Grey scale, not B&W...

[MaticB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Watching all those pictures, taken with monochrome cameras,... well, they are mostly grey scale photographs, not B&W we were used to by B&W films. And they are dull! Photos, converted in B&W from colour files are more closely to what, I believe, is what we are looking for. Yes, B&W film photos are not just grey scale - they are also film specific sensitiveness for different colours and B&W printing arts. So I suggest to most of us to study and try to understand information from monochrome files and take advantage from undoubtfully highest possible ISO scale those cameras offer us. Post processing is the key to good, emotionally pleasant pictures. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

You’ve lost me completely here with your introductory remarks. Greyscale is just an colour space with the colour information removed. You can convert it back to RGB without the image changing  ACR opens  Monochrom shots in Greyscale by default but I changed it to RGB. Absolutely no difference in the way it looks. Your complaint is rather about the lack of decent postprocessing by the posters. I must say that I agree in general for places like Instagram and Flickr. However on this forum I see quite a few quite good results. By ISO scale I think you mean dynamic range? 

[jgeenen]

I think it is hard to master a camera with B&W sensor. First, you have to translate color contrast to tone contrast, potentially by using filters, something you can’t correct in post. Secondly, you have to emulate the film‘s density curves, the behavior of paper grades, and lastly one needs to master the dodge and burn process. All skills that had to be re-developed and practiced  when using a monochrome camera. 

In fact I have seen only very few fine art B&W prints created with monochrome digital cameras - even in this forum. I ultimately think that this is not a flaw of the camera but lack of experience of the average photographer who grew in the digital age. 

i personally have 50 years of analog B&W experience but never shot a monochrome digital camera. To be honest, I believe it would be a very steep learning curve for me to adapt the good old (Ansel Adams influenced) visualization and lab procedures into the new world.

Johannes

[sometimesmaybe]

3 hours ago, MaticB said:

Watching all those pictures, taken with monochrome cameras,... well, they are mostly grey scale photographs, not B&W we were used to by B&W films. And they are dull! Photos, converted in B&W from colour files are more closely to what, I believe, is what we are looking for. Yes, B&W film photos are not just grey scale - they are also film specific sensitiveness for different colours and B&W printing arts. So I suggest to most of us to study and try to understand information from monochrome files and take advantage from undoubtfully highest possible ISO scale those cameras offer us. Post processing is the key to good, emotionally pleasant pictures. 

speaking as a monochrom enthusiast i agree that post processing makes all the difference

the DNG from my 246 is quite flat (and thats to be expected given all the shades of grey the sensor can capture), but in post i'll increase the black balance and push the contrast to remove some of the tonality. a flat image is great for grading, but it shouldn't be used straight out of camera for aesthetic reasons.

for me capturing an image is only half the job, i spend some time touching up all my images

 

 

24 minutes ago, jgeenen said:

I think it is hard to master a camera with B&W sensor. First, you have to translate color contrast to tone contrast, potentially by using filters, something you can’t correct in post. Secondly, you have to emulate the film‘s density curves, the behavior of paper grades, and lastly one needs to master the dodge and burn process. All skills that had to be re-developed and practiced  when using a monochrome camera. 

In fact I have seen only very few fine art B&W prints created with monochrome digital cameras - even in this forum. I ultimately think that this is not a flaw of the camera but lack of experience of the average photographer who grew in the digital age. 

i personally have 50 years of analog B&W experience but never shot a monochrome digital camera. To be honest, I believe it would be a very steep learning curve for me to adapt the good old (Ansel Adams influenced) visualization and lab procedures into the new world.

Johannes

the technical learning curve with shooting a monochrome sensor is actually not too bad (expose your subject for the highlights). the hardest part to photography is still the same... composition, subject selection, lighting etc. if you get most things right in camera, the post processing can be very straightforward.

using some of the post processing software can be challenging, but AI is making digital editing easier. i started off using Luminar because it was quite automated, but now i tend to edit for specific things only. knowing how you want to touch up the images already means you have a significant head start already. the flexibility of editing an image digitally is just bonkers

for me personally i dont see the point of emulating B&W filmstock with my digital monochrom camera, but i do like trying to capture the same 'feel' (i.e. a tribute act rather than the real thing). some images from my shoot on Saturday 

 

 

  

[david strachan]

I just wonder why I have trouble with some B&W images on the Forum, and digital pics.

