tom h. Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 I'm not talking about commercial work here, as that's the clients dime and they can have it with stripes on, if they like. I mean is it ethical in ones own work to strip it of color in the interest of a stronger image? Shouldn't what film you have in the camera dictate how you "look" at a scene? To my mind it seems no different than tinting B+W photos with oils(I've never seen one I liked). It strikes me that that in the photographic(or any creative) process from VF to print, that the less parameters you allow yourself, then the more "pure" the outcome. Any thoughts? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 I think that all too often people make an image and then decide that it fails as a color photograph and then try to resurrect it as a BW. It's my feeling that this rarely works. BW may seem "more artsy" but unless a photograph is concieved of from start to finish as a BW image it probably won't have the special quality that good BW images (in a age of color photography) have. This doesn't mean that a photographer can't choose to have color film in the camera for flexibility sake. You might, for example, "see" a scene in BW, record it on color film and then PS it to achieve the look you pre-visualized. Later the same photographer may see and choose to record another scene in color. Personally, I think is harder to make a truly outstanding color photograph than a BW one. I also find it impossible (again personally) to think in color and BW at the same time. For example, if I were to go out with one camera loaded with color film and another with BW film, I'd end up using just one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 What matters is the end result. Do you have something in your hand (or on your screen) that pleases you? In other words, in photography, unlike politics, the ends justify the means. I took this rather ordinary shot of a cat with a Summicron on CN film. The Summicron flared appallingly and the colour was horrid so I desaturated it and trimmed off the worst bits. I like the result. To me, that's the important thing.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Good question, Tom. Actually, I've been experimenting with desaturating color slide film. Usually, I shoot black and white, but lately I've shot some E100 SW to capture colorful scenes. If that's what I have in the camera at the moment, that's what everything gets taken with. So, some pics that I would normally shoot in black and white, I now have on color slide film. Actually, in some instances, I like the look. The tone, in some pics appears very creamy and, of course, the grain is practically non-existent. I can't stand images where something unnatural has been ADDED, such as unusual colors. There are two basic types of film, color and black & white. When you look through the viewfinder, though, everything is in color. So, in my opinion, converting a color image to black & white is not an unnatural progression, so long as the reality of the scene is preserved. It's what you do every time you shoot black & white film. For me, I think I'll stick to black & white film because I understand it and can control it better. However, when a situation arises where I've taken an image on color slide film that is better suited for black & white rendition, I wouldn't hesitate to desaturate it. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henk Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 I prefer colors the way they are in reality, so desaturation of most films is allmost obligatory. I do this for a couple of years now and im getting closer and closer to actual B&W. The 'purest' outcome -to me- is the exact approximation of the actual colors (and lighting for that matter) as they are when taking the picture. However since color film does not approximate 'real' color i consider any changes in color saturation not really 'cheating'. Heses an example of desaturating to the point where color and B&W differences dissapear. <center> <img border=2 src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1497936&size=lg"> </center> Greetings, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 The real world is in color. We only see in color. If altering that either in your head while shooting B&W film, or on a computer screen, is cheating...then any B&W image is cheating. Even if you are a master of filtering B&W film to achieve a previsualized final print, the same can be done by learning how to use PhotoShop controls and channels. So all you are doing when shooting color, is transfering a scene to the screen to do the same thing. The real difference is in the characteristics of B&W films compared to those color film...and the ability to manipulate those characteristics during development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Henk, I think this is a very interesting sort of exploration -- to decrease (without eliminating) the saturation instead of going the otherway round. I'm not sure I agree with you can the world is less saturated than (most) films make it out to be, but I do think that selecting desaturation on some images might lead to something special. BTW, recently I experimented in the totally opposite direction by "hyper-satuating" an image. Here are a couple experimental results.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Here's another.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kajabbi Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Donald, I really like your second image of "Hyper-saturation. The first one would, IMO be much improved, by making the hands folded behind the back, the same color as the other hands in the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Ned, you know, I hadn't even noticed this! And I think I agree with you. BTW, the only thing I did was bump up the saturation and let the colors fall where they may. The two sets of hands are different color because in the original the upper pair of hands was lit by off camera flash while the others were (apparently) not. The flash-lit pair of hands, being whiter, stayed more the same. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure I like this effect -- I tend to be more of a documentarian -- but it was late at night and I was all alone with Photoshop... