richiebee
Senior Member
... I must admit to also using it to rescue an otherwise recycle bin worthy image.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mostly.Humm, photos are already an abstraction. Do you avoid other art forms, they are equally an abstraction and not "real".I'm all about realism. My eyes aren't black and white except in extreme darkness. That's why I tend not to like pretty much anyone's black and white images. They don't look real.Good monochrome images rely on composition, lighting and tonality. Color can often disguise a lack of these in an image.Almost no pictures are better in black and white than they are in color. In about 200,000 images, I've only found one of mine that I like better in B&W.
There are different wavelengths of light.There is no such thing as "colour" ... that is purely a perception.
B&W is all wavelengths at equal strength.And B&W are, in the same sense "colour".
I find this fascinating ... and obvious a testament to how individuals perceive "art".Mostly.Humm, photos are already an abstraction. Do you avoid other art forms, they are equally an abstraction and not "real".I'm all about realism. My eyes aren't black and white except in extreme darkness. That's why I tend not to like pretty much anyone's black and white images. They don't look real.Good monochrome images rely on composition, lighting and tonality. Color can often disguise a lack of these in an image.Almost no pictures are better in black and white than they are in color. In about 200,000 images, I've only found one of mine that I like better in B&W.
What is the wavelength of Magenta ??There are different wavelengths of light.There is no such thing as "colour" ... that is purely a perception.
Many animals and people would disagree about the precision of this definition.B&W is all wavelengths at equal strength.And B&W are, in the same sense "colour".
My favorite painter:I find this fascinating ... and obvious a testament to how individuals perceive "art".Mostly.Humm, photos are already an abstraction. Do you avoid other art forms, they are equally an abstraction and not "real".I'm all about realism. My eyes aren't black and white except in extreme darkness. That's why I tend not to like pretty much anyone's black and white images. They don't look real.Good monochrome images rely on composition, lighting and tonality. Color can often disguise a lack of these in an image.Almost no pictures are better in black and white than they are in color. In about 200,000 images, I've only found one of mine that I like better in B&W.
Everything but green.What is the wavelength of Magenta ??There are different wavelengths of light.There is no such thing as "colour" ... that is purely a perception.![]()
Yeah...and color blindness makes that worse. However, for non color blind people, it's very reasonable to assume we all perceive the same wavelength combination the same.Wavelengths are not "colour" - other than some wavelengths are interpreted by us as "a colour". There is no guarantee that the two of us would have the same perception of 580 nm light.
I was talking about the source.Many animals and people would disagree about the precision of this definition.B&W is all wavelengths at equal strength.And B&W are, in the same sense "colour".
No appreciation for slower shutter speeds? For higher grains? Do you only like photos from natural looking normal focal lengths? Dutch tilt? Nah, that's not how people normally see things...Mostly.Humm, photos are already an abstraction. Do you avoid other art forms, they are equally an abstraction and not "real".I'm all about realism. My eyes aren't black and white except in extreme darkness. That's why I tend not to like pretty much anyone's black and white images. They don't look real.Good monochrome images rely on composition, lighting and tonality. Color can often disguise a lack of these in an image.Almost no pictures are better in black and white than they are in color. In about 200,000 images, I've only found one of mine that I like better in B&W.
Each one of those wavelengths is perceived differently by different people and different sensors and different lenses and different emulsions.There are different wavelengths of light.There is no such thing as "colour" ... that is purely a perception.
Nooo.. Please stop talking, you're making yourself look bad.B&W is all wavelengths at equal strength.And B&W are, in the same sense "colour".

Yes, that's okay.No appreciation for slower shutter speeds?Mostly.Humm, photos are already an abstraction. Do you avoid other art forms, they are equally an abstraction and not "real".I'm all about realism. My eyes aren't black and white except in extreme darkness. That's why I tend not to like pretty much anyone's black and white images. They don't look real.Good monochrome images rely on composition, lighting and tonality. Color can often disguise a lack of these in an image.Almost no pictures are better in black and white than they are in color. In about 200,000 images, I've only found one of mine that I like better in B&W.
No, absolutely not. Noise is the second worst aberration.For higher grains?
