The Wonderful World of Color

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>" . . . the method of applying color upon color [in painting] to arrive at my destination is not one I can easily equate to capture and post process of a photo. <strong>--Josh</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny you should say that. I was thinking about that process and how sensual and textural it must be, the actual feel of the brush applying the layers of paint, the actual feel of the layers of the paint. The way I would equate it with my color work so far in photography is that I do work in layers. I'd have a harder time describing a layering aspect to my shooting (though awareness of translucence comes to mind, which allows colors to layer themselves, as does the awareness of the overlap of colors that various lighting sources can provide, especially as they cast shadows that blend), but the post-processing layering aspects seem there. The literal use of software layers to adjust color temperature, channels, saturations, tonalities, color balance. When I transpose those layers and get different effects, make slight changes which affect the other layers, that feels like a real building process to me.</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I can use that to my advantage or just go with it or fight it to challenge the status quo..." <strong>--Josh</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems to suggest a creative openness to what you're doing. I'm reminded of Julie's brain dump way back as well as some of the other qualities that were being suggested as pertaining to b/w and color, respectively. My reaction was to wonder whether that would matter. How would qualities being unique to or even innate to color or b/w affect me? Were science to determine (prove) that color was more carnal than black and white, I might as likely challenge myself to make carnal black and whites as to go with the flow of what's inherent in color.</p>

<p>Josh, I appreciate that you brought the differences in which you approach each medium to bear (your relationship to each). If the artist is the one who creates, it sure seems like the medium offers the power of suggestion.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>In simplest terms the color of the walls in a room play a significant part in my emotional response to it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's a good example. True. But there can be a point I guess where the response <em>to the room</em> ( the colors of the walls ) is no longer applicable for guiding the very experience in that room. I'm thinking about color much like time here ( not as a rule per se ), but that it's somehow relative and in essence non-existent as an entity.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"Where is the spit and the sweat in Plato?" <strong>--Julie</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find it in his characterization and use of Socrates and the Socratic method.</p>

<p>The spit is in his tendency toward downright nastiness, his ability to outwit, to predict where those he is questioning will go and cut them off at the pass. Spit and polish could almost describe Socrates's slow and steady march toward enlightenment, slowly wiping away preconceptions rather than asserting truths.</p>

<p>The sweat is his being, self-admittedly, the philosopher mid-wife. He works up the sweat with patience and with pressure. I sweat out his lengthy arguments.</p>

<p>Socrates got around more than many philosophers that succeeded him.</p>

<p><em>[*smilingly, with a little tongue in cheek*]</em></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Having said all this I strongly suspect that a very large section of society pray for the return of artworks that show evidence of their making or have a greater craft component to them." <strong>(Clive)</strong></p>

<p>That is what is the lifeblood of B&W traditional darkrom photography. Unlike most colour wet darkroom work, it let the photographer CRAFT his image in the darkroom. I still do that, and I know that many also enjoy that craft, and my clients and theirs appreciate what goes into making a unique photograph and print. I spend quite often two or three hours to get the print that mirrors my approach or subject perception. Photoshop and other image crafting tools can accomplish almost the same thing, when used with an artistic approach in mind. </p>

<p>That has been a liberation for the serious colour photographer. It is not an easy craft, just as wet darkroom black and white is not as well. A well crafted and printed image can require hours of effort.</p>

<p>I know where you are coming from, Clive, in regard to conceived and then manufactured sculptures. I had a challenge a few years ago to realise a sculpture for a heritage park, that would symbolise the arrival of Europeans to our area, their arduous creation of a North American non-aboriginal society, and their dissemination of descendants throughout the continent. I worked four weeks on the development of the concept, to research history, culture, materials and possibilities, and I did several test sculptures at smaller scale. My final concept had more to do with me than with the prior research, perhaps, but the prior research had to be done. Unfortunately, the rather imposing sculpture made up of different abstract elements (12 feet high by 20 feet length by 6 feet wide) required techniques of metalworking that I did not fully possess, so I priced it out with a subcontractor. Fortunately for me, I came only second in the competition, as I would have suffered a financial loss. But it pains me a bit that I couldn't realise it, nonetheless.</p>

