minimeeze
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,512
- Name
- Cheryl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The magic of monochrome
- Thread starter minimeeze
- Start date
- Messages
- 11,726
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not sure I'll ever get into mono the way a lot of people do.
There are four names above galleries on that page. I looked through the first two and *to me* there were very few that made sense being b/w - they would have been as good or better in colour.
When I got to the third name (Brian T.) I thought most of them are more dramatic in mono and enjoyed a lot of the pictures. The fourth name I thought was 50/50 better for being mono.
Thanks for the link - was interesting viewing.
(wonder if this is where someone says the first two names are famous for great b/w photography)
:getmecoat
There are four names above galleries on that page. I looked through the first two and *to me* there were very few that made sense being b/w - they would have been as good or better in colour.
When I got to the third name (Brian T.) I thought most of them are more dramatic in mono and enjoyed a lot of the pictures. The fourth name I thought was 50/50 better for being mono.
Thanks for the link - was interesting viewing.
(wonder if this is where someone says the first two names are famous for great b/w photography)
:getmecoat
I've never heard of any of them - check out Edward Weston for good B&W landscapes - no way would they look better in colour - the whole graphic content of the image would be compromised by clour.
B&W works best when the idea of the image is to present a stylistic or graphic feel to an image. Sometimes the colour distracts from the shape and form.
There's room for both, but you have to decide before you take the image what it's going to end up as, not simply look at it on the monitor and think "maybe it'll work in mono..."
When I used B&W film in my camera, I looked at the world differently to when I had colour film in it. You look for shapes and textures rather than colours; you look at the tonal content of a scene, not at the hues.
When Spielberg filmed Schindler's List, the wardrobe department had a nightmare of a time, because colours that complimented each other 'in colour', didn't compliment each other in black and white - a certain tone of green, might be the same 'grey' as a certain tone of brown or red,, for example...
In the end, people were wearing really wierd combinations of colours, because the final result 'looked right' in B&W.
You have to go out with the view of taking mono images from the start... then it works, then it may start making sense.
B&W works best when the idea of the image is to present a stylistic or graphic feel to an image. Sometimes the colour distracts from the shape and form.
There's room for both, but you have to decide before you take the image what it's going to end up as, not simply look at it on the monitor and think "maybe it'll work in mono..."
When I used B&W film in my camera, I looked at the world differently to when I had colour film in it. You look for shapes and textures rather than colours; you look at the tonal content of a scene, not at the hues.
When Spielberg filmed Schindler's List, the wardrobe department had a nightmare of a time, because colours that complimented each other 'in colour', didn't compliment each other in black and white - a certain tone of green, might be the same 'grey' as a certain tone of brown or red,, for example...
In the end, people were wearing really wierd combinations of colours, because the final result 'looked right' in B&W.
You have to go out with the view of taking mono images from the start... then it works, then it may start making sense.
DJW
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,040
- Edit My Images
- Yes
minimeeze said:
You tease you ;
Following on from Robs' comments, B&W IMO is harder to shoot well than colour. Without the distraction of colour you immediately concentrate on texture, composition & tones. That's the attraction for me anyway :thumb:
