Photographic documentary project in BW only?

[dancook]

I’m thinking I might to document artists, starting with musicians since I know a lot of them.

When I have a portfolio perhaps expanding to include other artists - painting, sculpture, metal working, glass blowing etc

I already have a musician interested for me to document the recording of her album, so that’s great.

I was wondering about limiting myself to just using the Leica Q2M which is a monochrom 28mm 1.7 camera.

I know Ansel Adam’s has a black and white only landscape book. I wonder whether I am limiting myself too much by sticking to BW.

But I’m thinking about consistency, creativity and my own passion for the camera.

Any thoughts about this?

I can just figure it out as I go, but I like to over think things like this

 

[droj]

My feeling is that overall, colour would give a fuller result for the types of subject mentioned. You could still impose a discipline by sticking to one lens (or maybe two?). The mention of glassblowing in particular made me think of colour ...

 

[dancook]

My feeling is that overall, colour would give a fuller result for the types of subject mentioned. You could still impose a discipline by sticking to one lens (or maybe two?).

I have the Leica Q2 which is the same 28mm. It is colour. I could mix between the two.

Else I’m using the Sony a1 where 50mm Gm and 24GM are my go to reportage lenses.

 

[Nod]

I'd use the Q2 but (if possible) record raw+JPEG with the JPEGs in B&W. Spend a little time setting the B&W conversion up to get the results you like and it'll be as similar as possible to shooting B&W film but you'll have the raw files as insurance.

 

[Harlequin565]

With in-situ documentary in what will be (presumably?) a cluttered studio setting, I would imagine b&w would be the way to go. The focus is likely to be more on the subject than on the guy in the bright red shirt in the background. Of course you could deliver a mix of b&w and colour but for me, that would make it a weaker set. If you look at the work of Kevin Cummins, Jim Marshall, Jill Furmanovsky, Mick Rock, Bob Gruen etc etc it's almost all monochrome and the backgrounds in many of those images are cluttered all to hell. For me, documentary & monochrome go hand in hand.

I shoot a lot of b&w film, and on the rare instances where I see a scene that might work better in colour, I just suck it up and make the monochrome work. So my vote would be to do it all in b&w.

Good luck!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Any thoughts about this?
In my opinion, just use whatever feels right for each subject or session.

While you can desaturate a colour image with ease, adding colour to a mono file is a teansy bit more difficult...

 

[dancook]

With in-situ documentary in what will be (presumably?) a cluttered studio setting, I would imagine b&w would be the way to go. The focus is likely to be more on the subject than on the guy in the bright red shirt in the background. Of course you could deliver a mix of b&w and colour but for me, that would make it a weaker set. If you look at the work of Kevin Cummins, Jim Marshall, Jill Furmanovsky, Mick Rock, Bob Gruen etc etc it's almost all monochrome and the backgrounds in many of those images are cluttered all to hell. For me, documentary & monochrome go hand in hand.

I shoot a lot of b&w film, and on the rare instances where I see a scene that might work better in colour, I just suck it up and make the monochrome work. So my vote would be to do it all in b&w.

Good luck!

Thanks, when I think about the potentially colourful art, then the black and white would prevent it from detracting from the artist, who is really the subject in it all.

So not put off by the idea of BW only. I have considered their could be a single colour master photo for any set whether it is a colour portrait of the artist or colour photo of some art, or messy work station.

 

[dancook]

Any thoughts about this?

In my opinion, just use whatever feels right for each subject or session.

If I put them all into a book together I feel like I would like consistency from artist to artist.

but, whatever I learn from working with the first few artists might help with the direction of the project. I can always overshoot so I keep things a bit flexible.

 

[droj]

You did say document rather than portrait, which made me think that background 'clutter' in a workshop / studio is an important contextual part of the image. But you could use differential focus ...

 

[dancook]

You did say document rather than portrait, which made me think that background 'clutter' in a workshop / studio is an important contextual part of the image. But you could use differential focus ...

The core will be documentary/unposed, but the inclusion of a single posed portrait wouldn’t be out of place, and I might as well whilst I am there.

I do like some posed colour clutterered images I’ve seen before, and maybe that could be a key image instead of a solo portrait.

 

[woof woof]

I suppose as well as what you like and get pleasure from something else to consider is what other people will like, be attracted by and potentially book you because of, if that's part of your plan.

Would artists and artisans be attracted to B&W and the look the Leica gives and would they want you to do more of the same for them?

 

[dancook]

I suppose as well as what you like and get pleasure from something else to consider is what other people will like, be attracted by and potentially book you because of, if that's part of your plan.

Would artists and artisans be attracted to B&W and the look the Leica gives and would they want you to do more of the same for them?

What I would like to get out of it, is to have connections to worlds I don't belong just to photograph from within - because it interests me. Not really thought about the potential for paid bookings, but maybe it'll give me some exposure. (For anyone who doesn't know I do shoot professionally full-time, but this is more of a personal project thing)

A website with artist galleries, a book with the best photo from each artist. I can see a book with solely BW images, one per page with a white margin - I'm quite excited for that idea.

What the artists get out of it? usage of the images on social media but would require a link to the full works on the website, no editing, no printing, no promotional campaigns.

 

[garryknight]

You could use both cameras on the first day and when you've seen some results, if it's no bother, always have both cameras handy, just in case.

 

[sirch]

If you are planning to produce a book I wouldn't mix colour and B&W, shoot in colour and do mono conversions for single images perhaps?

 

[TimHughes]

I like the idea of sticking with monochrome all the way through rather than leaving your options open by shooting on color then converting. The focus on monochrome will likely influence how and what you shoot and that may well result in a better overall end result.

 

[benc98]

I agree with the above. If you’re thinking of black and white then use the Q2M… you’ll be limited by using it, but that limitation would push you creatively imo

 

[FruitFlakes]

I'm currently working on a project as well and the photographers and editors I've shown work (a mix of quieter portraits on B/W 10x8 with colour street work) to have actually suggested I keep a mix of the two. Of course it's very project dependent but mixing the two isn't as big a no no as it used to be.

 

[jerry12953]

Absolutely shoot in colour and convert to b&w as required. How about a formal portrait of each artist in colour and a selection of "environmental" images of each artist in b&w, showing their studio, or other work environment?

Don't let your choice of equipment limit your picture-taking.

 

[Ed Sutton]

How about a formal portrait of each artist in colour and a selection of "environmental" images of each artist in b&w, showing their studio, or other work environment?

Or the reverse.

IMO documentary in the digital age really ought to be done in colour now the practical/technical limitations of colour film have been surpassed..

Don't let your choice of equipment limit your picture-taking.

Very much this.

Again IMO, its what's in the pictures that is important. Normal human beings can't tell, and don't care, what gear has been used.

 

[jerry12953]

The most important thing is to keep your choices consistent throughout the project. If there is a colour/b&w mix'n'match it will probably work as long as it is consistent.

 

[woof woof]

Again IMO, its what's in the pictures that is important. Normal human beings can't tell, and don't care, what gear has been used.

I think this goes to the point of it all.

If the point is for the picture taker to enjoy the experience including enjoy using the kit and liking the pictures then the gear is probably an integral part of the process and enjoying it all but if the point is to produce an end result that normal people like and will ask for then the kit could potentially get in the way even if the guy with the kit is enjoying themselves.

For example, I like my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 but even a normal person might spot that it can produce funky pictures and may prefer the look from a less extreme lens. Do I care what they think? Well, I'm a happy snapping amateur and need to please no one but myself

 

[dancook]

The consideration of camera is just a personal choice, I feel most comfortable with the Q cameras for their smaller size and discreet style. I like their limitations, it spurs creativity to make them work.

The alternative is to use more expensive, more capable, more impressive Sony A1 cameras and GM lenses, but that's not the point and the end user still isn't going to care about that..

Besides the more limited camera approach may well indeed help me grow as a photographer..

I'm thinking I don't have much to lose by trialling it, I can always revisit the musicians I know later on and document the next stage in their career - but I appreciate all the feedback, it's given me stuff to think about.

 

[Ed Sutton]

The consideration of camera is just a personal choice, I feel most comfortable with the Q cameras for their smaller size and discreet style.

I've convinced myself that it's a myth about small cameras being more discreet. As photographers we like to think they are, but in practice it's how you conduct yourself that makes the camera 'disappear' to the people you are photographing. Especially so if you can spend time getting to know your subjects. It becomes a collaboration and they (almost) forget you're taking photos.