<p>Was there a craft component in my work? Yes, a small part in realising the small scale models, but there was a large part that I would not have performed. One problem with much photography (and some would not think so) is that the hands-on craft part is often sub-contracted to others. The photographer in that case is missing an essential part of the artistic approach and realisation. </p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, Clive-</p>

<p>I encourage you to do your self portraits, by whatever technique you choose. It works quite well, once you reject what you think you should appear like and probe a bit deeper. I have learned a bit of myself in doing that, although what I have learned is susceptible to change. Although not the main thrust, I also did split photographs of my face. Amazing how the two sides, whatever the expression, are different. Putting a right side view as also the left side reveals something that the overall view doesn't. </p>

[inoneeye]

<p>"But there can be a point I guess where the response <em>to the room</em> ( the colors of the walls ) is no longer applicable for guiding the very experience in that room."Phylo</p>

<p>Phylo, we differ here, ... I think? The color of a room remains a guiding part of the experience for me. Then when I think of color as a dressing or decor (as time passes?) I don't feel it so much of as a separate entity. Less of a lasting influence...? but I don't know if I can remove the established influence or if it is now so much part of the equation that it cannot be now non-existent. You gave me some food for thought with that.<br /> Maybe I am hyper sensitized to non neutral decor and clothing and the dressings of a scene when I am in a creative way. For work and photography. I was one who said that there are times I find color a distraction, especially at the front end of the process. But as I stated before I mostly choose to start in neutral to create, not so as viewer tho.</p>

<p>The mirror (reversed image) plays a dominate role in how we percieve our physical self. It is fascinating to compare to how it differs from how others encounter us. In the mirror view our right side is on our right side, to others our left side is on their right side, and in the photograph. The photograph seem so challenging to our self perceptions (aside from 'I look good / horrible') To pick up on Arthur's last comment. When you flip the negative the response is often more extreme. The facial asymmetry that some of us suffer from becomes more apparent, foreign.<br /> I once came across a bw self portrait in some old work. I could not remember taking it, which was odd because I rarely come across an unfamiliar photo of my own. It was upside down when I saw it and when I turned it upright it turned out to be my girlfriend. To her benefit I never saw any similarities in our face before or after. It would not have happened in color. It couldn't, I am a redhead, she a brunette.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>LOL. I think i should stick to expressing myself in other mediums ... not writing - another long learning curve to take on. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>The color of a room remains a guiding part of the experience for me. Then when I think of color as a dressing or decor (as time passes?) I don't feel it so much of as a separate entity. Less of a lasting influence...? but I don't know if I can remove the established influence or if it is now so much part of the equation that it cannot be now non-existent. Josh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. I had to photograph a house once of which the occupant ( who happened to be a painter ) was an obvious fan of <a href="http://www.eveliennijeboer.nl/a-mondriaan4.jpg">Mondriaan</a> : yellow bathroom, yellow staircase, blue and red furniture. I found those primary interior colors to be a playful distraction of my experience in the house while taking pictures of the rooms. There definitely was <em>something going on there, </em>which was directly apparent upon entering the house and<em> </em>for me felt more like a reaction added to my already floating / "neutral" impressions that day. Paradoxically the colors ( which were of course only one aspect in a larger whole of interior design ) felt too conscious an effort to be of an intuitionally felt entity of lasting experience guiding further and lasting impressions, if that makes sense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"LOL. I think i should stick to expressing myself in other mediums ... not writing - another long learning curve to take on."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>? Not at all, or, count me in also. Putting C in front of B to see what A does as a concept is much more interesting than A-B-C, see ?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Black and white, line and form do not exist "out there."<br>

Color does.<br>

　<br>

Line and form, the substance of which black and white images are made are the structure of <em>your</em> perception. Move an inch this way or that and the line and form that you had seen no longer happens. To repeat, line and form are the structure or a construction of/by <em>your</em> perception. Line and form are consequences of your perception. <em>They do not exist outside of your individual perception</em>.<br>

