black and white vs. color: my street shooting dilemma with digital

[taner]

Hi there

<p>

I enjoy doing street photography in my own amateur capacity, and I

have a dilemma:

<p>

Before going digital, I was getting more and more comfortable with my

simple set-up - a manual 35mm SLR with a 35mm prime lens attached most

of the time, and of course, black and white film, mostly Kodak TMY.

<p>

Recently I have gone digital (sold all my film gear), and although I

am still using an SLR and a 32mm equivalent prime lens, there is

obviously the matter of monochrome conversion from color in photoshop.

I increasingly find myself hesitating between the black and white and

color versions of my shots, and I am trying to find and view

professional color street photography portfolios on the net.

<p>

I would appreciate any input/advice/suggestion on this matter. Here

are both versions of two of my shots in Istanbul, Turkey. Thank you

very much. Cheers.

<p>

 

<p><img

src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/taner-constan-2-031.jpg"></p>

 

 

<p><img

src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/taner-constan-2-031-bw.jpg"></p>

 

 

<p><img

src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/taner-constan-2-044-bw.jpg"></p>

 

 

<p><img

src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/taner-constan-2-044.jpg"></p>

[onnos photos]

I would def. go with the black and white, BUT! I think you should add some "grain" to the photo's. This is just too clean! I used to think I needed ever sharper photo's until one day I realised I always looked at how the grain looked.. Haven't shot anything but tri-x since, but that's

personal..

 

Try adding some "grain" to them, tell me how you like them then..

Cheers!

 

Onno

[takaaki]

I would think that it depends on the photograph. Dilemma? I thought one of the true beauties of digital is that you can choose between the two -- ah.. the agony of choice.

[rich815]

Yes, add some grain. Those look too digital.

[mendonphoto]

Exactly what Takaaki Okada said. These two photos, in my opinion, look better in color. But, more importantly, do the color versions or the B&W versions better communicate what you want?

[rick_waldroup3]

I like the first one better in color and the last one better in B&W. Why? I don't know- just a gut feeling. I shoot almost exclusively in B&W but that first shot definately looks better in color to me. The color really stands out in the architecture in the first shot.

[mendonphoto]

<p><i>Yes, add some grain. Those look too digital.</i></p>

<p>It's funny how we come to accept whatever is offered, and over time we come to believe that that's they way it should be. Somebody who talked to me recently called it "psychological inertia" and I think that's a good term for it.</p>

[michael s.]

Good photos. Agree that of the versions shown, the first looks better in color, while the second looks better to me (by a little bit) in b & w.

 

By what method are you converting to b & w, by the way? I'm not an expert, but I have seen that different conversion methods can make a big difference in the outcome.

[k2]

i shoot all digital right now, and have no problem with COLORvsBW. i don.t know how well you are acquainted with dtools, PS is a great starter. in my book the beauty of shooting color is that there is so much more recorded R G B, as to BW it offers none. the balance of automatic conversion with dominance of green channel is quite basic and very simplistic, and if you want to explore a bit i would suggest some clever mixing of information between the channels . for example you might like the way black are formulated in red channel but you like green channel grey shades and some unique blue channel areas here and there offers some additional grey mystery. number of possibilities is quite mind boiling, but then it is all about your eye.

as to grain:

if you want to add it, you can shoot your favorite film stock ( shoot black frame & grey scale chart & scan it) , check for grain pattern and balance ( soft, contrast, bright + dark ). in PS you can use your black frame scan ( tweaking ) as a grain filter if you desire.

 

 

k

[eric_perlberg]

This colour vs b/w thing is so personal. Separating what's "better" from what one "prefers" is a difficult question. Seeing virtues in both does not make you a wimp, it says you're sensitive to complex issuess. In fact, you are allowed to keep both solutions.

 

As for the comments about grain, it probably explains why Kodak is going out of the film business. Too much emphasis on slow, grain free films. It sounds like they needed more grain (or probably a goldilocks like "just right" amount of grain as defined by...).

 

Personally, I'd say you're doing just fine and keep taking pics. Answers will reveal themselves through struggle and then change as you reach ever higher plateaus.

[Brad_]

Go easy on the sharpening. The halo you get as a result makes the kid look cut-out on the

first two pix - and as a consequence, less real.

[Alex_Es]

One thing for certain: You are very good with color.

[spanky]

It's a shame you sold your film gear as it seems obvious to me that if someone wants a print to look like it was shot with film, then why not just shoot film and save the digital camera when it doesn't need to look like film. I know a guy who does a lot of photoshop work to make his prints look like b&w film. It takes him longer to make one print this way then it did back in the Stone Ages with his Tri-X and Dektol. Personally, I like having both film and digital cameras as it just gives me more choices in how I'm going to approach a subject. Nice shots BTW.

