MJ Buckpitt
Well-known
I vote color.
peterm1
Veteran
This is a really interesting mix of responses here and though there are of course some similarities in how different people vote in some instances it also says a lot about personal differences in how people see images and what they prefer. Which I suppose is partly based on their expectations. I am not sure it helps me decide for myself what I like, but then again that is not so important. What I think it does do is convince me that after years of focusing on color I need to once more begin to think about converting more images to black and white more often, to improve and perhaps perfect more that side of my shooting and processing. It probably won't be 50/50 in image output but I can see that I could get it up to 75/25 at least.
One other thing it has convinced me of, if I had not been convinced already is that I personally rather like a "softer" rendering whether in color or black and white. Something perhaps that aims to have more of an analogue-like character. I guess I am just a little over the pin-sharp technical perfection that digital technology in particular is capable of, so much of my processing has been, and will probably remain, doing things like adding grain, reducing contrast, adding texture overlays, adding a touch of blur and glow etc to make something with a few deliberate imperfections of the sort that adds to the eye appeal. "Painterly" is perhaps a better description. All of the images in this thread have had that done to some extent with the most obvious example being the last one in both color and mono where there are some obvious texture overlays. It is not something I necessarily want to do all the time but in this image for some reason I rather liked the feel of an old print that had being paying about in a drawer for a long time fading and getting scratched up. Just a bit of fun I suppose.
One other thing it has convinced me of, if I had not been convinced already is that I personally rather like a "softer" rendering whether in color or black and white. Something perhaps that aims to have more of an analogue-like character. I guess I am just a little over the pin-sharp technical perfection that digital technology in particular is capable of, so much of my processing has been, and will probably remain, doing things like adding grain, reducing contrast, adding texture overlays, adding a touch of blur and glow etc to make something with a few deliberate imperfections of the sort that adds to the eye appeal. "Painterly" is perhaps a better description. All of the images in this thread have had that done to some extent with the most obvious example being the last one in both color and mono where there are some obvious texture overlays. It is not something I necessarily want to do all the time but in this image for some reason I rather liked the feel of an old print that had being paying about in a drawer for a long time fading and getting scratched up. Just a bit of fun I suppose.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I feel more of an immediate connection with her, in color. The black & white seems more distant and abstract.
peterm1
Veteran
I think that is absolutely true Rob. I find the same.
Though I suspect, that it is in the nature of black and white imagery generally. Black and white rendering somehow abstracts the subject and makes for a less immediate feeling of "being there". Well, not "somehow"- it has to be because real life is in color, so a color image makes it easier to connect to the subject. Particularly when the subject is attractive and wearing exotic and colorful clothing I guess.
But more generally an example that comes to mind is when old portrait photos of people taken say, at some historical event that is far distant from our experience - for example during a battle in WW1 or in the American civil war are colorized. My experience is that this immediately makes me relate to the subject more. They are not just subjects in an historical photo. They are people like me.
It's useful for me that you stated your view in these terms because it made me realize that part of my confusion over which image I preferred is that these two mediums intrinsically perhaps, have different purposes. A color image is about making a more immediate connection. A black and white image is more about pure tones and how they relate to each other and hence is a more abstract thing. In other words tour post forced me to think more about what I am trying to achieve.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Glad that was helpful. I guess another way to say it is, with the color shot, I'm seeing a person. In black and white, I'm seeing a portrait.
CMur12
Veteran
Peter, my impression is that the B&W images are B&W versions of your color images. As in, the color images were processed to reflect your normal tastes and that they were then converted into B&W.
My thought is that, for greatest success in B&W, you may need to start with the raw or base file and work the B&W image from there. With time and experimentation, you may come up with your own equally unique interpretation of B&W.
In other words, my thought is that you might want to divorce your B&W process from your color process and render them two separate and distinct processes. This could truly open up a new creative vision and expression in B&W.
- Murray
PS. By the way, this is a great thread. Thank you for having the courage to post it.
My thought is that, for greatest success in B&W, you may need to start with the raw or base file and work the B&W image from there. With time and experimentation, you may come up with your own equally unique interpretation of B&W.
In other words, my thought is that you might want to divorce your B&W process from your color process and render them two separate and distinct processes. This could truly open up a new creative vision and expression in B&W.
