Views on colour vs black and white

Andrew Moore

Andrew Moore

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,054
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
I love black and white due to its ability to draw you to the detail rather than mask with colour and a vast number of shots on these forums have won me over for that very reason. Having the right tonal ranges can envoke one emotion above another tonal range and even though colour is void from the image the story and emotion are more apparent and powerful to me as I find myself captivated by the initial contrasts and then drawn in to the finer details.

I must ask what peoples views are on black and white as it was always said that people who can't do colour do black and white as it's easier!?!

I however find this to be absolutely rubbish as there's been a number of occasions where I've had 3 or 4 colours in frame varying from blue to red to yellow or green etc that look identical in black and white and the only way to differentiate is to take the colour and process yourself which can take a good amount of time and messing about to get it right. Leaving it as it is or on a camera/PS preset can as a result yield flat and frankly boring images lacking in tone, depth and even clarity.

Is it viewed as a fashionable fad for you die hard colour fans?

Is colour however a distraction leading to a lacking in focus on detail for the viewer?

I'm not after a flame war so please keep the handbags by your chairs, only your own personal thoughts and opinions with a reason why you mostly shoot one or the other or find one or the other a more enjoyable medium.

My view is in paragraph one, what's yours?
 
Don't over think it. There are certain images which look better in black and white. Some photographers get the choice wrong. Others nail it. I always default to colour unless the images scream out for b&w at the time of taking the shot.

If you are shooting b&w, that decision should be made before taking the photo rather than in post in my opinion (that's to say you should know it's going to be retouched in to a b&w image when taking the photo).
 
For me it depends on the subject and the available light at the time the shot is taken - quite often a shot taken on a day with average-poor light or on a day with poor weather can look better with a mono conversion. That said, I really love black and white photography and much of what I do goes that way, but maybe I shoot more things that lend themselves to black and white anyway.
 
I got my first camera at the age of ten but even before that I drew and painted and I always have done and I'd still class myself as an artist first just these days using photography. Anyway, pencil, charcoal, conte crayon, highlighter pen, oils or whatever colour or mono has always been with us/me and these days I have always and still do convert the odd shot to mono if the mood takes me and if I think that the subject and shot suits and more so since the Nik stuff became free. Mostly though I like colour as the world is in colour and I see in colour. For me colour conveys more emotion, drama, feeling and depth, for me it's simply much more layered, textured, nuanced, flavoured and even generally more artistic than mono because it's a more complex and layered thing.

Converting to mono may suit sometimes but at others and with some subjects as Jane Siberry said... but then you miss the beauty of the light upon this earth.
 
With a digital camera, take all pictures in colour and then convert to whatever you want when you want to. If you're using film, loading black and white makes the decision for you.
 
While I clearly have colour vision, my perception is tonal rather chromatic so my photos tend to be monochromatic (but not always black and white). Colour pictures require a conscious decision from me, and more effort.

When I was a tacker and got given my first camera (1965ish), the biggest joy was finding the colour gone, leaving beautiful pictures. Still get the same joy.
 
If you start with digital colour you have all the possible options available:

1. Keep it in colour. It may not strike your artistic funny bone but it will record what you originally saw in the scene...

30642246345_601ce9fb0d_b.jpg


2. Simply desaturate it. It may improve the original scene or it may ruin it. Only you can decide which applies...

30642246445_e39619881e_b.jpg


3. Use the power of digital to try something in a few minutes that would take hours in the darkroom; for instance: pseudo-solarisation to create an embossed effect...

30525293022_bb1812007b_b.jpg


The beauty of digital is that you can make these decisions when you want - you don't have to limit yourself to a single position at taking time.
 
Although I take most of my photos in colour, I do convert most of my industrial and urbex stuff to black and white (see my website www.mechanicallandscapes.com). I feel that black and white allows me to interpret a scene my way, away from the distraction of colour. I've tried doing the same in colour but the effect is different as there are so many more variables and I prefer the simplicity and purity of black and white.
 
I use black and white film for my serious work. I prefer it because it offers more scope for personal interpretation without the result looking unnatural (you can alter tonal relationships without it being obvious to get what you want, but just try doing it with colour while trying to keep it natural).

