Are you Black & White or Color photographer?

[jtk]

<p><em>"I think some people use b&w because..."</em> ... Simon C.</p>

<p>I don't care <em>why</em> anybody else opts for color or B&W. They make their own decisions and that's enough. If the work is commercial the reasoning may be related to sales. Nostalgic work is no more likely to be B&W than color.</p>

<p>Digital technology makes fine B&W and color, including print making, so easy that I assume the images are what the photographer wants. </p>

<p>If image (print or online) doesn't ring my bell, I attribute that to myself or the photographer, not to the B&W/color decision. It always does represent the photographer, which is the reason I print my own. </p>

 

[the celt 2]

<p>I've always preferred B&W. To me, simple is better, and I think (in some cases) color distracts from composition. Just my opinion. Also, I like the fact that I have complete control over all aspects of processing, and printing.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I like B&W film as I really enjoy the whole process. I can get good B&W results with digital, but it feels like cheating a bit. I view shooting B&W film with antique cameras in about the same light as building a model ship in a bottle. Neither are amazingly practical, but it is fun and the results can be very nice. </p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Before the digital evolution I shot alot of B&W. As someone else has pointed out . . . with film, once you load the B&W roll, you are pretty much obligated!<br>

Back when I shot film with the Canon FD stuff, I always kept one body loaded with B&W and the other with Color film, and sometimes the 3rd body with Kodachrome or Ektachrome.<br>

I often shoot Historical places or Civil War Re-enactments, much in B&W.<br>

When I get the urge to shoot film . . . I still like B&W!</p>

[sd_woods]

<p>I get away with heavy grain and a complete inability to respect colour schemes when I shoot in black and white. So I do, almost exclusively.</p>

[riz]

<p>Thank you all for great comments. Its always better to have opinion, ideas, and suggestions from this community.</p>

<p>I read that the most appropriate way to B&W a photograph is to shoot in the color mode and then B&W it in Photoshop. Based on this, I don't know whether it is the right thread to discuss on the best-practices of converting color photograph into black and white.</p>

[riz]

<p><em>... and when I write color, I equally mean colour.</em></p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"I read that the most appropriate way to B&W a photograph is to shoot in the color mode and then B&W it in Photoshop. Based on this, I don't know whether it is the right thread to discuss on the best-practices of converting color photograph into black and white."</em><br>

If you photograph "in color mode" it may mean you're photographing in JPG. Every adjustment in post-processing degrades a JPG file. It's better, if you're after best results, to photograph in raw (which is a special sort of color mode). Adjustments won't degrade it. </p>

[riz]

<p>Yes John do I shoot in RAW, but in color mode/setting.<br _mce_bogus="1"></p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>If you shoot in color and do the conversion yourself in post, you have much more control over the final image because you can choose which color channel to use. Different scenes will look different depending on which color channel you use because of the different colors in the scene. If you use the in camera conversion, the camera chooses this for you.</p>

[keith selmes]

<p>I see people are discussing how much of b&w or colour they do, and why.</p>

<p>Truth is I do mostly colour because thats what my digicams do.<br>

Then I convert some to B&W because they work better that way.</p>

<p>But I do film in B&W because its easier to process, and I currently print blue because<br>

I don't have a darkroom<br>

Printing Out Paper is no longer available<br>

Cyanotype paper is available and inexpensive<br>

I haven't learned platinum printing yet</p>

<p>Mostly practical choices more than aesthetic</p>

 

[steve_levine]

<p>I've always considered most color photography to be ugly, garish.</p>

<p>I was raised on 100' rolls of Tri - X, and gallon bags of D76. Somehow everything looks <em>artsy</em> in B&W.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>both</p>

[leighb]

<p>Over 90% B&W spanning 55+ years of work.</p>

<p>Balance was Kodachrome.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[riz]

<p>Great Leigh. May God gives you long and healthy life.....Happy clicking..... :)</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

How many would like to use B&W TV?