There's really no such thing (don't get me started on the 50mm myth).Do you only like photos from natural looking normal focal lengths?
Not really.Dutch tilt?
Yes...that's what the "gray" is in "gray scale".Nah, that's not how people normally see things...
Each one of those wavelengths is perceived differently by different people and different sensors and different lenses and different emulsions.There are different wavelengths of light.There is no such thing as "colour" ... that is purely a perception.
Nooo..B&W is all wavelengths at equal strength.And B&W are, in the same sense "colour".
All those "colors" are gray.
Why is this okay but not black and white? Our eyes don't see at slow speeds.Yes, that's okay.No appreciation for slower shutter speeds?Mostly.Humm, photos are already an abstraction. Do you avoid other art forms, they are equally an abstraction and not "real".I'm all about realism. My eyes aren't black and white except in extreme darkness. That's why I tend not to like pretty much anyone's black and white images. They don't look real.Good monochrome images rely on composition, lighting and tonality. Color can often disguise a lack of these in an image.Almost no pictures are better in black and white than they are in color. In about 200,000 images, I've only found one of mine that I like better in B&W.
Well.. grain and noise are not the same thing. And a loss of overall appreciation for grain is what the digital era has eschewed in, as well as many misconceptions. So I'm not surprised about your stringent requirements.No, absolutely not. Noise is the second worst aberration.For higher grains?
So you choose to ignore biology as well?There's really no such thing (don't get me started on the 50mm myth).Do you only like photos from natural looking normal focal lengths?
But not at equal strength. Different wavelengths (colours) are treated differently even on black and white film.Not really.Dutch tilt?
Yes...that's what the "gray" is in "gray scale".Nah, that's not how people normally see things...
Each one of those wavelengths is perceived differently by different people and different sensors and different lenses and different emulsions.There are different wavelengths of light.There is no such thing as "colour" ... that is purely a perception.
Nooo..B&W is all wavelengths at equal strength.And B&W are, in the same sense "colour".
All those "colors" are gray.
--
Lee Jay
I don't mind people having different opinions or tastes, just that when it's based on hypocritical reasoning and lack of factual understanding it tends to strike me as odd.Lee Jay's preferences don't have to be right. He is free to dislike black and white for whatever reasons no matter how illogical they may appear to you or me. Arguing taste is a road to nowhere. Take it from me. I am still arguing with a friend from college: Talking Heads or Styx. The answer is only logical.
Our eyes dark adapt.Why is this okay but not black and white? Our eyes don't see at slow speeds.Yes, that's okay.No appreciation for slower shutter speeds?Mostly.Humm, photos are already an abstraction. Do you avoid other art forms, they are equally an abstraction and not "real".I'm all about realism. My eyes aren't black and white except in extreme darkness. That's why I tend not to like pretty much anyone's black and white images. They don't look real.Good monochrome images rely on composition, lighting and tonality. Color can often disguise a lack of these in an image.Almost no pictures are better in black and white than they are in color. In about 200,000 images, I've only found one of mine that I like better in B&W.
Conceptually they are, even though they come from different sources.Well.. grain and noise are not the same thing.No, absolutely not. Noise is the second worst aberration.For higher grains?
The number one biggest thing I hated about shooting film for all those years was film grain.And a loss of overall appreciation for grain is what the digital era has eschewed in, as well as many misconceptions.
Not at all.So I'm not surprised about your stringent requirements.
So you choose to ignore biology as well?There's really no such thing (don't get me started on the 50mm myth).Do you only like photos from natural looking normal focal lengths?
And that chart is a good explanation as to why the 50mm myth is, well, a myth, and why I said there really is no "normal". Our eyes can see with many fields of view, from around full-frame fisheye to around 1,000mm, all just because of what you are thinking about and concentrating on.[ATTACH alt=""Peripheral vision" by Zyxwv99 - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Commons - Link"]1160375[/ATTACH]
"Peripheral vision" by Zyxwv99 - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Commons - Link
Each color is of equal strength to the other colors (i.e., all the R, G, and B values are the same), which is what I said.But not at equal strength.Not really.Dutch tilt?
Yes...that's what the "gray" is in "gray scale".Nah, that's not how people normally see things...
