what makes good black and white photos stand out

Brendan Mulachy

Brendan Mulachy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,139
Name
dave
Edit My Images
Yes
i like a black and white photo and i convert a few that i take , especially now im doing more long exposure shots as it seems to suit it, but ive converted some and felt a bit meh with the finished thing, so it got me thinking about it more, what to you makes a good black and white photo stand out from the average , i feel i should be looking to shoot specifically with B&W in mind when im looking for a shot and composing it, myself i think i should be looking for more shots of high contrast and shadows
 
Black and white can be adjusted by their color channels. Red, Yellow, Green, Blue. Convert some color images and then mess around with the different color channels.
That helps a lot. I mean if you still don't get it. It means that what you take in color determines what colors will effect your black and white images the most. If I'm still not making myself clear enough. Then if you take a picture of a women wearing a red shirt but everyone else is wearing a dark color. Then you can adjust the red channel to make her red shirt brighter or darker in a black and white image.

You can easily add more contrast to an image after in a program if you wish.
 
I like B&W pictures which look like they could have been taken in the days of film or I suppose even today with more modern film kit. The very high contrast and just too dark and nowhere near reality B&W pictures I see today don't look anything like what I see in old photo albums but I suppose it's a case of personal taste and each to their own.
 
With b&w it's all about the tones. Use colour as Mr. Socks suggested to control the tone of different colours. Also look at ways to reduce the complexity of images through composition, shadow, reduced clarity, depth of field etc so the subject is distinct from the rest. Look for strong graphic content, rather than noise.
 
IMO, unless it is a very high contrast type image (e.g. chiaroscuro, silhouette, etc) then it is about texture and tonality.
The problem with mid-range tones is that they become muddy/flat if there is no definition/texture. Textures create definition because they create shadows and highlights; it's basically increased contrast within the mid-range tones (like "clarity" adjustments are). But, for textures to create that definition you need the right lighting; it needs to be angular and not frontal/flat.

If you don't have good lighting, texture, and range of tones; then the only thing left is high contrast... you actually need quite a lot to make up for the inherent lack of color contrast/interest.
 
I think you often will get indifferent results when you convert colour to black and white. That's because you've taken the photo for its colour content, and not for what makes black and white work. You answered your own question really. You have to shoot in black and white.
 
Plain Nev said:
I think you often will get indifferent results when you convert colour to black and white. That's because you've taken the photo for its colour content, and not for what makes black and white work. You answered your own question really. You have to shoot in black and white.
Click to expand...
All the photos ever shot on b&w film were seen through the viewfinder in colour. ;)
 
Ed Sutton said:
All the photos ever shot on b&w film were seen through the viewfinder in colour. ;)
Click to expand...

I had, possibly incorrectly, assumed the comment meant taking pictures with the mono image in mind, rather than a nice colour picture that is converted as an afterthought.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I had, possibly incorrectly, assumed the comment meant taking pictures with the mono image in mind, rather than a nice colour picture that is converted as an afterthought.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it wasn't clear. In any case, there is a line of thought that suggests a good picture that works in colour will work in black and white too. Not all, but some do. Some work better in mono - especially if the highlights are blown. :LOL:

To answer the original question, however, what makes a black and white picture stand out are strong graphical elements.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
To answer the original question, however, what makes a black and white picture stand out are strong graphical elements.
Click to expand...
As above for me with a good deep shadow, I try to get away from the current detail all the way from shadow to high light way of editing colour digital images.
Adding structure to the mid tones can help as does introducing virtual colour filters to the conversion.
 
Although if you are being technical a good range of contrasting tones, not too much cropping and NO digital manipulation
 
Ed Sutton said:
All the photos ever shot on b&w film were seen through the viewfinder in colour. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes but you can learn to see in black and white.
It is a question of interpretation of colour into grey scale tones. But even more important are the tones produced by the modeling and texture/angle of the light.
Light becomes all important.

the first twenty years of my photography was all black and white. For the first few years films were mainly orthochromatic and gave a wonderful interpretation of skin tones lips and landscapes. They had very little red sensitivity.
Soon panchromatic films became the norm and suddenly the tonal range changed, but filter became far more useful.
A 1.5 yellow green filter took up residence on my Rolleiflex. It improved skys and foliage as well as skin tones.
Deep yellow, and orange gave even greater contrasts while a red filter turned blue sky's a dramatic black.

Today these effect can be delivered in PP, however it is difficult to get an exact match to a film and filter. Some how they always. Look suitably different. This is probably down to differences in the colour sensitivity of sensors compared to black and white film.

One of the best black and white student photographers in college was totally colour blind, but he had real trouble with filters. He had no colour perception at all.
His dress sense was quite weird.
 
Billy_wiz said:
Although if you are being technical a good range of contrasting tones, not too much cropping and NO digital manipulation
Click to expand...

