Who's gone back to converting color files after using a monochrom?

[T25UFO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was scrolling down on my iPad, looked first at the B&W image and thought that’s really nice.  Then I scrolled down a bit further to the colour image . . . wow!  Your point is very well made.

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

Hmm. Both are interesting photos, Philip, but to my eye the second isn't really about anything but the color as it obscures the intricate geometric pattern to my eye. 

There is certainly a place for photos that *are* all about the color, and if that's what you like, life is grand. I occasionally shoot some things like that. But it's not my usual interest in photographic compositions ... I'm more interested in patterns and contrasts, shapes and interactions, faces and gestures.

There's space for all kinds of photographic expression in the world.

G

[Stevejack]

15 hours ago, ramarren said:

His work over the course of a year made an enormous transformation and is vastly improved when it comes to B&W conceptualizations. A side effect is that his color work of family and friends has similarly improved enormously as well ... which points out that developing exceptional visual chops works no matter what kind of photographic end product you are trying to achieve.

It's interesting isn't it. I found the same thing with my own work. I guess until we really start focusing on monochrome photography some of us just aren't thinking critically enough about light. 
On a given day colour photography can usually overcome 'deficiencies' in flat/even light but with b+w you really need to think hard about how to position the elements within the frame so that they separate from the back layer without being lost in a washed out mess of greys. All else being equal, the monochrome photographer needs to be thinking much more about the influence of light in shaping the scene compared with the colour photographer.

It certainly makes for a big leap forward when these techniques are also applied to colour work. 

Edited January 10 by Stevejack

[ph0toni]

Yesterday I tried an M10M with an il 50 Apo f2
fantastic! unfortunately it was a gray and rainy day... I have to go back.
I wanted to make two considerations
To take better photos you don't need an RGB or a Mono, you need to be self-critical, be satisfied with yourself, and believe in your own taste; having your wallet read by a phantom professional makes me laugh.
I repeat that previewing the final result in black and white was difficult with a TriX but is still difficult in digital.
I believe that the quality and flexibility of the M11 files are an advantage.
An example of interpretation: this is a result that surprised me in clear room, of a scene shot with IR and UV filters

.

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!

[pippy]

4 hours ago, ramarren said:

......to my eye the second isn't really about anything but the color as it obscures the intricate geometric pattern to my eye......

Whilst I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that the geometric pattern is obscured in the second pic I would - absolutely - agree that in that version the only thing which really matters is the 'play' of colour adorning the building; that is the whole point of the photograph. Sometimes the juxtaposition of 'Colour' can be an end in its self. Consider, if you will, the paintings of Piet Mondrian.

If I were to muck around with the tones in the monochrome version it is quite possible that it could probably be made a bit more dramatic / interesting but I believe that, just occasionally, certain subject matter can be more effective in colour.

 Philip.

Edited January 10 by pippy

[pippy]

I've just been thinking about the subject of 'Colour Photography' a little bit more and realised that the truth seems to be that I don't actually like colour photographs very much when they are being considered as, if you like, normal everyday 'Photographs'. I haven't (yet) had time to fully work out why this should be the case but here are some initial thoughts...

Having gone through all the books on 'Photography' - most of which are monographs - on my shelves I was slightly surprised to see that only a handful are about photographers who shoot in colour and, without exception, they are books by portraitists or fashion photographers; Yousuf Karsh, Norman Parkinson and Horst P. Horst. That's it. Of those I think Karsh's finest works are, by far, his monochrome photographs; I don't much care for his colour work. Parkinson was shooting primarily for the likes of Vogue so his subject-matter was, to a large extent, driven by the needs of the industry.

Out of the three of them it is the way that Horst used colour which is, for me, the most fascinating as he often uses colour in his compositions in much the same way as a painter might and if I were to consider other colour photographs which I've seen and admired it is usually because they have this 'Painterly' quality rather than from any merit thay have from the photographic point of view.

It seems that where 'colour' is concerned, for me, the photograph isn't the point of the exercise; I like colour in photographs only when it is used purely as an end in itself.

I should probably think about this some more...

Philip.

Edited January 10 by pippy

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Indeed, thinking about these topics is what is most important; what conclusions any individual draws from that meditation is secondary to the photographs they make.

For color work, you should also consider looking up Saul Leiter. There are quite a few photo books by him and I won't bias you by suggesting one, but to my eye his work is brilliant, evocative, and pure. I learn a lot every time I take one off the shelf and spend an hour studying his photographs. 

G

[pippy]

7 minutes ago, ramarren said:

...For color work, you should also consider looking up Saul Leiter......but to my eye his work is brilliant, evocative, and pure. I learn a lot every time I take one off the shelf and spend an hour studying his photographs...

Yes; although I don't have any books by / on him I am familiar with his work and agree with your thoughts. Another 'Colour' photographer whose images I have liked for a great many years is Ernst Haas.

I suppose I should check out more work by photographers who work, predominantly, in colour before dismissing Colour Photography (almost!) completely; yet although I can appreciate the work of the artists mentioned their approach is not something which I see myself doing as it's not really my style of shooting - or even 'seeing'.