　<br>

Color does. A particular wavelength of light is being reflected or emitted from that given location. Move an inch or a foot or a mile, and that particular wavelength of light will still be being emitted from that given location (unless the sun goes down or a squirrel gets into the transformer).<br>

　<br>

Stories are made from (causal) line and form. They too are not "out there." They are your or my or someone's found structure.<br>

　<br>

The trajectory of the "out there" into form and line and further, into ever more condensed or summarized or powerful stories/structures might be like this (from bottom to top; it's upside-down):<br>

stuff happening<br>

people ("witnesses") talking to each other<br>

news coverage<br>

op/eds<br>

history<br>

stories, novels, movies<br>

poetry<br>

　<br>

Good poetry is more powerful, but it is, necessarily more interpretive than news coverage. Summaries are interpretations. They don't move away from (our perception of ) the "out there" (to the contrary) but they do move to "a" found structure <em>in</em> it.<br>

　<br>

Black and white pictures are a move up that ladder of formfulness. It's moving toward more condensation, more summarized, more condensed but not at the expense of message; rather by the addition or finding of more structure -- in the way that the best stories or further, the best poetry is more intense by being more exactly formed.</p>

<p>[<em>One of the very few things more ridiculous than a person taking a brain dump in a public forum would have to be someone quoting Emily Dickinson poetry in a photography forum. Well, Fred did color commentating (CNN? Fox?) on Socrates (in a magnificent plaid suit): I would not want to be outdone ...</em> ]</p>

<p>Look at the first two verses of Dickinson's poem, <em>There's a certain Slant of Light</em>:<br>

　<br>

There's a certain Slant of light,<br>

Winter Afternoons --<br>

That oppresses, like the Heft<br>

Of Cathedral Tunes --<br>

　<br>

　<br>

Heavenly Hurt, it gives us --<br>

We can find no scar,<br>

But internal difference,<br>

Where the Meanings, are --<br>

　<br>

There is no color in those verses, but there is huge structure and form; meaning. Now, look at this bit from <em>I heard a Fly buzz -- when I died</em>. Notice how your attention jumps and changes when she mentions a color -- and a fly which I will claim is a "colorful" creature:<br>

　<br>

　<br>

I willed my Keepsakes -- Signed away<br>

What portion of me be<br>

Assignable -- and then it was<br>

There interposed a Fly --<br>

　<br>

　<br>

With Blue -- uncertain stumbling Buzz --<br>

Between the light -- and me --<br>

And then the Windows failed -- and then<br>

I could not see to see --<br>

　<br>

I think that we have to be taught to find line and form in the visual. Look at how children make pictures; big blobs of color with little regard for outline. Line and form comes later. I think one of the most amazing things about the Lascaux cave paintings is their searching for, beginning to discover, bits of of line and form. Finding. Form and line are <em>found</em>. Color is <em>there</em>. Using color roots, proves, connects; it's evidence, it's universally recognizable because it's not (personally) constructed. It (color) is valuable and useful and desirable for those reasons. It's also <em>different</em> from black and white for those reasons.<br>

　</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>About the Lascaux cave paintings, I posted a cool link of a virtual visit to the lascaux caves in the Minor White/ Langer thread, if you haven't clicked on it already., it's well worth checking out, very detailed. ( beware if you run on an older system though, might run slow, don't know ).</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 15, 2010; 04:47 p.m.</em><br>

<em><strong>Bill</strong>, good points both about prelims and about clients. Prelims are especially intriguing because, often they weren't meant for public consumption but, perhaps because of that level of "privacy," they often seem to offer us an intimate view, real or perceived. At the Kandinsky exhibit I just saw, I think I recall most of the preliminary sketches being in color.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, it's so true about prelims. They offer a unique look into the thoughts of the artist while making choices. Very intimate stuff.<br>

These days it's easy do do prelims in color, centuries ago you couldn't just wander down to the art supply house and pick up a pack of colored pastels....</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 15, 2010; 02:22 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Yes I know, hard to follow up on.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's your point ?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Huh ?</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 16, 2010; 08:01 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Huh ?</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Your original response to my post was.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 15, 2010; 01:40 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"There's a nice subject, let me photograph it. How it will be rendered is the film manufacturer's headache."</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>If it was just that easy...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you haven't said anything constructive since then. So what's your point?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3885114"><em>Julie Heyward</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 16, 2010; 07:08 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Black and white, line and form do not exist "out there."<br />Color does.<br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're kidding, right?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