Quite wrong about manipulation.
Black and white photography has always benefited from a high degree of manipulation.
This mainly consisted of burning and dodging. But also manipulation of local contrasts in the printing stage.
I was also taught retouching with the use of dye, knifing, pencil retouching. And airbrushing. Though these were more used in industrial commercial advertising and portrait work
Lighting for tonality modeling texture and depth were keys to image quality..
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Quite wrong about manipulation.
Black and white photography has always benefited from a high degree of manipulation.
This mainly consisted of burning and dodging. But also manipulation of local contrasts in the printing stage.
I was also taught retouching with the use of dye, knifing, pencil retouching. And airbrushing. Though these were more used in industrial commercial advertising and portrait work
Lighting for tonality modeling texture and depth were keys to image quality..
Click to expand...
Absolutely right about the high degree of manipulation going on in a serious traditional dark room.
I love seeing proofs with notes re dodging and burning which give some insight to the work of a really good printer that make a good negative into a stunning print.
 
Billy_wiz said:
Although if you are being technical a good range of contrasting tones, not too much cropping and NO digital manipulation
Click to expand...
Just like in the old days where people shot B&W and never manipulated the image post capture. :thinking:
 
As a rule a good image is a good image, whether colour or B&W.

When I used to shoot weddings, I mostly thought in a B&W way. The only time that a colour v B&W question needs consideration IMHO is:

Does the colour of an element of this image increase its compositional value? If yes, then there’s no point in a B&W conversion.

The other images that never got a conversion were simple group shots, as there wasn’t a strong image in the first place.

Notwithstanding the above, I mostly preferred my B&W output.
 
I can't really say what makes a good black and white photo but, as an example, you could do worse than to study Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" film.

Almost every scene is a masterclass in design, composition and tonal values.

When I see a photo with similar properties it strikes me as good.
 
simon ess said:
I can't really say what makes a good black and white photo but, as an example, you could do worse than to study Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" film.

Almost every scene is a masterclass in design, composition and tonal values.

When I see a photo with similar properties it strikes me as good.
Click to expand...

Strong graphical design elements were key to many film and photographic styles from the 1920's onwards, certainly through to the late 60's

It has recently made something of a comeback but not to the same stylistic extent. Though pop art is a variation that lends itself to colour design.

Like it or not, we are all. Slaves to our formative years, in my case, largely centered on the mid 50's to mid 60's. This is something very difficult to move away from, and colours every aspect of our lives.. for most people this will be their college years and early adult pre marriage settling down period.
 
Last edited:
I once owned a Canon P rangefinder.

Someone had fitted a light blue filter in the viewfinder window, possibly to improve rangefinder contrast. I found it made me more aware of shapes and tones. These days, of course, I could just switch the camera to mono mode, if I wanted to.
 
All the usual things really:

Subject matter, interest, story
Great light
Great composition
Great processing

For bw specifically you probably want subject texture (naturally occurring!), higher contrast and a bit of punch. It's really down to colour Vs texture which way you decide to go
 
Subject and composition
 
I do not understand how people can leave lighting out of their list of fundamentals.
Lighting and the ability to SEE are crucial to photography,
and in the case of B/'W even more so.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Strong graphical design elements were key to many film and photographic styles from the 1920's onwards, certainly through to the late 60's

It has recently made something of a comeback but not to the same stylistic extent. Though pop art is a variation that lends itself to colour design.

Like it or not, we are all. Slaves to our formative years, in my case, largely centered on the mid 50's to mid 60's. This is something very difficult to move away from, and colours every aspect of our lives.. for most people this will be their college years and early adult pre marriage settling down period.
Click to expand...

I'm probably being a bit dim but I'm not sure what point you're making here.
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not understand how people can leave lighting out of their list of fundamentals.
Lighting and the ability to SEE are crucial to photography,
and in the case of B/'W even more so.
Click to expand...

As demonstrated in my example?
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not understand how people can leave lighting out of their list of fundamentals.
Click to expand...
I leave it out because all light does is make shapes/areas of tone. More so in b&w than in colour. By seeing the shapes you are seeing the light, or lack of light.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Lighting and the ability to SEE are crucial to photography,
Click to expand...
The ability to understand how to tell the story that you wish to share is important. To me, seeing the moment that communicates that story is the important thing.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Quite wrong about manipulation.
Black and white photography has always benefited from a high degree of manipulation.
This mainly consisted of burning and dodging. But also manipulation of local contrasts in the printing stage.
I was also taught retouching with the use of dye, knifing, pencil retouching. And airbrushing. Though these were more used in industrial commercial advertising and portrait work
Lighting for tonality modeling texture and depth were keys to image quality..
Click to expand...
I gave a talk on old postcards (Edwardian) recently. One of the cards was of our main street - and just before I gave the talk I came across a copy of the original photo. I was very interested to see that the telegraph wires had been completely removed from the postcard image!
 
In answer to the main question - best thing is to set the camera to B&W mode and experiment.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I leave it out because all light does is make shapes/areas of tone. More so in b&w than in colour. By seeing the shapes you are seeing the light, or lack of light.
Click to expand...
You leave out Form,and Texture and depth, all drawn by light. With out colour they become essentials. It is how light strikes a subject that is important not how much..
 
They used to make directors monochromatic viewing filters for use in film work and help directors and lighting cameramen visualise how the scene would look in black and white..
Max factor made a range of film make up, mostly greens, blues. And yellow, this looked terrible to the eye but made actors and actresses look great on film.
 