- Murray
PS. By the way, this is a great thread. Thank you for having the courage to post it.
peterm1
Veteran
Murray you are quite right in that these ones were B&W conversions of already images already quite highly processed in color. That was a judgment call by me incidentally not me being lazy. (Or expressed another way, not me just being lazy
) I do not always do that with all of my B&W conversions - some get their own B&W workflow "ab initio" as the lawyers love to say....i.e. from the get go. But it is also not unusual for me to convert an already processed image if I think that processing will work and contribute something to the final B&W image and of course if I personally like how it renders in the final B&W image when I see it.
I take on board what you say however as its a very sound point. Perhaps I need to be giving my color images and my B&W images whole separate treatments more often. I can see that it would most likely have me arrive at a different result for those images.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I genuinely prefer the colour, but I do admit to a strange perception of colour conversion to B&W being something I really don't like when I do it myself, which I suspect also affects my perception of others doing the same.
It's funny also that I like it when you process in what I call the imperfections of film like scratches, but I absolutely get triggered by scratches and dust on genuine film images.
Ignore me...
It's funny also that I like it when you process in what I call the imperfections of film like scratches, but I absolutely get triggered by scratches and dust on genuine film images.
Ignore me...
peterm1
Veteran
Interesting thoughts, Charles. While I do not mind converting to B&W, an already processed color image (obviously), like you, I also do not mind imperfections like scratches being layered in. For the life of me I cannot figure why I rather like it now and then (I know many including perhaps many here will hate it as being a kind of artificial digital affectation - and in that they are not wrong. It is). But when I do it I have an internal battle - Do I / Don't I? Then more often than not go "Oh damn it, I will leave it in, despite my doubts I quite like how it looks."
But I still cannot figure out why I think that. I suspect it is just because A far as I am concerned, eyes are to pictures what ears are to music. If I process an image and think it looks good that is enough reason for me to stick with that result.
Axel
singleshooter
My thoughts are that choosing color or black&white should be a simple decision of the photographer.
Like choosing a film and go on with it.
There are so many different courses you can set in both worlds and so many different expressions which are the results.
When I take some time to look at every single picture of your set I find a lot of arguments to vote for one or the other version.
At the end the question is what the photographer wants to pronounce.
The culture, love for life (more color) or the shapes and the light?
Only examples to explain, various terms could be added here.
When I have to decide between two versions of my own pics I always try to keep it short.
And my comfort is that 99,9 percent of all pictures have a unknown counterpart in the monochrome or chromatic world
Along the way of the main discussion I´d like to say that you have got wonderful pictures of a wonderful woman here
Like choosing a film and go on with it.
There are so many different courses you can set in both worlds and so many different expressions which are the results.
When I take some time to look at every single picture of your set I find a lot of arguments to vote for one or the other version.
At the end the question is what the photographer wants to pronounce.
The culture, love for life (more color) or the shapes and the light?
Only examples to explain, various terms could be added here.
When I have to decide between two versions of my own pics I always try to keep it short.
And my comfort is that 99,9 percent of all pictures have a unknown counterpart in the monochrome or chromatic world
Along the way of the main discussion I´d like to say that you have got wonderful pictures of a wonderful woman here
Peter, personally I think the B&W images work better here.
P.S. There's no point in linking 3310 x 4408 pixel image files, when the forum software will just shrink them down to 1024 pixels on the horizontal side anyway after the large files have downloaded. You could reduce our collective download times by linking 1024 pixel images on the long side to start with.
P.S. There's no point in linking 3310 x 4408 pixel image files, when the forum software will just shrink them down to 1024 pixels on the horizontal side anyway after the large files have downloaded. You could reduce our collective download times by linking 1024 pixel images on the long side to start with.
peterm1
Veteran
Jonmanjiro
Yes sorry about the image sizes. Normally if I have images hosted at Flickr it gives me a choice of the size of the image I link to a forum / bulletin board and my practice is to link a 1280 or 1600 pix max side length. But these images happened to be hosted elsewhere and because RFF downsizes the display size I had not appreciated the hosting site I used here actually defaulted to the full sized image for its linking mechanism. In fact it does not even give an option to D/L smaller images if I recall correctly. Something for me to remember in future when using that site.