Additionally, I find colour far more difficult to work with, as it adds a lot of extra complexity to any subject and, by virtue of some colours being very dominant, it makes it harder to concentrate the viewer's attention where I want it. At the grave risk of being contentious, there are very few colour photographs that I've seen that wouldn't look just as good without the colour, and very few photographers that produce colour work where the colour is essential to the effect.
 
Oliver Pohlmann said:
Don't over think it. There are certain images which look better in black and white. Some photographers get the choice wrong. Others nail it. I always default to colour unless the images scream out for b&w at the time of taking the shot.

If you are shooting b&w, that decision should be made before taking the photo rather than in post in my opinion (that's to say you should know it's going to be retouched in to a b&w image when taking the photo).
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. The danger is to convert to monochrome because you can rather than because it makes a stronger image.
If you have doubts shoot RAW but set your menu option to black and white. You'll see the black and white image on rear screen and can gauge if it's successful. You'll still have a colour image on your card for editing of course.
 
Mono is nice for simplifying an image, and for using tonal control instead of chromatic control - it's good for drawing out drama in ways that would be un-natural in a colour shot.

I could not imagine shooting mono using digital (why throw away control of tones by colours?) but it's not unusual for me to see a shot that I'll want to convert to mono later.
 
Oliver Pohlmann said:
Don't over think it. There are certain images which look better in black and white. Some photographers get the choice wrong. Others nail it.
Click to expand...

gremlin16 said:
Some images just cry out for b&w, others don't. That's all I can say.
Click to expand...

I tend to pretty much be a colour shooter, always have been in general. But as said above sometimes B&W works. And you know it's going to suit the image more so than colour.

I tend to picture this type of image in B&W. Especially of late.

 
I'm not sure I have a 'view' on black and white photography as such; it's simply a natural part of the way I think about making a photograph.

I started out as a teenager using Ilford FP4 and HP5 because I could get bulk rolls cheap and develop and print at home. Colour film was expensive stuff that had be sent away to a lab. That led me very much to thinking in black and white at the composition phase. I'm calculating how the colours will fall into tones and what level of contrast I will want to achieve as I'm pressing the shutter button.

I'm not sure I buy the idea that monochrome can evoke emotion any better than colour, but then again much of what I do is not emotionally charged (unless you count occasional interludes of bathos). There is today, however, a risk that black and white may be used as a superficial shorthand for some hackneyed tropes: nostalgia (photo of a country cottage > b/w), pathos (photo of homeless person > b/w) or gritty reality (photo of a decaying building > b/w).

This is more on the money

StephenM said:
I use black and white film for my serious work. I prefer it because it offers more scope for personal interpretation without the result looking unnatural (you can alter tonal relationships without it being obvious to get what you want, but just try doing it with colour while trying to keep it natural).
Click to expand...

Case in point: there was a lot of careful tonal adjustment in this photograph to balance the relationship between the inside and outside of the bus. The colour shifts would have left it looking decidedly peculiar. Even if it had been possible, the strong reds of the buses would have been a distraction from the people that this picture is about.


Multi Modal by Rob Telford, on Flickr


The ability to abstract and simplify in a more graphical manner than with colour is certainly a major reason why I continue to shoot a lot of black and white.


British Museum Great Court by Rob Telford, on Flickr


Criss-Cross by Rob Telford, on Flickr


More graphically, you can better push darks and lights into areas of pure black and white


Rebecca Van Cleave by Rob Telford, on Flickr


Sometimes it is just for the sheer delight in tonality itself. With the lower sun at this time of year I have been taking advantage of new directions of shadows, making familiar streets unfamiliar.


Gudrun Sjoden by Rob Telford, on Flickr
 
Oliver Pohlmann said:
If you are shooting b&w, that decision should be made before taking the photo rather than in post in my opinion (that's to say you should know it's going to be retouched in to a b&w image when taking the photo).
Click to expand...

This.