For me the key to a beautiful black and white image is three fold: composition, texture and simplicity.

The first two have been discussed at length, but I wanted to touch on the simplicity bit.

Perhaps because I like photography for its documentary, rather than artistic, value, I like it when a photograph is successful in interpreting the range of tones and textures in the scene without much post processing and downstream work, whether in a darkroom or in PS.

Eg for my taste you can't really 'make' a great BW image 'happen' by spending the night dodging and burning here and there, or by adding copious amounts of digital vignetting, or e.g. by adding selective coloured elements, or by adding drama via strong contrasts.

All that I like in a BW image needs to be in the scene, in the light, in the texture, so in the negative (for those of us who use film) or in the raw file.

Robert Adams >>>> Ansel Adams.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
They used to make directors monochromatic viewing filters for use in film work and help directors and lighting cameramen visualise how the scene would look in black and white..
Max factor made a range of film make up, mostly greens, blues. And yellow, this looked terrible to the eye but made actors and actresses look great on film.
Click to expand...
Tiffen, and maybe others still sell viewing filters based on tonal ranges.

flysteadicam.tiffen.com

Tiffen #2 Colour Viewing Filter

The Tiffen Color Viewing Filter #2 permits visual judging and interpretation of a scene by compressing the scene's brightness contrast-range to that of the film.Principle:When a scene is viewed through a Viewing Filter the brightness reaching the eye is reduced sufficiently to show not only the...
flysteadicam.tiffen.com flysteadicam.tiffen.com

They don't seem to sell the #1 Viewing filter anymore, which was based on a Wratten 90,

But, I still have a homemade cardboard frame (5x4 format) with a Wratten 90 sandwiched between the frames, and strengthened with black gaffer tape. It must be 50 years old now, but I came across it the other day and it's still perfectly useable. However, I always struggled with the colour cast and dull view.

But nowadays, I use a viewing app on my mobile with the black and white option.
 
Last edited:
Bodian said:
I gave a talk on old postcards (Edwardian) recently. One of the cards was of our main street - and just before I gave the talk I came across a copy of the original photo. I was very interested to see that the telegraph wires had been completely removed from the postcard image!
Click to expand...
That is interesting. For many people in the Edwardian period telegraph and. Power line were thought of as modern and were emphasised in photographs.
However when shooting intentionally bucolic and rustic scenes any thing modern was removed.
The taste for removing street furniture and overhead wires persists till today.
 
trypdal said:
For me the key to a beautiful black and white image is three fold: composition, texture and simplicity.

The first two have been discussed at length, but I wanted to touch on the simplicity bit.

Perhaps because I like photography for its documentary, rather than artistic, value, I like it when a photograph is successful in interpreting the range of tones and textures in the scene without much post processing and downstream work, whether in a darkroom or in PS.

Eg for my taste you can't really 'make' a great BW image 'happen' by spending the night dodging and burning here and there, or by adding copious amounts of digital vignetting, or e.g. by adding selective coloured elements, or by adding drama via strong contrasts.

All that I like in a BW image needs to be in the scene, in the light, in the texture, so in the negative (for those of us who use film) or in the raw file.

Robert Adams >>>> Ansel Adams.
Click to expand...
Ansel Adams was an.extreem exponent of complex printing techniques and retouching . He made detailed printing schematics on how each of his images should be printed.
schematics on how each of his images should be printed.
He also made extensive use of intensifiers, bleaches and dyes to achieve his visualisations.
His famous Zone system while cleverly promoted, seems not to have been much help to his own exposures. As the negatives of many of he's more famous works are very poorly exposed and require very skilled complex printing to get the best out of them.

"Pure vs Manipulated
This subject provides fuel to many heated discussions nowadays between adherents of pure unaltered photography and those who don’t mind a degree of creative image manipulation to achieve their artistic vision.

Ansel Adams was a controversial figure when it comes to the way he worked. He has helped to form a Group f.64. A group largely promoting pure unaltered photography practices while his own work was a clear departure from traditional methods. After Ansel introduced one of his most famous prints – Monolith, the Face of Half Dome, he later said, “I had been able to realize a desired image: not the way the subject appeared in reality but how it felt to me and how it must appear in the finished print.” One biographer calls Monolith Adams’s most significant photograph because the “extreme manipulation of tonal values” was a departure from all previous photography. Adams’s concept of visualization, which he first defined in print in 1934, became a core principle in his photography." (alexgubski.com)
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Ansel Adams was an.extreem exponent of complex printing techniques and retouching . He made detailed printing schematics on how each of his images should be printed.
schematics on how each of his images should be printed.
He also made extensive use of intensifiers, bleaches and dyes to achieve his visualisations.
His famous Zone system while cleverly promoted, seems not to have been much help to his own exposures. As the negatives of many of he's more famous works are very poorly exposed and require very skilled complex printing to get the best out of them.
Click to expand...

Thank you that's very interesting! That's exactly why I wrote I much prefer the work of e.g. Robert Adams to that of his more famous (sur)-namesake.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top