To B&W or not to B&W, that is the question.

In the past, I have almost never even considered converting photos to black and white. I took the following recently and played with it a while in post processing and was not satisfied by the results I was seeing. It was disappointing because I thought there was a "picture" there to be had. Almost by accident I desaturated the image and saw something I liked.



So my questions are, What prompts you to consider B&W? Do you visualize a photo as B&W as you shoot? Is there something you key on in post that steers you that way or do you look at most of your images in post as candidates for B&W?

PS.

Here is a similar image I like, but where I think color adds a nice feel that would be absent in a B&W version.



--
JW

Sure, I like their polarizers, even with the lenstip 'controversy' (I check them when I buy them).

With regards to colors - I'm a bit of a hack - if the picture doesn't look good in color, I try it in B+W.
--
Why yes, I AM colorblind.

There are IMO very few time a BW looks better than the colour version.

I agree it works for your first image but can't compare to the colour as you haven't shown it.

To many people seem to think BW will take a rubbish image and turn into a good one.

The reality is it just becomes a Rubbish BW image.

Generally for BW to work there has to be a strong subject and/or hi contrast the lack of colour has to add depth to the story.

I like atmospheric BW most. ala Film noir
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

I think your desaturated image is great. In general, images with lots of texture and shadow convert well to B&W. It does help to try to imagine in B&W. It takes seconds to quickly convert to basic B&W in most PP software to see what it will look like. Also, take a look at the Black and White Photography forum here at dpreview to see what others are doing.

Here is one of my "failed" color tweaks for comparison.



Pentax K5 DA*200 Shutter & Aperture Priority AE 1/[email protected] ISO 640

--
JW

walesjs said:

In the past, I have almost never even considered converting photos to black and white.

So my questions are, What prompts you to consider B&W? Do you visualize a photo as B&W as you shoot? Is there something you key on in post that steers you that way or do you look at most of your images in post as candidates for B&W?

Click to expand...

The not very helpful answer is "all of the above".

More often than not I visualise, compose and develop in colour and that's the end of it. We naturally see in colour so any attempt at "realism" needs to be coloured. Some shots are pure exercises in colour - what would be the point of this in B&W?



For others, though, it's the geometry that matters and colour (no matter how true or pretty) detracts from the purpose of the shot.



I can't think of any benefit in showing the lifebelt here in its true bright red.



I fairly often set my camera to B&W. This shows a B&W version on the LCD although when I open the DNGs they appear in colour (which can be a bit disorientating!). The advantage is that it helps me concentrate on the form of the shot. Now it might be that I never develop the shot as B&W - the monochrome version on the LCD has done its job by helping my composition even though the final version looks best in colour. But I'm just as likely to shoot in colour intending to develop that way and then see the B&W possibilities in post.

Colour can often be distracting in portraits. This might be because of the background (in colour the pale turquoise shutters overwhelm this one)



Of course, there's no need to remove all the colours - but the vivid magenta of the hat looks awful in a true-colour version of this.



--
---

Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

"When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls."
Ted Grant

Images that are tonal in nature (not too many bright colours of same intensity in them), benefit from turning them into tonal studies, or, B&W, sepia, etc.

In terms of art, Impressionistic paintings of Monet look horrible when converted in B&W because paintings are composed of colour dots in full intensity close to each other — Monet uses chromatic palette and physics of complementary colours to create effects of simmer and movement. He does not use black colour at all.

But a Romantic landscape of the 18th century looks wonderful in B&W because it uses tonal palette and subdued colours to emotionally involve observer deeper into the picture.

--
Zvonimir Tosic

I don't take images with BW in mind at the time, I check it out in PP.

Cheers,

Rod

--
All I want is a digital back for my trusty K1000 . . .

awaldram said:

To many people seem to think BW will take a rubbish image and turn into a good one.

The reality is it just becomes a Rubbish BW image.

Click to expand...

Sure. But BW reduces image complexity, so it's easier in a sense to get a pleasing shot. I have seen quite a few pictures in which the colors were a bit odd, but the composition and light was nice. These almost always look better in black and white.

Markus