What makes a good B&W?

[j.kivekas]

I didn't put this question to the B&W-categories because I don't want to propose

this question to the specialists in the ivory tower.<p>

So many seem to say that the digital B&W is nowhere near the film/paper B&W. Why

is it so? I mean e.g. the contrast of a reasonably good monitor is actually

bigger than any of the papers. Besides, you can actually print a digital file

not only with pigments but also directly to photo paper. And yet somehow, I have

to agree. The film/paper print -B&Ws often look better than the digital

conversion - be they on the monitor or on paper.

 

The question is - What makes a good B&W photo?<p>

Personally, in regard with the dynamics black has to look black and white has to

white. The blacker the black the whiter the white the better. Contrast I find a

question of preference. In most cases I like quite steep contrast.<p>

Please, tell me how do you define a good B&W photo/B&W print/B&W conversion?

[brucecahn]

No matter what I say someone will give me an argument, so I will only suggest that one has to make one's own standards as to what constitutes a good print. What I thought was good 40 years ago is very different from what I like now.

[beartooth1]

Well my (lowly) opinion, b&w is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I'm passionate about black and white (landscape mainly) In my office I have 2 Ansel Adams as inspiration. When I convert, print, edit, or whatever I look at those and wonder what he would've done while shooting to achieve such a great picture. This didn't really answer your question, just a thought on the subject.

[seismiccwave]

Personally I like black and white images that has a great range. That is the black is black and

the white is white and more importantly you will find all sorts of grey ranges in the

photograph.

[beartooth1]

Another thought\Question...If someone is willing to purchase your B&W then it must be good...Right?

[d_s31]

I agree with Hansen Tsang. I think it's the dynamic range. The photo I posted looks so much better on Ilford Multigrade IV! Plus I cropped out the vignetting.

[tonmestrom]

What makes a good B&W?

 

it's all of the above and much much more. in fact you know it when you see one. That's the only possible answer because it's apart from all the above also about content.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Good, definitive descriptions are certainly difficult. Dynamic range is certainly one component but smoothness in tonal transition across that dynamic range is also important.

 

One other thing that I have noticed, which probably falls a little under Bruce's comment of changing preferences over time, is that an understanding and appreciation of what is a good B&W image differs between one doing casual conversions versus having a substantial focus on producing B&W images continuously over time.

 

As for a preference for steep contrast. There is nothing wrong with that but this isnt always suitable, nor the only approach, for every B&W photo. There is also a difference between a preference and an acquired appreciation. Film versus digital B&W IS different... if you are serious about B&W photography, even if digital is your preference, you owe it to yourself to spend some time looking at, and analysing "good" traditional B&W prints to really understand what actually made/makes them so good.

 

As dramatic as B&W can be, there are many subtleties to the medium as well and it takes more than a casual dip into doing a few B&Ws to appreciate.

[matt_needham]

"So many seem to say that the digital B&W is nowhere near the film/paper B&W. Why is it so?"

 

It's a combination of romantic notions, and lack of skill in the digital darkroom. Many accomplished, fine art, BW photographers with strong backgrounds in the traditional BW darkroom have made the switch to digital quite successfully. They didn't make the switch because digital was more convenient, as is often suggested, they made the switch because they have found something in digital that they think is better. In my opinion it's the incredible control over processing. That's why I shut down my traditional BW darkroom a few months ago.

 

Besides my own BW darkroom, I worked in a pro lab BW darkroom, and taught BW darkroom classes. I can assure you that there has been plenty of crappy BW from traditional materials and processes. In fact, just like digital, most of it is lacking.

 

When I view the photos of Harry Callahan hanging in a museum I can understand what people mean when they say a gelatin silver print is a unique thing of wonder and beauty. For 90% of the rest of the gelatin silver prints I run across I'm thinking "That really needs to be reprinted."

 

Photographers and viewers can have different tastes as to what they like, but in the end I think it mostly comes down to the photographer's eye for tone and contrast, and their skill set with the materials and processes they are using.

[don_e]

"Please, tell me how do you define a good B&W photo/B&W print/B&W conversion?"

 

Ummm...it's like this. If what you want are b&w photographs, shoot digital. If you want silver gelatin prints shoot film. Whether they are good or not depends on the photographer.

 

I know this is not a satisfying answer, but it makes my point as best I know.

[lex_jenkins]

Many of us simply prefer the process. As with painting, it's not a matter of which is "superior" but which process and medium one prefers.

[gabriel_gutierrez]

I think it boils down to two things...the quality of light portrayed in the photo, and the composition. If only a photographer could master those two things, every photo would be something to behold.

 

I actually give more credit to a good black and white photo than to a good color photo because learning to take good black and white pictures is more of a challenge in my opinion.

[seismiccwave]

>>digital B&W is nowhere near the film/paper B&W. Why is it so? <<

 

With modern day digital cameras and pixel count nearing the size of the silver oxide grain,

there is no reason why a digital B & W cannot rival the film/paper B & W. I believe it is a

matter of trend. The traditional B & W artists remained loyal to the film/paper medium

versus the digital medium. The digital medium catered more to the modern crop of

photographers.

 

>>I actually give more credit to a good black and white photo than to a good color photo

because learning to take good black and white pictures is more of a challenge in my

opinion.<<

 

I beg to differ with this opinion. I personally believe that a good color photo is immensely

more difficult to create than a good B & W photo. They are really two different animal. A

color photo requires the photographer to grasp the difference in color where as the B & W

photo requires a photographer to relate in shades of grey. There are definitely a lot more

variation in color than shades of grey. The shade of grey is a linear transition from black to

white where as the spectrum of color is three dimensional.

