velvia, Provia, etc.) The bottom line is that specifying a B&W Fujifilm film results in a B&W image on the LCD, but it's not permanent unless the photograph is captured as a jpeg file.
I believe my Nikon D850 will display a photograph captured as a RAW file as a B&W, but the file saved is still color. It's been awhile since I've done this, so don't hold me to that.
Moving to Tracy's last comment about some photographs working better as either color or B&W, here's a measure of how wishy-washy I am: I like some of my photographs equally well as color or B&W.
The tone and contrast of a black and white image and film can certainly make a more impactful statement then color. Architecture photography in black and white makes a very bold statement as long as you are aware what emotion and statement you want to make. Being familiar with how color filters can affect a black and white image will certainly determine whether you make a statement or not.
Being interested in film showed me how you can make a definitive statement particularly in film noir. The brutality of the city, the crime and the moral turpitude of the characters could only be effectively shown in black and white. In photography, Brett Weston's images in Hawaii are a celebration of texture, and this is where your statement of black and white being more interpretative is absolutely correct, and a beauty not normally seen by our eyes in color. The Surrealists were always interested in destroying the usual interpretation of what we see especially in color. Black and white strips away the pretensions and allows one to face the strip down reality and forcing you to re-interpretate your own desires and dreams.
Working with a view camera and black and white film did teach me how effective certain images would be with whatever color filter I placed on the lens. That training eliminated any need to adjust my picture style in my old Canon 5ds-R to monochrome. Black and white conversion is being done in my mind as soon as I look in Live View.
Your summary should be taken to heart by every photographer. How to translate the artist's intent in the creation of a photographic image and knowing the processing limitations of black and white and color.
I totally get your point about color to black and white conversion. Lately I have been dealing with “people” shots with lighting issues that require color correction which never really seem to get corrected. I have found that choosing the right B and W profile in light room, for example, there are many other choices, I get a very decent portrait photo that I can live with. The trick is to not get the color cast from the filter. I’ll accept all suggestions!
JOHN Burns? Was he Robbie's brother?