 

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a rel="nofollow" href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 15, 2010; 02:10 p.m.</em><br /><em>A musician can render a piece of music from a sheet of paper, a photographer can render an object or subject from a "piece of everything". It's not only the instrument or medium that makes the rendering, is it. If it was just that easy...</em></p>

<p>Bill P.<br>

Huh?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And you haven't said anything constructive since then. So what's your point?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If you actually wanted a conversation that gravitates towards the constructive both ways, surely you could have given me a better response than "<em>Huh?", </em>huh ? A response for example that would have invited me to further explain myself constructively. We give for everything we're getting, so maybe <em>that's</em> the point.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Julie, a few questions and observations...</p>

<p>If line and form aren't "there", then how can a blind person detect them by feel?</p>

<p>Color for us is not wavelength, it's what the brain interprets from the trichromatic detection system in the retina, which, btw, has been found to differ in individuals by as much as 40X (!), while the interpretation of color is far more consistent. Color is in the brain.</p>

<p> Trichromatic color is now thought to have evolved so we could see each other blush (which has survival value).</p>

<p> Color also devolved back into dichromat vision in New World monkeys.</p>

<p> Many animals have far better abilities to detect color than humans do, including tetrachromacy, UV sensitivity, and perhaps even pentachromacy. We are hardly the pinnacle in evolution in terms of sensitivity to color.</p>

<p> Boomeranging back to photography, one of the most interesting theories of color perception came from the inimitable Dr. Land: Retinex theory. It also shows just how much color is in the brain, as this demonstration shows:</p>

<p>http://people.msoe.edu/~taylor/eisl/land.htm</p>

<p>_________________________</p>

<p><strong>Clive typed: "</strong> Fred: You are very good at this because you have considerable skill in persisting with a question and drawing out nuances within a topic..."</p>

<p> That's what a picador does to the bull, he extracts the best performance from it.</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<p> Last night I was at the opening of a gallery owned by an acquaintance. I went with a master photographer and custom printer, and we looked at two abstract paintings by the same artist. He remarked on how muddy the colors looked, and I said that she must have painted them in fluorescent lighting and the tungsten lighting was killing those subtle blue-greens. He was skeptical, and bet me a beer on it. The artist was there, I sought her out, talked her into walking over, and I asked her if she had painted this under FL lighting. "Yes, but how did you know?". I got my beer, and spent some time talking about color and thinking about this discussion.</p>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 16, 2010; 08:41 a.m.</em><br>

<em>If you actually wanted a conversation that gravitates towards the constructive both ways, surely you could have given me a better response than "Huh?", </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phylo, your original response was....</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If it was just that easy...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if you really wanted a dialogue you would have come up with something a bit more constructive than that. So enjoy your game, play it with yourself.</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Yes Bill, that was my original response, which I then explained further in my next response to you, after you asked me for some further explaining : " <em>A musician can render a piece of music from a sheet of paper, a photographer can render an object or subject from a "piece of everything". It's not only the instrument or medium that makes the rendering, is it. If it was just that easy..."</em></p>

<p>Your response to that was <strong>Huh? </strong>and I guess that's where the conversation ended for me also instead of going a bit further, constructively.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>All throughout the last bit of the thread (I refrained from responding quite a bit since my background in artists and they way they employed their skills and crafts is quite marginal), I've just been thinking about Mondriaan. Which is a good thing, cause it made me read up on his work and other artists of De Stijl.<br>

I only learned to appreciate his work after I've been more actively and thoughtfully working on making photos. Because colour does matter, even when we employ black and white.<br>

Josh remarked "<em>But I think of color as an integral part of my response</em>.", and I tend to agree strongly with that. I sense Julie's remark that colour does exist out there points in the same direction (although I would argue shapes do exist, and more than meaning and found, but that aside for now).<br>

