Color vs BW, two questions

[Fuad7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

BW televisions became extinct not long after the arrival of color TV monitors, however, BW photography has survived.

1- Beyond the nostalgia factor, what do you find compelling about monochrome images?

     Do you find BW images better suited to certain types of photography?  I for instance feel that monochrome images impart a special character to portraits, especially of older individuals or those       with facial hair due to the increased contrast that creases/wrinkles/hair provide.  

2- Do you think dedicated BW cameras like the Q2M provide better quality images than a Q2 shooting in BW?

I thank you for your valuable input in advance.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[JNK100]

25 minutes ago, Fuad7 said:

BW televisions became extinct not long after the arrival of color TV monitors, however, BW photography has survived.

1- Beyond the nostalgia factor, what do you find compelling about monochrome images?

     Do you find BW images better suited to certain types of photography?  I for instance feel that monochrome images impart a special character to portraits, especially of older individuals or those       with facial hair due to the increased contrast that creases/wrinkles/hair provide.  

2- Do you think dedicated BW cameras like the Q2M provide better quality images than a Q2 shooting in BW?

I thank you for your valuable input in advance.

 

1. Yes. I convert around 10% of my shots to B&W. Just whatever takes my fancy.

2. I understand dedicated monochrome cameras perform a bit better in terms of  resolution and nose.

[Tarekith]

1 - For me it’s just a different way of looking at the world around me, not focusing on color but almost purely the interaction between light and dark, shape and form.  I think you can apply that way of thinking (or working) to pretty much any style of photography.  It’s not specific to anything except the person behind the lens and how they like to work or view the world around them.

2 - Maybe when it comes to ISO performance, but I think in any artform the term “better quality” is something purely defined by the viewer (or listener, etc).  There’s also the argument that working with color images and gives you more flexibility when editing photos.  But again, that’s more about how the artist themselves prefers to work and less about it being a “better” way to work.  While it’s nice knowing I have that option should I need it (I shoot probably 98% B&W on my Q43), it’s also something I rarely find myself needing to do.

Edited March 27 by Tarekith

[rogxwhit]

1 hour ago, Fuad7 said:

monochrome images impart a special character to portraits, especially of older individuals or those       with facial hair due to the increased contrast that creases/wrinkles/hair provide.  

Surely that's a fossilised legacy look that became a cliche as soon as it was invented?

 

1 hour ago, Fuad7 said:

Do you think dedicated BW cameras like the Q2M provide better quality images than a Q2 shooting in BW?

As by Tarekith above.  A mono conversion from a colour RAW (DNG) means that you never need a yellow, orange etc filter on the lens, and you can manipulate tones by adjusting both hues and curves on separate layers  ...

[Fuad7]

26 minutes ago, rogxwhit said:

 

A mono conversion from a colour RAW (DNG) means that you never need a yellow, orange etc filter on the lens, and you can manipulate tones by adjusting both hues and curves on separate layers  ...

layers...I will get there one day, I hope

[LocalHero1953]

I envisage the ideal photograph as being in colour. I will convert to B&W when my compositional skills are inadequate to handle colour alongside highlights/shadows, shapes, patterns, textures, facial expressions, activities etc. Colour is often one factor too many.

Painters have no problem with colour because they can use it themselves to manage composition. As photographers we don't have that choice: we must take the colour we see - or convert it to light/shade.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you took all the girls I knew when I was single
And brought 'em all together for one night
I know they'd never match my sweet imagination
Everything looks worse in black and white

Kodachro-o-ome!
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah...
Momma don't take my Kodachrome away!

Paul Simon, 1973.

I don't totally agree with Paul Simon, but B&W, as LocalHero1953 notes, eliminates a "pretty-pretty" aspect of photography, letting other important things show through.

It can impose more consistency throughout a project or "body of work" - or make a grim story (e.g. documentation of the lives of the disenfranchised - cf: Sebastiao Salgado) even grimmer.

https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/constituents/sebastião-salgado?all/all/all/all/0

It is rather interesting that Thomas Eakins painted his picture of a gentleman-client's coach-and-four (c. 1879) at least twice. Once in full color, and once in almost pure B&W, for print reproduction in a coaching publication, As well as various composition-trials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fairman_Rogers_Four-in-Hand

https://www.slam.org/collection/objects/1086/

A "B&W documentary painting" was quite a revelation for me, as I lived near St. Louis, and saw that version just about the time I began B&W photography at age 16.