 

That said, I believe that one of the appeal of a B & W photo is the beauty of simplicity. I

have seen a very simple photograph recent in "No Word". It is simply an image with black

on one half and white on the other half. It is a very simple image. It is very high contrast.

It is very simple. It is am image. Is it appealing? I don't know. I personally think so but

some one else may not.

 

I always contend that the ultimate image is one that is extremely simple yet elegant. A

simple white dot properly placed in a fully black back ground or a white dot properly

placed in a totally white back ground will be my example. However what should be the

size of the dot? Where is the optimal location of the dot? What message are we trying to

convey? All that will become the burden of the observer and not the artist.

 

So I believe that when we the human learned to manipulate the modern medium in digital

photography we will be creating B & W images that rival or exceed those of the past.

[j.kivekas]

Hey, if you have a good BW submit it here and tell why you think it is good. I'll send a couple here.<p>

The first one I did long before I knew there were several methods converting to digital B&W. I think this is just straight conversion to greyscale and adjustment either with contrast or curves. Somehow I like the outcome although it is a little smudgy in my eyes. It's definitely not a perfect conversion but the outcome appeals to me still.

[j.kivekas]

oh sh.... I missed the button, well, here we go again<div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<P><i>So many seem to say that the digital B&W is nowhere near the film/paper B&W. Why is it so?</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>I thought this would prove true when I decided to take a course in traditional B&W developing and printing.</P>

<P></P>

<P>What I found, at least within the range of films and papers I tried, was that I could match the traditional look exactly with a little work in Photoshop. However, it does take some work. A straight or automatic conversion does not look the same. You also have to have your ink jet setup properly for B&W if you intend to match prints.</P>

<P></P>

<P>I have 3 prints I show to anyone who doubts this. One is a darkroom print, one an ink jet print from a film scan (same frame used in the darkroom), the other a digital conversion (same scene shot at the same time). You can't tell them apart.</P>

<P></P>

<P>Again, I'm still trying films, papers, and techniques. But my guess is that any look is possible digitally, you just have to figure out how to get there.</P>

[j.kivekas]

Then lately I've been admiring the conversions of Nikola Borissov and he actually shed a little light on how he does the converions. I kind try to emulate what he does. Not quite in the same way but basically using the most usable of each channel. Katrin Eismann records quite a few conversions methods in her books.<p>

This one I like for the reasons I like Borissov's works. The skin tones are very clean and yet the overall impression of contrast is very steep. May be the skin tone range is actually shallow and elsewhere it is steep. This is a bit like someone having an absolute ear and he can say: "that's a flat A and that one is CMaj7". Well unfortunately I don't have an absolute eye nor the ear.<div></div>

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Juha,

 

I dont really care for the tonality of you last image - and this is not a personal attack. I find the skin tones to be plastic in appearance and the shadows go to black very quickly. As an example, detail in the hair is almost completely absent.

 

Additionally, digital camera conversions to B&W are certainly better when shot under controlled lighted versus a wider tonal latitude as is typically experienced outside.

[j.kivekas]

Craig, don't ask sorry for your opinion, I can take critique and these photos were examples to courage discussion. The skin tends to come almost too perfect if you put a lot of weight to the red channel. Believe it or not, but there is no conventinal blur on the skin bar the diffused hilites. It's really the red channel that too care of the skin pattern.<p>

I actually made quite a few versions of this photo and I was after the Borissov type bright skin and pulling the dark end dynamics quite to the border. I can quite accept your comments.<p>

Keep on coming those views about what makes a good B&W. We all learn from this.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Just because I felt like it after reading Juha's post, some B&W from film...

<p>

<center>

<img src=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/336156776_baf4c84627_b.jpg>

<p>

<img src=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/124/400511728_9c2f72d630_b.jpg>

<p>

<img src=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2153/2237989043_3eaa4cfe50_b.jpg>

</center>

[aplumpton]

The problem with digital B&W is the printing device. You have to have a master's

degree in information science, the resources of a Rockefeller (printer for large sizes,

software, software retrofits, inks, etc., etc.), the patience of a Mom or a monk, and

the best digital papers to get the printers to deliver something that equals a well

processed traditional chemistry B&W print.

 

I'll change to digital production when it doesn't require all of those. By

comparison, traditional processing is so easy and satisfying (once you are fairly high

up on the learning curve, which, incidentally, is a lot less steep that the digital one).

[Brad_]

>>> What makes a good B&W?

 

That's subjective - there is no one rule. It's very

subject/aesthetic/interpretation/photographer driven - a choice.

 

Safe to say that almost any sort of aesthetic interpretation is easily had with today's inks and

papers - much more so that wet prints.

[iqbal]

The question is important & well addressed by others. I just wanted to thank Juha for providing us "straight conversion." I love it because of lighting and contrast & specially when it was digitalised without much fan & fare. Also like to thank Craig for his three sumbmissions. I would appreciate knowing the film, the scanner and some of the techniques used. They are impressive.

[j.kivekas]

Craig, those photos look super in my eyes! The black is black, white is white and the mid tones are not smudgy. Still, in this form here at PN they are digital files even though they are originally form film. Proves that a very high quality is possible in digitally saved format. But could it mean that the problem is the sensor compared to film .....

[cmulcahy]

Here is one of my favorite b&w's that I have done using digital.

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6941190-lg.jpg

 

I have to admit I've had better luck using film when doing b&w then with digital. Granted I'm just now learning digital so I'm worthless when it comes to post processing on digital. I'm still struggling to achieve what I want using digital b&w. I'm learning though and having fun doing it.