But...I have trouble enjoying many monochrome silver gelatine prints also. Printing in B&W is not some magic elixir to perfect art.

Doesn't matter a monochrome, a converted image from a colour camera, a scan from colour or monochrome...everyone has huge differences in their interpretation of "likes and dislikes" on any monochrome images...the processing varies enormously.

After many intensive years printing 35mm, medium format and 4x5 , I know what I like. But doesn't mean I'm right.  We all have our likes, and dislikes.

For example I'll always look for a paper black and paper whites, if the image holds it.  And what should be white mustn't look grey....But that's me.

 

Really there is no correct, as we know some of the best pictures have technical errors.

 

...

Edited September 26, 2023 by david strachan

[MaticB]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

By ISO scale I think you mean dynamic range? 

Mostly...

[sometimesmaybe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, david strachan said:

as we know some of the best pictures have technical errors

i couldn't agree more.

sometimes i focus too much on image quality (rather than having a quality image). i'm trying to move away from this mindset   

[jaapv]

The processing of Monochrom images is not too hard if you already are proficient in  colour; always set a black point. 
Often set a white point  This will determine your dynamic range  Alway use curves. Try pulling up  the mid tones  Be very careful with the clarity slider  it creates halos  Try the effect of the dehaze slider  You will have a good base for further processing  

Personally I don’t like trying to make the image look like a film image Firstly there is no single “film look”  Film images range from muddy failures to over contrasty artsy stuff, with the good ones standing out in between. Trying to turn a digital image into a chemical one is kitsch IMO. Images from monochrome cameras have their own look, which I personally quite like  

 

 

[MaticB]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Trying to turn a digital image into a chemical one is kitsch IMO.

Yes, if they are proccesed with only one goal - to imitate film.

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Images from monochrome cameras have their own look, which I personally quite like  

But they must be post-processed any way! I appreciate your advice -  I've post-process digital images for some 20 years by now, and I understand many aspect of the process qite well. But what inspire me to initiate this topic was, that many monochrome images published on this forum are not post process at all, or post process so poorly that looks dull. 

[jaapv]

But the same goes for chemical images. Only they are not all over the Internet   And colour images too. After all, the forum caters for photographers of all skill levels.

That is one thing I miss here. Positive critique. I like the NPN site as it is geared to critique. I try to do so here from time to time and I have seen some members improve. 

[sometimesmaybe]

ive added 2 examples of my recent 'before and after' images (1 monchrome and 1 film) - these were chosen because the edits are still kinda fresh in my mind

firstly let me say i spent a few minutes setting up the lighting - this makes editing fair easier

1. Annaliese (in monochrome) was lit only by natural light via a barn door on camera left. it was overcast on the day so the light was very flat, which is perfect for monochrome portraits. i positioned Annaliese to face the light
2. Holly (film) was somewhat backlit by direct sun off camera right (i wanted that specific background so there was no choice). i had a 40w continuous LED off camera left just to fill some of the shadows  

i should also add that these are completely subjective editorial decisions - you're tastes may vary

in terms of the global edits for both images

1. played around with the lighting on the subjects' faces - depending on the specific scene, sometimes i make the light look flatter, sometimes i make the light moodier. In both these examples i made the light flatter
2. removed stray hairs and removed temporary skin things like pimples 
3. straighten the images
4. small amount of contrast was added to both images

in terms of the specific changes

1. for the monochrome image the default JPG for the m246 has more contrast than the DNG. i also increased the black point (but not as much as the JPG). i also removed the slight tear in the chair. grain was added to give the image a more organic feel - ive just started shooting film, so im currently obsessed with grain 😅
2. for the film image i added some magenta as the lab scan looked a touch too green for ColorPlus

finally whatever edits make, i dial it back by 10% - less being more and whatnot 🤓

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[MaticB]

1 hour ago, sometimesmaybe said:

ive added 2 examples of my recent 'before and after' images (1 monchrome and 1 film) - these were chosen because the edits are still kinda fresh in my mind

firstly let me say i spent a few minutes setting up the lighting - this makes editing fair easier

