 Heather M. Wareham |
BLACK AND WHITE Do you think its better to take the pictures in black and white instead of colour when you want them to be black and white. Or should you take them in colour then change them to black in white. That way if you like them better in colour you can leave them that way. When I got married they asked me if I want them to use a black and white film it cost me 50.00 more. Then when we went in to pick the pictures. She told me I could get any picture in black in white. But there was a black in white picture I real liked and couldn't get it in colour. I could get some colour put in it like my flowers, but not the hole picture. I thought if I had know this I would have paid to have more colour pictures taken. Then pick the onces I want in black in white.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Heather, Black & White is nifty but color is magnificent. I suppose the black & white nostalgia has its merits. When b&w is done right it can be spectacular. Trouble is I haven’t seen any good stuff in a long time. My advice would be to shoot in color and render some in b&w. This assumes digital technology. However, b&w has merit when it comes to archrival qualities. Ordinary silver based film and prints, if processed to specifications, will have longevity far in excess of 100 years. If the prints are then toned using sulfur to make sepia or brown, the image will outlive the paper it’s printed upon. Color images are mainly dye and currently all dyes are fugitive with an expected longevity of maybe 100 years and thats with an acceptable fade, whatever that is. Dye and pigment are improving every day and many are now encapsulated. However, none can touch b&w for permanence. Also, we don’t know how long the digital media will last. We don’t even know if 100 years from now you can find devices to read the chip or disk etc. As for silver based b&w , if the image if properly fixed and washed it’s pretty stable. The greatest danger is yellowing due to airborne sulfur fumes. This compound attacks silver and change it to silver sulfide. This was a big problem during the coal burning years. Sulfur still remains a problem. Actually silver sulfide is inert but environmental action on images is not uniform so they becomes blotchy. Toning chemically on purpose yields a uniform sepia or brown , this yields the most stable image known. And you thought brown toning common on old films movies and prints was done only for a creative effect. Thanks for reading,
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Digital photography is a technology designed for color. CHeck out any of the Adobe discussions on RAW and you'll find out why. In simple trems, each pixel is tuned to record color. To shoot B&W directly is to lose much of the information of the picture. Once so lost, it can't be recovered. But, when you shoot in a "normal" mode, you get a file that has all the color information, whether your file is JPEG or RAW. Then, after you upload the file[s] to you computer, you have the option of removing the color in about five different ways, yet your original color file remains always available - unless you overwrite it. Alan's discussion on longevity is right on. Simulated life tests are meaningless but we know how long a film based print can last. From my perspective, most of us won't be around by the time our inkjet prints fade. I'm much more concerned when read about the life of a CD-R.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Walrath |
The trouble is that if you do not shot much in black and white then you won't know what effect a monochromatic portrayal will hae on the color image before you. I assume you are shooting a digital camera with a few perks. I might suggest to shoot your image first in black and white and look at it. Now this only works for more or less still shots as action shots won't come back around for a seciond pose, normally. Look at the image you made and the scene before you. Look at the relationships between different tonalities to visualize the effect of BW on our color world. If you want to accentuate one portion of your subject over the others, experiment with filters and other controls. If the B&W image does nothing for you, then hit delete and shoot in color. I must admit, being a film photographer, that this is the one and, in my opinion, only real disadvantage the film has against digital. Take adantage of this and the more you try, you will begin to see B&W possibilities before you trip the shutter.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
Digital cameras record images in color. If you set the cam to B/W it's little on-board processor quickly applies a software process to turn the image B/W (and the color data in that photo are lost forever!). It may not surprise you that a fully-fledged PC with serious processor and a good application - like Photoshop - will do a much better, much more precise, and much more subtle job making a B/W version of a color image.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ken Tucker |
In my opinion, if you are looking for stunning B/W photos always take them in color first. I would also suggest learning the proper technique for making a photo B/W. There are many that are considered proper with varying opinions so I will not throw my 2 cents in on that one but I am sure you can find many on the web that are pleasing to you. Most cameras and one-click programs simply desaturate your shot and that can sometimes leave your photos lacking that pop. But make your own black and whites because there is so much that can vary when you create it yourself and sometimes being unique is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||