But, as I say, perhaps I should keep an open mind where shooting in colour is concerned and do some more research on the concept?

Philip.

[ramarren]

An open mind is the most valuable asset for any photographer.

G

[pippy]

11 minutes ago, ramarren said:

An open mind is the most valuable asset for any photographer.

That and an open eye (or two)...

😸

Philip.

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, pippy said:

I've just been thinking about the subject of 'Colour Photography' a little bit more and realised that the truth seems to be that I don't actually like colour photographs very much when they are being considered as, if you like, normal everyday 'Photographs'. I haven't (yet) had time to fully work out why this should be the case but here are some initial thoughts...

Having gone through all the books on 'Photography' - most of which are monographs - on my shelves I was slightly surprised to see that only a handful are about photographers who shoot in colour and, without exception, they are books by portraitists or fashion photographers; Yousuf Karsh, Norman Parkinson and Horst P. Horst. That's it. Of those I think Karsh's finest works are, by far, his monochrome photographs; I don't much care for his colour work. Parkinson was shooting primarily for the likes of Vogue so his subject-matter was, to a large extent, driven by the needs of the industry.

Out of the three of them it is the way that Horst used colour which is, for me, the most fascinating as he often uses colour in his compositions in much the same way as a painter might and if I were to consider other colour photographs which I've seen and admired it is usually because they have this 'Painterly' quality rather than from any merit thay have from the photographic point of view.

It seems that where 'colour' is concerned, for me, the photograph isn't the point of the exercise; I like colour in photographs only when it is used purely as an end in itself.

I should probably think about this some more...

Philip.

In addition to Leiter, you might explore Ernst Haas, Fred Herzog, or of course Eggleston. Haas is one of the rare photographers who seemed to have a keen eye for both B&W and color.  Ansel shot color, mostly forgettable.
 

I collect photo books, mostly first edition B&W work from photographers I admire, as well as vintage B&W prints. For color, I generally prefer paintings. Personally, I find color photography more difficult to establish a vision and style, which is why I stick mostly to monochrome.

[pippy]

38 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

...In addition to Leiter, you might explore Ernst Haas, Fred Herzog, or of course Eggleston...

Although I've heard the name Fred Herzog I'm unfamiliar with their work so thanks for the suggestion! Ernst Haas I mentioned in post #28 and I agree with you on the B'n'W & Colour aspect. Eggleston is a strange one. I know that he is extremely popular and can appreciate why that is the case but, purely from a personal point of view, I feel absolutely unmoved by his style. Same story with Martin Parr. There are a few exceptions but in the main his photography leaves me cold. Ah well; My Loss. Possibly.

The way certain photographers - and even more-so some cinematographers - use color I find rather fascinating. The films crafted by the likes of Kryzysztof Kieślowski, Peter Greenaway and Wong Kar Wei. for instance, I find quite magical yet at the same time I have absolutely no desire to 'ape' their shooting-style (even assuming I ever could do so!).

Photographers & cinematographers who use B'n'W however? I couldn't possibly number how many of them have been an inspiration; far too many to count.

Philip.

Edited January 10 by pippy

[Stevejack]

On 1/11/2025 at 12:45 AM, Jeff S said:

For color, I generally prefer paintings. Personally, I find color photography more difficult to establish a vision and style, which is why I stick mostly to monochrome.

I'm the same way... I really wish I was a better colour photographer, I just don't (yet) have those skills.
My wife is a painter and it appears to come intuitively to her. She can paint hyper photorealistic portraits but her favourite subject is abstract. I don't think I'll ever understand abstract, and when I ask her to explain why she put that bright bit of colour only in that one particular spot, and no-where else.. or why that patch of texture in one place but not another... she can only tell me that it 'feels' right when she looks at it. And the painting simply didn't feel right when it wasn't there. 

I'm certain that was appears to be intuition and gut feeling is simply a consequence of her early studies in art but she sure can't explain it any clearer than that. She has a much better eye for what makes a nice photograph than I do but she has no interest in photography at all. 

[Stevejack]

On 1/10/2025 at 11:56 PM, pippy said:

I suppose I should check out more work by photographers who work, predominantly, in colour before dismissing Colour Photography (almost!) completely; yet although I can appreciate the work of the artists mentioned their approach is not something which I see myself doing as it's not really my style of shooting - or even 'seeing'.

I agree with you about the 'seeing' thing.

But I think there are just a lot more balls in the air when it comes to photographing in colour. It can be easier to shoot some scenes in colour (in terms of separating elements within the frame) but I find it much more difficult to deal with the weight of certain colours. I find this with street photography in particular. Advertisers and sign makers specifically use colours which will grab our attention the most so we have to be extra careful when composing to avoid the viewer's eye going straight to an advert in the corner of the frame rather than to the intended subject.