Limiting your choices can be a creative spur. But if it stops you getting the pictures it's just a self-indulgence. IMO

Whatever you decide I hope you'll post some results on TP.

 

[woof woof]

One thing to think about is that 28mm can produce perspective distortion but of course that can be used effectively and in any case may not be noticed by the ordinaries and if they do notice something they may even like it.

 

[dancook]

One thing to think about is that 28mm can produce perspective distortion but of course that can be used effectively and in any case may not be noticed by the ordinaries and if they do notice something they may even like it.

Shame Sony don't do a 28mm GM I would favour it over the 24mm GM, I've tried their 28mm f2 but was not happy with IQ/barrel distortion.

So I suppose that is one thing, the focal length I want to work with I just don't have for the Sony

The day a 28mm GM comes out is the day I reconsider the Q2 no promises though!

 

[woof woof]

I just have the f2 and find that distortion isn't a problem for me but if it is I find applying the corrections fixes it without issue, for me. Ditto with the 24mm f2.8 G which has pretty epic distortion before correction.

Anyway. Assuming whatever 28mm you're using is perfect you'll still have the potential for perspective effects should you be close enough to the subject. Part of the reason I use wider lenses is sometimes for that look but I just thought it was worth stating the obvious (as I'm sure you know all about perspective) in the context of a project that other people may look at. To me it all ties in with why you're doing this. If it's for your own enjoyment then all is down to you and what you want to produce and how you want to enjoy the process. If anyone is going to see and judge your pictures as has already been mentioned they may not recognise any perspective effects.

I'm sure you know all of the potential issues of shooting colour v B&W and 28mm. I'm just pointing out potential things to think about.

 

[dancook]

I've been in touch with the musician, their suggestion of an outdoor rehearsal is probably not going to be at it's best in B+W and the content not natural enough - but it'll be fun and it's a start, and I can then try to explain more about what I want to do.

I did consider I already have a little 'behind the scene' stuff - a vocal group putting on make-up before a Halloween gig.

I'm not saying this would go in the book (I would want best of the best of each artist).. but these were something I like.





but I did mix it up with colour too

 

[jerry12953]

I prefer them in B&W........

 

[Nod]

So do I.

 

[TimHughes]

B&W definitely better

 

[Ed Sutton]

I think the two b&ws are just better considered pictures than the colour pair.

 

[dancook]

I suppose i never really "under expose" my colour images for the dramatic effect I get from those black and whites.

when it comes to BW i like those deep shadows

Maybe I just enjoy shooting BW more and put more care into it ? /shrug

 

[stevewestern]

B&W for me too. I really like them.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Those second colour pics are better. The first two in particular.

NB I am biased against b&w documentary photography in the digital age.

I feel it risks adding a gloss of nostalgia or artiness and can make it more about the pictures/photographer than the subject/story.

Which brings us back to deciding who the audience is.

This isn't to say you can't make great photos AND tell the story well. It's just a lot harder than doing one or the other!

 

[dancook]

I feel it risks adding a gloss of nostalgia or artiness and can make it more about the pictures/photographer than the subject/story.

Which brings us back to deciding who the audience is.

This isn't to say you can't make great photos AND tell the story well. It's just a lot harder than doing one or the other!

I want both!

Like street photography, to me, aesthetics are equally important - but it is hard, like when you shoot a wedding - you can get lots of smiley happy people photos which look great and compositions are good, but making art from each and everyone of them at the same time is much harder.

Perhaps the audience should just be me, if I want to grow as an artist and do what makes me happy.

 

[jerry12953]

I want both!

You've got to shoot colour then.............

 

[dancook]

You've got to shoot colour then.............

It was in response to "This isn't to say you can't make great photos AND tell the story well. "

Which sounds like you're saying no great photo was ever taken in black and white. or was it the story? what's your reasoning here?

 

[jerry12953]

It was in response to "This isn't to say you can't make great photos AND tell the story well. "

Which sounds like you're saying no great photo was ever taken in black and white. or was it the story? what's your reasoning here?

Sorry......a misunderstanding. I didn't read the whole post. I was referring to colour / b&w .

 

[Nod]

Perhaps the audience should just be me, if I want to grow as an artist and do what makes me happy.

Since your non personal shooting is for other people and to (at least some extent) their tastes, why not?