It's not only because of the experience as such, but also because of a very strong point made by Luis G (and somehow a bit ignored afterwards): colour, and the use of specific colours, have strong cultural ties and hence a possible effect on people with that specific cultural background.<br>

Colours are another tool in the big toolbox, which can be used to great effect, or which can be left out when it won't add. To me, colour and black and white simply are not two different media. Maybe even painting is not a different medium either... We choose a way to convey and present our vision, using skills we have (or think we have) and because some way of presenting embeds our vision better than others.<br>

Personally, B/W or colour is a after-the-act decision, possibly because I never worked much with film at all, although quite immediately after seeing a photo properly, I know whether B&W or colour is the right choice to present what I want to present. So, my seemingly favourite saying again: horses for courses. It's not either/or, but and/and. The intent dictates what's applicable.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561"><em>Wouter Willemse</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 16, 2010; 09:47 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Personally, B/W or colour is a after-the-act decision, possibly because I never worked much with film at all, although quite immediately after seeing a photo properly, I know whether B&W or colour is the right choice to present what I want to present. So, my seemingly favourite saying again: horses for courses. It's not either/or, but and/and. The intent dictates what's applicable.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, try making the B/W / Color choice before you drop the shutter release.<br>

Try planning the shot beforehand, and see how it affects your artistic process.<br>

In motion picture, that decision is made befroe the first frame is exposed, as part of the production design process.<br>

That way you don't expose two thouisand frames before you realize that you've selected the wrong stock. <br>

A far as "Horses for courses", it's a lot easier to arrive at the track with the proper racecar, rather than arrive with three cars, then deciding which one to run.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Personally, B/W or colour is a after-the-act decision, possibly because I never worked much with film at all". </p>

<p>Wouter, the non-familiarity with B&W film may be a "handicap" in that sense, but I don't think it need be. I have found that, whether shooting digital, colour or black and white film, the advantages of B&W media for an application are most beneficial if considered at the outset. Thinking B&W during visualisation has a lot to do with the way we see colours and the other compositional elements (point, line, form, texture) and allows us to decide whether the image we perceive (not necessarily a more "realistic" reproduction) will work better for us in colour or in black and white. Doing that afterwards is obviously not the same thing, and while it may occasionally be rewarding, it does not engage the photographer in the act of B&W image creation (Including the issue of not seeing colours as such, the translation of colours into greyscale tones, and the lens filtration or other methods to alter the response of colours when transposed to B&W, the seeking of compositions that work better in B&W, or in colour if that is the intent, the specific quality of light in B&W compared to its effect in colour, and so on).</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Bill, Arthur, for ages now I am contemplating to get a film camera, just for B&W film, so yes, I am aware that I may be somewhat "retarded" in that area. Yet.... I think the difference should not be overstated and seen as too different. No matter at which point of the creative process you decide it should be colour or black or white, it is a decision of presenting a vision. It is part of the intent, and as such a tool.</p>

<p>Bill, as for try to plan the shot more ahead, I am getting there. Still in a learning phase (well, in the earlier stages, I hope to never stop learning), but yes, I am taking more and more photos intenionally as B&W (still have to convert them afterwards being a digital boy). But having the freedom to go both ways is rather nice too; one of digitals small advantages possibly. Sometimes, both work.<br>

Arthur, I do not nullify the inherent extra qualities that B&W can have, and I noted earlier in another post that B&W photos, in my view, do need stronger compositional elements to really work. But somehow I feel you explanation of when to use what underlines both being a tool in bringing across a message, and that was my point. The choice for colour or B&W is a creative choice, fitting in our own view and intent.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5189561"><em>Wouter Willemse</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 16, 2010; 10:21 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Still in a learning phase (well, in the earlier stages, I hope to never stop learning)....</em></p>

 

 

 

<p><em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, we're all still learning.</p>

<p>I met someone once who said that they knew photography. I just walked away, quietly. It's not good to agitate those people.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Wouter, it is best to decide whether an pic will be B&W or color before releasing the shutter. One thing I do when working on the tripod is to go into B&W mode to compose, then without touching that, switch back to color raw to make the exposure.</p>