Colour is hard and as a result I walk around seeing scenes as they would appear in black and white and really don't think about colour at all. Of all the images I see online, I'm drawn to the black and white ones the most. But colour is one of those skills I need to work on if I want to improve so I feel like I should be carrying a colour camera more often. I just don't know if black and white is a preference or a crutch and that worries me a little. 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Stevejack said:

I'm the same way... I really wish I was a better colour photographer, I just don't (yet) have those skills.
My wife is a painter and it appears to come intuitively to her. She can paint hyper photorealistic portraits but her favourite subject is abstract. I don't think I'll ever understand abstract, and when I ask her to explain why she put that bright bit of colour only in that one particular spot, and no-where else.. or why that patch of texture in one place but not another... she can only tell me that it 'feels' right when she looks at it. And the painting simply didn't feel right when it wasn't there. 

I'm certain that was appears to be intuition and gut feeling is simply a consequence of her early studies in art but she sure can't explain it any clearer than that. She has a much better eye for what makes a nice photograph than I do but she has no interest in photography at all. 

My issue is different. I think I have a good eye for color and composition, but find it more difficult to execute in photography, so that results are about more than the color, and convey a distinctive style. Suitable subject matter is harder to find.  I do have a reasonable portfolio of satisfying color pics/prints, including some that evoke painters I admire, like Edward Hopper, but the hits are not as frequent as my B&W efforts.  No doubt that some of this is due to my devoting far more time and effort to B&W work. But I generally admire far fewer color photographers than B&W specialists. Most color photos I see from others aren’t much beyond pretty pics for me; more like postcards. Paintings can appeal to me in more tangible and creative ways. 

Edited January 13 by Jeff S

[jakontil]

The mono i had was m246, a great camera even until today, however, i need the color options and like previously mentioned, i can happily convert the color M into mono without missing anything .. at least for my style of shoot

anyway, bear in mind i might actually replace the M mono with my BW films analog hence i never miss it

[Derbyshire Man]

9 hours ago, Jeff S said:

My issue is different. I think I have a good eye for color and composition, but find it more difficult to execute in photography, so that results are about more than the color, and convey a distinctive style. Suitable subject matter is harder to find.  I do have a reasonable portfolio of satisfying color pics/prints, including some that evoke painters I admire, like Edward Hopper, but the hits are not as frequent as my B&W efforts.  No doubt that some of this is due to my devoting far more time and effort to B&W work. But I generally admire far fewer color photographers than B&W specialists. Most color photos I see from others aren’t much beyond pretty pics for me; more like postcards. Paintings can appeal to me in more tangible and creative ways. 

I think this is right, there's probably more to be learnt to develop one's colour photography from studying painting than photographs, odd though it may seem. There is also of course natural propensity and talent which you can't do much about. Interestingly, elsewhere Herzog was mentioned for his colour photography and I found a book of his B&W images, IMPO the monochrome very few did anything for me, it appeared plain that he was still seeing in colour, photographing in colour (apart from his snooker hall shots which were a sitter for monochrome). It's worth considering what art works in monochrome, largely it's print, linocut, engraving, etc and indeed it's bold images or shade changes which do best in those media as well as photography.

I'll stop there as I'm making this up as I'm going along! I agree fully though, postcard colour images, outside of documentation of where I've been I find boring.

Edited January 13 by Derbyshire Man

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, Derbyshire Man said:

Interestingly, elsewhere Herzog was mentioned for his colour photography and I found a book of his B&W images, IMPO the monochrome very few did anything for me, it appeared plain that he was still seeing in colour, photographing in colour (apart from his snooker hall shots which were a sitter for monochrome). It's worth considering what art works in monochrome, largely it's print, linocut, engraving, etc and indeed it's bold images or shade changes which do best in those media as well as photography.

 

Yes, I was the one who mentioned Herzog, and also wrote that very few photographers work well in both B&W and color.  Two different challenges. Ernst Haas is an exception for me, but his color output is predominant.

There are (were) some successful painters, however, who also worked well in photography, including Charles Sheeler, Ralston Crawford, et. al.  HCB was noted for his drawing skills.  Brancusi, the sculptor, was a good photographer.  Various musicians, famously including Ansel, were good photographers. So I think the way one sees/thinks can translate to different media, but color and B/W photography present different challenges IMO. Ansel sucked at color, for my tastes.

Edited January 13 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tom0511]

I bought and sold Monochrom cameras.

When I had sold the M246 and just kept a color camera I was not really missing the Mono. But when I betatested a M11M I did want one again. For some reason I believe to see a certain clarity in those files + I like the mindset. So I finally ended up with a M11M some months ago.

Now I wonder if I still need my M11 color... because I also own a SL3 and some other gear.

I dont feel I miss anything though when I convert files from my color cameras. Probably not logic, what I am saying here.

 

[Luke_Miller]

Since I have both the M240 and M246 I did a head-to-head comparison.  Shot the same scene with the same lens and same exposure (adjusted for the difference in base ISO).  The M240 color image was then converted to B&W and compared with the image from the M246.  I preferred the M246 version due to relatively subtle differences that appealed to me. The M240 B&W conversion was perfectly fine and I would have been happy with it had I not had the M246 image to compare to it.  So I don't regularly convert color files. When I want B&W I use my M9M or M246 just as I would load B&W film in my film days.  But for those who have not shot with a Monochrom or have, and not found the differences compelling, color conversions can produce excellent images.  

Edited January 22 by Luke_Miller