Each one of those wavelengths is perceived differently by different people and different sensors and different lenses and different emulsions.There are different wavelengths of light.There is no such thing as "colour" ... that is purely a perception.
Nooo..B&W is all wavelengths at equal strength.And B&W are, in the same sense "colour".
All those "colors" are gray.
Well, you are wrong about both.I don't mind people having different opinions or tastes, just that when it's based on hypocritical reasoning and lack of factual understanding it tends to strike me as odd.Lee Jay's preferences don't have to be right. He is free to dislike black and white for whatever reasons no matter how illogical they may appear to you or me. Arguing taste is a road to nowhere. Take it from me. I am still arguing with a friend from college: Talking Heads or Styx. The answer is only logical.
At least that's the way he comes across to me.
I can see I'm going around in circles with you. Each reply you give shows a further lack of understanding on your part.Our eyes dark adapt.Why is this okay but not black and white? Our eyes don't see at slow speeds.Yes, that's okay.No appreciation for slower shutter speeds?Mostly.Humm, photos are already an abstraction. Do you avoid other art forms, they are equally an abstraction and not "real".I'm all about realism. My eyes aren't black and white except in extreme darkness. That's why I tend not to like pretty much anyone's black and white images. They don't look real.Good monochrome images rely on composition, lighting and tonality. Color can often disguise a lack of these in an image.Almost no pictures are better in black and white than they are in color. In about 200,000 images, I've only found one of mine that I like better in B&W.
Conceptually they are, even though they come from different sources.Well.. grain and noise are not the same thing.No, absolutely not. Noise is the second worst aberration.For higher grains?
The number one biggest thing I hated about shooting film for all those years was film grain.And a loss of overall appreciation for grain is what the digital era has eschewed in, as well as many misconceptions.
Not at all.So I'm not surprised about your stringent requirements.
So you choose to ignore biology as well?There's really no such thing (don't get me started on the 50mm myth).Do you only like photos from natural looking normal focal lengths?
And that chart is a good explanation as to why the 50mm myth is, well, a myth, and why I said there really is no "normal". Our eyes can see with many fields of view, from around full-frame fisheye to around 1,000mm, all just because of what you are thinking about and concentrating on.[ATTACH alt=""Peripheral vision" by Zyxwv99 - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Commons - Link"]1160375[/ATTACH]
"Peripheral vision" by Zyxwv99 - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Commons - Link
Each color is of equal strength to the other colors (i.e., all the R, G, and B values are the same), which is what I said.But not at equal strength.Not really.Dutch tilt?
Yes...that's what the "gray" is in "gray scale".Nah, that's not how people normally see things...
Each one of those wavelengths is perceived differently by different people and different sensors and different lenses and different emulsions.There are different wavelengths of light.There is no such thing as "colour" ... that is purely a perception.
Nooo..B&W is all wavelengths at equal strength.And B&W are, in the same sense "colour".
All those "colors" are gray.
--
Lee Jay
Warning posted per your request.I don't shoot B&W at all and even wish people who post it would add a warning to their post.
In this modern world, however, choice is often seen as a plus.I spent too many years in my youth having limited exposure to colour to ever want to revisit the grey world of the past.
In my opinion, it is difficult to do monochrome really well.So black and white - gimmick or art? Anachronistic throwback or photographic revival? Where do you stand?
It is a real shame that you cannot get a monochrome camera anymore (well unless you shoot film) unless you are willing to fork out about $6k. I would certainly buy one if a reasonable manufacturer would make it, but there is no market. True enough, a color digital camera that can convert to monochrome with great flexibility of processing is the preferred solution, and understandably so. But if I could, I would still get a monochrome (except if it has an L badge).Technical superiority.
Monochrome typically has a greater dynamic range, lower noise, and a greater ability to work under extreme lighting conditions, including extremely low light and poor spectral quality light sources. You can get a clean image in monochrome that would be a noisy mess in color. Because of this, you can process a monochrome image far harder than you can plausibly edit a color image.
Unfortunately, it is for these reasons that many photographers use monochrome merely as a method of rescuing an otherwise poor image, instead of intentionally using it to its best advantage.