[Dazzajl]

To question one, why B&W images still compel and always will in my view, is the extra layer of distillation down to the purpose of the photograph. I believe that everything in your photo should work towards telling the story or serving the aesthetic you're trying to reach. The more of the visual clutter that isn't serving your vision that can be removed, the stronger your images will be. Sometimes colour can be a pillar of the image and in those cases, it should be there. If the colours in your frame are not serving the image, then it's stronger, speaks louder without. Ultimately, it all comes down to distillation. The more of what doesn't serve you that you can eliminate from your photographs, the better they will be.

As for the second question, now that is a can of worms for sure. Yes, I do think that the Monochrom cameras provide better quality images than those converted from a standard camera. However not all the time and not because there is something inherently better about the tool in your hand. Though it is definitely different to work with. What allows images from a Monochrom to be superior is starting from the mindset that your camera will not see any colour. Once you've really taken that on board, then you start to look at/for potential images in a different way. Your eye becomes drawn to the play and fall off of light. Shadows seem more like solid objects, textures become more apparent and if we're being entirely honest with ourselves, there is a little warmth from the feeling of smug superiority that we have sacrificed the ability to use colours for the pursuit of our art. Of course the reality is probably closer to the take that we're just being pompous and are suckers enough to pay much more for a camera that does much less. ☺️ 

[jjroroek]

Standard i shoot L- DNG together with black and white_L- JPG  because i like composing my pictures in B/W in the viewfinder.  After shooting i Import only the L-DNG to the computer. In case i prefer a   B/W  version of the pricture a do so  in the postprocessing from the DNG. 

[Fuad7]

4 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

To question one, why B&W images still compel and always will in my view, is the extra layer of distillation down to the purpose of the photograph. I believe that everything in your photo should work towards telling the story or serving the aesthetic you're trying to reach. The more of the visual clutter that isn't serving your vision that can be removed, the stronger your images will be. Sometimes colour can be a pillar of the image and in those cases, it should be there. If the colours in your frame are not serving the image, then it's stronger, speaks louder without. Ultimately, it all comes down to distillation. The more of what doesn't serve you that you can eliminate from your photographs, the better they will be.

As for the second question, now that is a can of worms for sure. Yes, I do think that the Monochrom cameras provide better quality images than those converted from a standard camera. However not all the time and not because there is something inherently better about the tool in your hand. Though it is definitely different to work with. What allows images from a Monochrom to be superior is starting from the mindset that your camera will not see any colour. Once you've really taken that on board, then you start to look at/for potential images in a different way. Your eye becomes drawn to the play and fall off of light. Shadows seem more like solid objects, textures become more apparent and if we're being entirely honest with ourselves, there is a little warmth from the feeling of smug superiority that we have sacrificed the ability to use colours for the pursuit of our art. Of course the reality is probably closer to the take that we're just being pompous and are suckers enough to pay much more for a camera that does much less. ☺️ 

Impressive thought process and compelling.
 

when I take BW pictures I feel a bit relieved that I don’t have to also worry about the colours stealing the show or distract from what I am interested in seeing and showing.  Colours can focus the eyes to or away from what one is interested in capturing.  I am not a good enough artist to work with so many variables and BW pictures remove one variable. 
 

Thank you for your thoughts.

Edited March 27 by Fuad7

[Fuad7]

3 hours ago, adan said:

If you took all the girls I knew when I was single
And brought 'em all together for one night
I know they'd never match my sweet imagination
Everything looks worse in black and white

Kodachro-o-ome!
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah...
Momma don't take my Kodachrome away!

Paul Simon, 1973.

I don't totally agree with Paul Simon, but B&W, as LocalHero1953 notes, eliminates a "pretty-pretty" aspect of photography, letting other important things show through.

It can impose more consistency throughout a project or "body of work" - or make a grim story (e.g. documentation of the lives of the disenfranchised - cf: Sebastiao Salgado) even grimmer.

https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/constituents/sebastião-salgado?all/all/all/all/0

It is rather interesting that Thomas Eakins painted his picture of a gentleman-client's coach-and-four (c. 1879) at least twice. Once in full color, and once in almost pure B&W, for print reproduction in a coaching publication, As well as various composition-trials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fairman_Rogers_Four-in-Hand

https://www.slam.org/collection/objects/1086/

A "B&W documentary painting" was quite a revelation for me, as I lived near St. Louis, and saw that version just about the time I began B&W photography at age 16.