I sometimes take a pic intending it to convert to b&w and end up with a colour image. I only rarely do it the other way round.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that I prefer to keep all possibilities open. Although one can 'see' an image in mono before taking it, I'd prefer to make a final decision looking at the image, and will sometimes choose both. The Gospel Bell band project I've just started had me intending to process in mono, and that's what I've posted on TP, but in many ways I prefer the colour shots, and have uploaded both to my Flickr account.
 
I've been debating for days whether or not to post in this thread.

I now shoot B+W almost exclusively and have developed some quite strong, but very personal, opinions that many may totally disagree with.

Firstly, I think it best to commit to B+W for an extended period in order to develop an eye for it. I'm not a fan of the "I don't like it in colour so let's convert it," school of thought.

Second, I really don't like the images that many are producing with silver effex, or silver excess, as I call it. Most of them remind me of HDR. Go easy with that software.

Third, it'd hard to beat film for B+W, although I use digital as well.

Finally, none of this matters a jot. Do whatever tickles your fancy and enjoy.

(y)
 
simon ess said:
I'm not a fan of the "I don't like it in colour so let's convert it," school of thought.
Click to expand...

Is that because you don't like the ethics or because you don't like the results?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Is that because you don't like the ethics or because you don't like the results?
Click to expand...

Aah, excellent question.

I think it's the philosophy I don't like. Each to their own, of course, but it seems to belittle the concept of B+W somehow. If you see what I mean. But then, I have commited to it, so I might well be unnecessarily sensitive.
 
I'm definitely overly sensitive, the best post in this entire thread is the one containing the suggestion that the choice to shoot a b/w picture is made before the shutter is pressed.
But you can't really suggest that here, for many people, b/w is just a photoshop filter, its in there with contrast and temperature adjustments, solorization and HDR...99% of the time its a choice made after the shot is taken, an enhancement to be employed arbitrarily.
Which is fine, but it does devalue the discipline.
 
simon ess said:
Third, it'd hard to beat film for B+W, although I use digital as well.

Finally, none of this matters a jot. Do whatever tickles your fancy and enjoy.

(y)
Click to expand...
I do about half my photography with film. I get told that I can achieve the same with Silver Effexs but cannot see the point in using a simulator when you have the real thing to hand. I also get to use nicer cameras with film which also affects the image by putting me in a really good mood.
 
simon ess said:
Firstly, I think it best to commit to B+W for an extended period in order to develop an eye for it. I'm not a fan of the "I don't like it in colour so let's convert it," school of thought.
Click to expand...

I'll be more contentious and say that I'd regard that as a lack of creativity on the part of the photographer. It comes down to trial and error, and just getting lucky. Which is fine if you like entering lotteries...

simon ess said:
Second, I really don't like the images that many are producing with silver effex, or silver excess, as I call it. Most of them remind me of HDR. Go easy with that software.
Click to expand...

I'm not keen on the results either. They always look inferior to what you could achieve "manually" in Photoshop, and I'm actually rather bemused that the software seems so popular.

simon ess said:
Third, it's hard to beat film for B+W, although I use digital as well.
Click to expand...

I'd just strengthen that to "black and white film" rather than leaving the question of using colour film open. I know the arguments in favour of starting from a colour image, but when doing so from a colour negative, the results don't pass muster for me. Substitute colour slide and the limited subject brightness range that can be held just rules it out of court for me.
 
simon ess said:
Aah, excellent question.

I think it's the philosophy I don't like. Each to their own, of course, but it seems to belittle the concept of B+W somehow. If you see what I mean. But then, I have commited to it, so I might well be unnecessarily sensitive.
Click to expand...

Thanks Simon. For me, it's all about the pictures, rather than one form being more noble than another. Certainly one can specialise, but it make more sense *to me* to do so for positive reasons, rather than because of painting oneself into a corner in order to only observe the world from that corner. No disrespect to your work in that comment. To me, it's fantastic that we have all these really good tools available.

Talking of which, I don't get the hate for one particular brand of mono processing software. Sure the odd overcooked image turns up, but it's not more common than overcooking with lightroom, for example. Certainly one can go too far and get halos everywhere, but it's just a (free) tool.
 
ancient_mariner said:
For me, it's all about the pictures, rather than one form being more noble than another.
Click to expand...