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henk Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Marc said: "The real difference is in the characteristics of B&W films compared to those color film...and the ability to manipulate those characteristics during development." Since i ruled out using slidefilm(doesnt work/look the same as negative film) i tried to increase the contrast of color negative film. The processing, equipment choise and exposure all add up to the degree of desaturation and contrast one can get out of color negs. I still need to adjust the desaturation level in the end-processing though. Contrast is critical, it needs to be the equivalent of B&W. Using PS or printing to increase contrast does not work/look the same IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 from a slightly different angle.....I have shot BW in the digicam rather than colour and have been criticised for that and have read others state it is not the way to do it. Even have bumped up the ISO intentionally to make the image the way I want it to look with more grain to it....for my twisted mind, the way you want to work/play the camera and darkroom wet or electronic is what ever you want to do. Nice cat shot.....looks like the one I serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 ...leave anybody out, Peter? ;>)) Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henk Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Peter, You forgot a mayor group, the web nerds..... ;)P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Speaking of digital cameras, some (like my CoolPix 5000) allow you to create a set of "user settings" so that you are, in effect, shooting black and white film AND viewing the scene IN THE CAMERA in black and white (I never use those horrid little viewfinders but compose directly on the rear LCD using a loupe). It is very odd to be able to actually see the world in BW at the moment you make the exposure. Of course the photographer still has to make the creative leap between the way colors are rendered in BW on the LCD and how s/he may want them to be in the final photo -- but it's a novel experience for any old hand at BW photography. BTW, Fred Miranda sells a set of PS actions that he claims is able to reproduce the feel of all of the classic BW films, e.g. Tri-X, T-Max. Is this a lesser form of cheating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henk Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 "BTW, Fred Miranda sells a set of PS actions that he claims is able to reproduce the feel of all of the classic BW films, e.g. Tri-X, T-Max. Is this a lesser form of cheating?" Ehm, clever, i guess the same goes for color film that is 'misused' to look as B&W. Both ways the medium differs. However i dont think the digital imaging 'feel' can come close to anologue grain yet. O wait... in case of digital grain you have to actually 'make' it, and not 'misuse' something that allready is present. Hmmmm... Yes, i guess when actually 'creating' something that isnt there it is cheating.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Ethics? Purity? Preservation of reality? Huh?<P> Isn't loading your camera with B&W film cheating right from the beginning? Hardly realistic, unless you are color blind. Present your medical certificate to the man behind the counter next time you buy a roll of tri-x...<P> <P> <center> <IMG SRC="http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/SF2-9-03/image/friend s.jpg"> </center> www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 According to Steve McCurry: "A good color picture should also work as a black-and-white picture. A good color picture should be as graphic and have a sense of design the same way as a black-and-white picture." So perhaps if our colour photographs don't survive desaturation then they sucked all along :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 <I>Shouldn't what film you have in the camera dictate how you "look" at a scene? </i><P>Unless it is B&W film in your camera, no it shouldn't. "Dictating" how you want the final image to look is the job of the creative imagination whether it is pre-visualization or post visualization or a mixture of the two.<P>Forthe record I much prefer the color > black & white conversion Photoshop "filters" in the <a href = http://www.pixelgenius.com>PhotoKit from Pixel Genius</a>. I not only prefer their look, I prefer the way they work and the near infinite level of control that is possible. I also have the Fred Miranda color to B&W actions as well. <P> Film emulsions and digital media are machines and are you willingly happy to enslave yourself to machines in the name of "purity"? To talk about "purity" in any artistic medium, but especially photography, is frankly, nonsense, and rightfully belongs on the scrapheap of ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikal_grass Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Dodging, burning, pushing or pulling film, cropping, etc.etc.etc., are all of these cheating? Man, who has time to think about all of this when there are so many great photos to take? If I wasn't at work trying not to work I wouldn't be thinking about this stuff; I would be out taking pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henk Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 "To talk about "purity" in any artistic medium, but especially photography, is frankly, nonsense, and rightfully belongs on the scrapheap of ideology." Why do you think that? As far as i know criss-cross medium usage has ALWAYS been a pretty 'charged' discussion point in art and especially photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Is using AE cheating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Richard, I like and basically agree with the quote by Steve McCurry: "A good color picture should also work as a black-and-white picture. A good color picture should be as graphic and have a sense of design the same way as a black-and-white picture." The way I interpret this, however, is that the "good" black and white photo that is "left over" after desaturation is like the skeletal structure underlying a great color photograph. It is, however, unlikely to be a really great BW image. In other words, a great (not just good) color photograph needs ALL THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY of a BW imagine PLUS a fine understanding of how color will affect/alter/influence form and composition. Note: I certainly don't want to be claiming that color is better than BW. There is a lot of really really bad color photography out there -- and I have to admit that I'm responsible for some of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henk Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Great, this discussion has hit rock bottom..... *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henk Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Not referring to you Donald, sry about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now