[jpo3136b]

<p>I prefer black and white; but color works well for some subjects. Take food photography, for instance. A common snapshot of food in black and white can easily end up looking downright gross.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>100% color, because I studied studio art in college (heavy on color) and then I grew up shooting Kodachrome 25 and 64. When people ask me what kind of a photographer I am, I always tell them "I'm a photographer of shapes and patterns, both natural and manmade, but always in color". I have zero interest in B/W photography personally, though I do admire people who do it well and some of the best photos ever made, IMHO, are B/W.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>both, just depends on whether the color is dominant or the mood is dominant in a scene.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I like GOOD b/w photography, but too many people think that making a photo b/w instantly turns it into fine art, and that just isn't the case. </p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>Color.</p>

<p>For my commercial work (Aerial and architectural photography) there isn't much call for B&W, and when there is I shoot in color and desaturate it in post.</p>

<p>In my personal work color is often the primary subject of my pictures, the object reflecting the color is less important.</p><div></div>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Rizwan, you wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I read that the most appropriate way to B&W a photograph is to shoot in the color mode and then B&W it in Photoshop. Based on this, I don't know whether it is the right thread to discuss on the best-practices of converting color photograph into black and white.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it's your thread! ;-) I'm back home from my (almost 4 mo long) trip now, so I can write you a short response.</p>

<p>As others have said, if you let the camera do the B&W conversion, you've given up some important control. Fortunately you already shoot in RAW, so you've given up nothing. Even if you have a monochrome picture setting, RAW gives you the capability to do whatever you want with the image. This is good, because the best monochrome conversions are done very judiciously in postprocessing by someone who knows what he or she wants in the final image.</p>

<p>A monochrome conversion can be done in many ways: carrying out the canned grayscale conversion, picking out the luminance channel, picking out a single color channel, using the "color mixer" function to do the conversion, and so forth. (The "so forth" can get rather involved.)</p>

<p>If you're accustomed to thinking about colored filters (e.g. a red filter) to do black and white film photography, you can do the same sort of thing by either picking out the appropriate color channel or (better) using the color mixer to achieve the appropriate mix. However, you can get quite a bit fancier than that. For instance, if you want to darken certain hues, you can blend in negative values for certain color channels. You can't go overboard with this sort of manipulation, but it is very effective when done in small measure.</p>

<p>Getting fancier still, you can manipulate the colors of your image prior to monochrome conversion to "pitch" hues where you want them (to be emphasized or de-emphasized). You can do this by applying contrast curves to the individual color channels. You can also expand or condense certain parts of the hue scale by breaking out hue, saturation and lightness channels, applying a curve to the hue channel, and recombining. You can colorize individual elements of the photo. You can do any number of things. There's no shame in doing this and in creating some very bizarre colors in your intermediary image. After all, how bizarre is a scene when viewed through a red filter?</p>

<p>So there it is. Monochrome conversion can be about as simple or as complicated as you care to make it. How do I do it in my own work? It really depends on the image. Sometimes I get very fancy with the conversion, but I can usually get what I want with only the channel mixer. It all depends on the image and what I'm trying to do with it.</p>

<p>Just for fun, here's a seriously crazy monochrome conversion utilizing the hue channel on the shed and background and an extreme contrast on the individual color channels of the tree:<br /><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phtwofriendssm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here's a less complicated conversion with curves applied to individual color channels. The intermediary version looks pretty crazy (like a photo of a smurf), but the final monochrome image looks very natural:<br /><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phcobblersm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>... and here's an older, very ordinary monochrome conversion of mine, using the canned grayscale conversion routine, showing the beauty of a flower's form, without distractions from the color (not that I take many flower pictures):</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phflowers2.htm"><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phflowers2sm.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="560" /></a></p>

<p>Happy postprocessing, Rizwan! :-)<br /><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phcobbler.htm"></a></p>

[riz]

<p>Thank you Sarah and all for valuable feedback.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Are you a Black & White or Color photographer ?<br>

================================<br>

Business wise or hobby wise ?</p>