1. Annaliese (in monochrome) was lit only by natural light via a barn door on camera left. it was overcast on the day so the light was very flat, which is perfect for monochrome portraits. i positioned Annaliese to face the light
2. Holly (film) was somewhat backlit by direct sun off camera right (i wanted that specific background so there was no choice). i had a 40w continuous LED off camera left just to fill some of the shadows  

i should also add that these are completely subjective editorial decisions - you're tastes may vary

in terms of the global edits for both images

1. played around with the lighting on the subjects' faces - depending on the specific scene, sometimes i make the light look flatter, sometimes i make the light moodier. In both these examples i made the light flatter
2. removed stray hairs and removed temporary skin things like pimples 
3. straighten the images
4. small amount of contrast was added to both images

in terms of the specific changes

1. for the monochrome image the default JPG for the m246 has more contrast than the DNG. i also increased the black point (but not as much as the JPG). i also removed the slight tear in the chair. grain was added to give the image a more organic feel - ive just started shooting film, so im currently obsessed with grain 😅
2. for the film image i added some magenta as the lab scan looked a touch too green for ColorPlus

finally whatever edits make, i dial it back by 10% - less being more and whatnot 🤓

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

In both cases I prefer processed image. And overall, B&W is moodier! And it doesn't look dull at all!

[fenykepesz]

i am sorry to say - i feel swimming against the stream here - but i prefer, at least in Anneliese's case, the unedited (left) image where her skin and the whole face just looks more realistic, more natural.  for me, it is a somewhat philosophical standpoint, not even a visual or artistic issue, just the question, why do we need to change reality ?  isn't her face beautiful enough ?  and what if every photographer on earth makes use of the same sauce of picture appearance-altering, perhaps even agreed on content-modifying maneuvers and generally applies those to photos ?  and makes use of the same software as everybody else ?  do we then create pictures that carry the signature of a time period, a decade, where color, pattern and style expectedly change once in a while as they do in fashion ?  what if one does not belong to the clan ?

i am truly constantly exposed to the painful question what a picture shall contain ?  is it something fashionable, to please today's audience, critics and expectations, or is it a form of removed independent autartical art whose fate is to encode a timeless message, good enough to look at a century later ?

i feel now bad about my comment here, it feels like a rant - but as i spoke over the years to many profesionnal and hobby photographers on the street, at events, you name it, i find i want to categorize my contacts into three groups : the camera aficionados - the followers - the genuine producers.  am i too harsh ?  perhaps i just express here my recent frustration about another encounter i had some days ago with a senior, quite eloquent photography teacher in whose work i am actually having a hard time to locate the stuff that would tell me  something muchos years later, a mental content, an advice, a message, a truth, something i would call the 'real art', that's what ultimately matters, right ?  or may at least matter to documentary photography ?

[Olaf_ZG]

2 hours ago, fenykepesz said:

i am sorry to say - i feel swimming against the stream here - but i prefer, at least in Anneliese's case, the unedited (left) image where her skin and the whole face just looks more realistic, more natural.  for me, it is a somewhat philosophical standpoint, not even a visual or artistic issue, just the question, why do we need to change reality ?  isn't her face beautiful enough ?  and what if every photographer on earth makes use of the same sauce of picture appearance-altering, perhaps even agreed on content-modifying maneuvers and generally applies those to photos ?  and makes use of the same software as everybody else ?  do we then create pictures that carry the signature of a time period, a decade, where color, pattern and style expectedly change once in a while as they do in fashion ?  what if one does not belong to the clan ?

i am truly constantly exposed to the painful question what a picture shall contain ?  is it something fashionable, to please today's audience, critics and expectations, or is it a form of removed independent autartical art whose fate is to encode a timeless message, good enough to look at a century later ?

i feel now bad about my comment here, it feels like a rant - but as i spoke over the years to many profesionnal and hobby photographers on the street, at events, you name it, i find i want to categorize my contacts into three groups : the camera aficionados - the followers - the genuine producers.  am i too harsh ?  perhaps i just express here my recent frustration about another encounter i had some days ago with a senior, quite eloquent photography teacher in whose work i am actually having a hard time to locate the stuff that would tell me  something muchos years later, a mental content, an advice, a message, a truth, something i would call the 'real art', that's what ultimately matters, right ?  or may at least matter to documentary photography ?

You might be right regarding the corrections done on her face, but i do like the tonality (don’t know another word) of the whole image of the processed one more.

[fenykepesz]

i see what you say, Olaf - yes, i was a bit too fast, i agree, focussed entirely on the face which led then to my rant...

on the other hand, at least on my work screen (not my home screen), i don't see now much difference in the backgrounds, in very subtle details perhaps.

thank you for your feedback.

[250swb]

On 9/25/2023 at 7:45 PM, MaticB said:

Watching all those pictures, taken with monochrome cameras,... well, they are mostly grey scale photographs, not B&W we were used to by B&W films. And they are dull! Photos, converted in B&W from colour files are more closely to what, I believe, is what we are looking for. Yes, B&W film photos are not just grey scale - they are also film specific sensitiveness for different colours and B&W printing arts. So I suggest to most of us to study and try to understand information from monochrome files and take advantage from undoubtfully highest possible ISO scale those cameras offer us. Post processing is the key to good, emotionally pleasant pictures. 

I kind of get your point, but without any examples of photographs either linked to or posted on the forum all I see is posturing.

[sometimesmaybe]

4 hours ago, fenykepesz said:

i am sorry to say - i feel swimming against the stream here - but i prefer, at least in Anneliese's case, the unedited (left) image where her skin and the whole face just looks more realistic, more natural.  for me, it is a somewhat philosophical standpoint, not even a visual or artistic issue, just the question, why do we need to change reality ?  isn't her face beautiful enough ?  and what if every photographer on earth makes use of the same sauce of picture appearance-altering, perhaps even agreed on content-modifying maneuvers and generally applies those to photos ?  and makes use of the same software as everybody else ?  do we then create pictures that carry the signature of a time period, a decade, where color, pattern and style expectedly change once in a while as they do in fashion ?  what if one does not belong to the clan ?

i am truly constantly exposed to the painful question what a picture shall contain ?  is it something fashionable, to please today's audience, critics and expectations, or is it a form of removed independent autartical art whose fate is to encode a timeless message, good enough to look at a century later ?

i feel now bad about my comment here, it feels like a rant - but as i spoke over the years to many profesionnal and hobby photographers on the street, at events, you name it, i find i want to categorize my contacts into three groups : the camera aficionados - the followers - the genuine producers.  am i too harsh ?  perhaps i just express here my recent frustration about another encounter i had some days ago with a senior, quite eloquent photography teacher in whose work i am actually having a hard time to locate the stuff that would tell me  something muchos years later, a mental content, an advice, a message, a truth, something i would call the 'real art', that's what ultimately matters, right ?  or may at least matter to documentary photography ?

i think your comment is very well thought-out and insightful. i love the fact that we as a community can have these types of discussions

ive grappled with many of the same questions and here is where ive landed on the issues:

1. im not a documentary photographer, so pure reproduction is not my goal. for the same philosophical/artistic reason:
   • my preference is to do monochrome work (which is abstract in any event since we have colour in reality)
   • i like the shallower DOF (unlike the deep DOF our eyes have)
   • i dont shoot with the best optically corrected lens (i like embracing the character of the lens)
2. if i had an assistant or a MUA - they could play with the lighting and makeup (if i had the time or budget doing this in post wouldn't be necessary) 
3. the unedited image of Annaliese is the JPG from the 246 (a leica engineer would have tuned the JPG engine) e.g note how much contrastier and blacker the unedited image looks. my point here is that this is just another person's interpretation of how things should look

ive made my peace with the above questions (hence why im happy with posting the before/after images) - at the end of the day i dont have an issue with doing some things in post because doing in them in camera will be too time consuming and costly. please dont take what i say to mean just go nuts in lightroom etc because i dont like those types of images. the answer for me is not 'yes or no', but something on a spectrum... for me, less is more, but that doesn't mean i dont do post

finally - as a practical thing, a lot of my shoots are done on a TFP basis (for inclusion in the model's own portfolio), so unless i produce something that 'looks good' (whatever that means), my subject is likely to clubbed me with my leica 😅  

 

[fenykepesz]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb sometimesmaybe:

i think your comment is very well thought-out and insightful. i love the fact that we as a community can have these types of discussions

ive grappled with many of the same questions and here is where ive landed on the issues:

1. im not a documentary photographer, so pure reproduction is not my goal. for the same philosophical/artistic reason:
   • my preference is to do monochrome work (which is abstract in any event since we have colour in reality)
   • i like the shallower DOF (unlike the deep DOF our eyes have)
   • i dont shoot with the best optically corrected lens (i like embracing the character of the lens)
2. if i had an assistant or a MUA - they could play with the lighting and makeup (if i had the time or budget doing this in post wouldn't be necessary) 
3. the unedited image of Annaliese is the JPG from the 246 (a leica engineer would have tuned the JPG engine) e.g note how much contrastier and blacker the unedited image looks. my point here is that this is just another person's interpretation of how things should look

ive made my peace with the above questions (hence why im happy with posting the before/after images) - at the end of the day i dont have an issue with doing some things in post because doing in them in camera will be too time consuming and costly. please dont take what i say to mean just go nuts in lightroom etc because i dont like those types of images. the answer for me is not 'yes or no', but something on a spectrum... for me, less is more, but that doesn't mean i dont do post

finally - as a practical thing, a lot of my shoots are done on a TFP basis (for inclusion in the model's own portfolio), so unless i produce something that 'looks good' (whatever that means), my subject is likely to clubbed me with my leica 😅  

 

thank you for your feedback and comment, sometimesmaybe - i am impressed how complete, 'full' and contrasty Annaliese's JPEG file comes, out of the box i suppose, that's 'raw or unedited', like a DNG nowadays (which are flatter of course).  it's nearly finished as a product, does not leave much room for editing, why change, right ?

now, regarding differences between Anneliese's two faces left & right, i see another subtle nuance in that the modified/edited version depicts a slightly stronger erotic effect.  what makes that ?  skin, lips, eyes ?  is that a cultural effect my socially trained brain can't escape ?  did i watch too many (b&w) movies ?   how was this difference born ?  was it an AI trained program that automatically adjusts pleasantness in a face via its 'perfectness' ?  i doubt that the software induced graininess alone would have such an effect ?

as you say, i guess i should make peace too, like you, with my own circle of inner devils, and just accept that there are many types and flavours of photography - in and outside the field of documentary photography (whatever that terms covers).  having said that, photography is for me an everyday struggle to justify every single picture i take, and weigh it against meaning and content, importance, relevance, against the tooth of time.  how much unworthiness i created over the years, it's meshuggeneh.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[f8low]

Interesting topic. I think my overall impression of what 'bnw images' look like is indeed determined by film photographs of the past century, not digital ones of the last twenty years. I am stating the obvious but bnw film has less latitude than modern sensors. Film from many decades ago even more so. 

I do not have a digital camera but my impression is that there (still) is a particular tonality to high contrast scenes on film that stems from the lower latitude. This can result in a 'punchier' look. I'll attach an example picture (admittedly on Tri-X and exposed a bit more for the shadows). I wonder how scenes like this would look on digital which brings me back to @MaticB original point.

Connecting a bit to what @fenykepesz and @sometimesmaybe  said: Maybe stating the obvious again but with bnw film there's not really a way to get a not-post-processed print in the darkroom. At least you have to choose a paper and that comes with a given contrast (range). In fact, post-processing is often considered an art. Personally, I carry that spirit to the digital negative scanning process and often apply a gradation curve. I'll attach a slightly brighter version which would be my preference here.
My impression is that these days film photography is a bit of a 'safe space' for not-so-super-realistic photographs. People realise it's film and they'll give you a bit of slack, they know it's going to look a bit 'different' and I can choose the direction of that 'different'.


PS bonus question: When dwelling on a film's tonality I often wish that the other signifiers of film (mostly grain, but also film borders, specks of dust) could be removed so that we could look at tonality without confounding factors.
PPS: Not saying you couldn't get 'film tonality' in your digital pictures in post - you surely can..

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 28, 2023 by f8low

[Zeitblom]

Color to black and white conversions are nothing new.
I'm currently trying to scan old color negatives of some of my father's Agfa CN 17s from the 1960s.
This film does not contain the orange mask that later became commonplace with color negative films and made black and white prints possible, when color prints were still very expensive.
I'm curious to see if I can do something with the colors in these photos after about sixty years, which I only know in black and white from our family albums.