Lots to study and learn from! 
Much appreciated.

[Fuad7]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I envisage the ideal photograph as being in colour. I will convert to B&W when my compositional skills are inadequate to handle colour alongside highlights/shadows, shapes, patterns, textures, facial expressions, activities etc. Colour is often one factor too many.

Painters have no problem with colour because they can use it themselves to manage composition. As photographers we don't have that choice: we must take the colour we see - or convert it to light/shade.

Well said! 
I feel that colour is a difficult variable to manage most of the time especially given my own limited ability.

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, JNK100 said:

I understand dedicated monochrome cameras perform a bit better in terms of  resolution and nose.

And tonal differentiation. And more than a bit.

[01af]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Fuad7:

Beyond the nostalgia factor, what do you find compelling about monochrome images?

Monochrome adds another level of abstraction.

.

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Fuad7:

Do you think dedicated B/W cameras like the Leica Q2 Monochrom provide better-quality images than a Q2 shooting in B/W?

Yes, definitely!

But that's not the point. The point is: Using a digital monochrome camera will set your mind for monochrome imaginery (is that a word?) in the same way using black-and-white film will and using a digital colour camera set to B/W mode just won't. That's crucial. (And yes, I am aware that no-one will believe me except those who are actually using a digital monochrome camera.)

Edited March 27 by 01af

[Fuad7]

I wonder if it is easier to bungle up a BW image since there are no colors to hide behind?

I wonder if it is easier to take a good BW image since there are no colors to bungle up the image?

I wonder!😅

[jaapv]

Judging by the image threads on the forums it is easier to mess up a B&W image than a colour one. Too many are G&G. ( Grey and Grey)

[Fuad7]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Judging by the image threads on the forums it is easier to mess up a B&W image with Hans a colour one. Too many are G&G. ( Grey and Grey)

I wonder what percentage of Ansel Adams images were winners?

 

[Robert Ardinger]

35 minutes ago, Fuad7 said:

I wonder what percentage of Ansel Adams images were winners?

“Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop”  Ansel Adams

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Aram Langhans]

As an old time photographer, I always carried two cameras around with me.  One had color film, and one had black and white film.  Sometimes I even wished for a third camera with a much faster or slower film.  (Digital is great for that) There are certain subjects that just scream black and white and others that scream color at least in my mind’s eye.  I have yet to see beautiful fall color shots or rainbow shots in black and white.  But I have seen impressive landscapes and portraits in black and white that far exceed the color versions.  Perhaps someone who has not used black and white film for decades might have a problem deciding when black and white is more appropriate/powerful than color.

I do not have a dedicated monochrome camera but have been tempted.  Then again, that would mean carrying two cameras around again, something that my 75-year-old bones would protest.  I have worked with a few monochrome files and they are indeed wonderful, but not so much better than a converted Q2 or Q3 file, so I have resisted.  And as so many have pointed out, a skilled B&W photographer used filters while taking their photos in their bag of tricks to make their darkroom work so much easier.  With a color digital file, it is so easy just to move a slider in Lightroom to get for the most part the same effect that you would get by adding a filter to a monochrome camera.  It might even be better on one way – a filter on a lens cuts down the light so you might have to crank up the ISO on the monochrome camera where you would not have to do that with a color file that you manipulate in post processing.  Not sure if you would loose anything with he post processing color “filters”. 

I'll just add a quote by famous Leica photographer Ted Grant.  “When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in Black and white, you photograph their souls!”

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Judging by the image threads on the forums it is easier to mess up a B&W image than a colour one. Too many are G&G. ( Grey and Grey)

I agree; based on me looking at my darkroom printed images off film (often Delta 100) from yesteryear, done by high end labs and by some who are deemed “master printers”, and accepting just how crushed some of the blacks can be (and even how there are some highlights that are gone, despite the long highlight shoulder offered by b&w film) …and thinking how much I like that “look”, all leaving the technician to decide what he liked at that time. Nothing excessive (certainly not a Moriyama style), but they are all far away from the G&G you cite, and rather beautiful for it, IMHO.