[Spearhead]

<i>It takes him longer to make one print this way then it did back in the Stone Ages with his Tri-X and Dektol.</i><p>

 

Then he's doing something very wrong. If he has a method of doing it, he should create an action and it's completely automated.<p>

 

I like the color versions of the images above. I'm leaning towards more color these days anyway...

[jenna_g]

I'm shooting mostly digital and I have the same dilemma. On one hand it is nice to have the option of color or B&W on any individual images, but sometimes it is difficult deciding. However once I make my decision I want it to be final. For example I have a few shots in an exhibit now (all color) and I would not want anyone to see a B&W version of the same image. BTW I like the color version of the first shot and the B&W version of the 2nd.

 

I agree with Brad on the over sharpening, a mistake I made my first few months. I have to go back and redo dozens of older images I sharpened for the web that are way over-sharpened for print.

[michael_w.]

Although it sounds simplistic, the best advice I ever received on the subject was to shoot B&W when using color would only distract from the subject. I happen to think that's true of your first shot, but not necessarily for the second. Growing as a photographer is as much about developing your technique as it is developing your eye, as well as your ability to make that judgement call.

[Alex_Es]

A. Taner: A second look. The black and white do not make it. The color shots are brilliant. You are doing what you want to do in color. You are doing what you think you are supposed to do in black and white.

[j.w.]

For me, the second shot works better in B/W because the out-of-focus, background area on the left has bright colors that work against the whole point of a narrow depth of field, which is to draw attention to the primary subject, the boy on the other side of the image.

 

The color shots shouts "brake lights and orange light", distracting me from the boy's face.

 

And I think the first shot would work better in B/W than color, for much the same reason. Sure, the color shot has gorgeous colors, but they, too, distract from the boy. But the B/W version needs better seperation in the mid-tones to realize its potential.

[Barry Thomas]

<p>Jenna said: "<i>I have a few shots in an exhibit now (all color) and I would not want anyone to see a B&W version of the same image.</i>

<P>I think that's the problem and the answer. As soon as you see the shot in both formats you can't easily choose between them. You look at B&W in a different way to colour, seeing them together causes serious indecision and confusion. With me anyway.

<p>Better to just show people the B&W versions, don't tell them how they were shot, just ask people if they like them. That deals with everyone else's confusion, but not your own...

[doris_chan]

"The color shots are brilliant"

 

Alex, are they really "brilliant"? I just see two mundane pictures of a(n admittedly) cute kid

looking directly into the camera. If these are brilliant then what superlatives do we use to

describe the color work of, say, Miguel Rio Branco, Richard Billingham, and Lise Sarfati?

Because I don't post images here myself I normally refrain from commenting on the work

of those who do, but to gush over utterly unremarkable photographs is a pointless

exercise that helps nobody.

[barefoot]

Doris,

<p>

I completely agree. This site is full of sycophants. Nobody seems to resprect true beauty

anymore. Maybe we should try to encourage absolute standards to keep your mind, and

mine, at peace. May I suggest

<blockquote> A photograph may only be deemed beautiful if the image is published by

either phaidon, magnum or harry butt press. Any other forum (i.e poncy cafe's, local art

galleries, web or blog sites) are not suitable and never will be.

</blockquote>

<p>

I admire your aesthetic stance - have you taken it up the jacksy recently?

[aizan_sasayama]

Brilliant is an exaggeration. They're nice enough, and they don't need to be brilliant. Mkay?

 

I think they look more natural in color.

 

Doris, you should post a pic someday. It doesn't need to be a commercial one, if that's

the problem. The mystery is just killing me!

[Uhooru]

LIke 1st in color, 2nd in b&W. The muted orange tones and the setting is why I like the 1st

in color, reminds of a couple of Bravo's.

[doris_chan]

"A photograph may only be deemed beautiful if the image is published by either phaidon,

magnum or harry butt press. Any other forum (i.e poncy cafe's, local art galleries, web or

blog sites) are not suitable and never will be"

 

Stuart, that's really hilarious and effortlessly puts me in my place.

 

If Alex had said that the black and white versions were brilliant I'd have asked what terms

we'd use to describe the better images posted by Edmo, Takaaki, or Ray. As there isn't

much

strong color posted here I used examples of people who I consider to be "brilliant" with

color. This isn't about only respecting images in a Phaidon monograph or those produced

by Magnum photographers, it's about retaining a sense of perspective and reality.

 

"have you taken it up the jacksy recently?'

 

Have you? For the benefit of those who haven't spent much time in the UK, Stuart's asking

me if I've been f@#$ed up the ass recently. What's that about? Homophobia? Misogyny? I've

no idea, but you're clearly a strange, strange guy. A cursory glance through your posts

makes that clear. Rant on big boy.

[barefoot]

Calm down Doris. I was merely suggesting your odd stance on aesthetics was due to a certain

bedroom activity. A stance that you readily admit was open to ridicule.