I overlooked this.

I have not, and do not, suggest that one form is any more noble than any other.

For me, it's all about learning how to produce the most effective picture as I see it.

I have offered an opinion about how I think that is best done for B+W.

Others may well have a different opinion and that is good.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to be getting a sense that B&W is more 'real photography' than colour, and if it's done using film then it's even better . If that's not the thinking behind the posts above then I apologise.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to be getting a sense that B&W is more 'real photography' than colour, and if it's done using film then it's even better . If that's not the thinking behind the posts above then I apologise.
Click to expand...
Certainly is not my thinking. As I said above, my perception tends to be tonal rather than chromatic so I tend towards mono rather than colour but I do both. Film is more appealing to me, but again I do both film and digital. Yes, your apology is accepted.
 
Last edited:
Not my thinking either. I like black and white more so than colour but there are always times when one works better than the other. I go out with the mindset to take black and white and I look for it but I do record SF+raw just in case.

Black and white isn't more "real" it's just a different medium that affects thought and imagination differently to colour. Sometimes it can hold a story better than colour but there are times where this can be completely the opposite.
 
I love B+W.
I do not produce as many shots in B+W as I should. I often get the feel a shot should be in mono before shooting so that's the way I go.
I do shoot digitally though I have shot and processed my own film in colour slide and B+W I was never good at printing though.

I hate being asked to show a colour version of a shot when I have decided on mono and refuse to show it in colour now.
 
Interesting thread, to be clear in my mind, so it is better to shoot in colour then convert to B&W, than to shoot in monochrome straight from camera.
If i am understanding it right, the colour will give a better range in the conversion.
 
wallyboy said:
Interesting thread, to be clear in my mind, so it is better to shoot in colour then convert to B&W, than to shoot in monochrome straight from camera.
If i am understanding it right, the colour will give a better range in the conversion.
Click to expand...

Sort of, but not quite - depends what you mean by range. If you shoot black and white in camera as a jpeg only, then you will have less information in the file for any subsequent processing. If you shoot raw and jpeg, then the raw file will be in colour (unless you're using a Leica Monochrom) which will allow you to get more out of the file if you decide to post process that instead.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Sort of, but not quite - depends what you mean by range. If you shoot black and white in camera as a jpeg only, then you will have less information in the file for any subsequent processing. If you shoot raw and jpeg, then the raw file will be in colour (unless you're using a Leica Monochrom) which will allow you to get more out of the file if you decide to post process that instead.
Click to expand...
Range being grey being base, colour derived from grey, control through channelsRGB, mono being single hue less range, my understanding could be way out.
So if shot in mono less range, colour more.
 
wallyboy said:
Interesting thread, to be clear in my mind, so it is better to shoot in colour then convert to B&W, than to shoot in monochrome straight from camera.
If i am understanding it right, the colour will give a better range in the conversion.
Click to expand...
Better range of what? Colour certainly has a better range of colours but that's not really saying anything. Tonal range (the important bit) should be the same.

Raw files are monochrome - they don't become full colour until they have been demosaiced by the raw converter. Converting a colour photo to mono, you are really just de-demosaicing it. Ideally, for mono you want to not demosaic the raw file, just lose the Bayer pattern.
 
wallyboy said:
Range being grey being base, colour derived from grey, control through channelsRGB, mono being single hue less range, my understanding could be way out.
So if shot in mono less range, colour more.
Click to expand...

The reason for shooting colour with digital is so that the tonal range of each colour can be manipulated individually, rather than as a whole. If a photograph is shot in monochrome then the only tonal control available is global, through curves or highlights/shadows/exposure etc. If you convert from colour raw to mono then if the sky is too light you can reduce the luminosity of the blue channel, grass too dark then increase the luminosity of the green channel etc. Crudely similar effects are available using coloured filters when shooting monochrome, but again, they are global, rather than carefully controlled.

Shooting mono using film is different, because the limitations and benefits of the medium are different from using digital, therefore require the photographer to adapt to them. Mono film doesn't respond evenly to different colours, so some of the things one has to do in post to create a decent mono image are already done 'in camera' by the nature of the medium.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top