I don't know what it is, but I feel like people out there just don't like black and white photography. Most of my shots tend to be in black and white and I actually have grown to like those types of images over the last couple of years.
I've been entering a bunch of my images in black and white or modified black and white and from some of the comments I get, it's like people just want to see color images. I also feel like my rating are just lowering because they are black and white images. I don't think that just because something is black and white it deserves to be lowered in score.
I've been entering a bunch of my images in black and white or modified black and white and from some of the comments I get, it's like people just want to see color images. I also feel like my rating are just lowering because they are black and white images. I don't think that just because something is black and white it deserves to be lowered in score.
My pictures are similar. For me I think it's just my subject matter that I think people don't like.
I don't know what it is, but I feel like people out there just don't like black and white photography. Most of my shots tend to be in black and white and I actually have grown to like those types of images over the last couple of years.
I have always prefered color, however I do think that some shots are just better in B/W or two tone! My best example of one I like better in B/W is my current All Alone entry, which of course I cannot show here... Also I used a B/W with one color showing treatment in my Oops entry to exagerate what I was trying to show!
Originally posted by alternarule:
I've been entering a bunch of my images in black and white or modified black and white and from some of the comments I get, it's like people just want to see color images. I also feel like my rating are just lowering because they are black and white images. I don't think that just because something is black and white it deserves to be lowered in score.
I would amost never vote down strictly on B/W treatment, but will and have in several instance comment that I would like to see the color version for comparison!
I'm a sucker for b&w. I LOVE them. It doesn't work for every image, but the ones that it does work for I love. I just think a nice b&w image is so classy. Just something about them.
I love the B&W they are much more artistic than color. Have you ever seen the magazine B&W Photography? It is nothing but black and white art prints. Really exceptional if you love your b & w.
I love the B&W they are much more artistic than color. Have you ever seen the magazine B&W Photography? It is nothing but black and white art prints. Really exceptional if you love your b & w.
However much you might want, a bad photo cannot be turned into this mythical "art" by the process of conversion to black and white. If a shot sucks it sucks in colour and in B&W.
I just found this link in one of the old 'Tech Sections' of the paper. Here's the blurb that went with it:
"You may or may not think of Iceland as agricultrual terrain, but the island nation has a history of farming - disappearing these days, as family farms do here, into the past. Nokkvi Eliasson has snapped 90 fascinating pictures of abandoned homesteads around the country."
However much you might want, a bad photo cannot be turned into this mythical "art" by the process of conversion to black and white. If a shot sucks it sucks in colour and in B&W.
It's not the conversion to black & white. It's the full use of black and white from the beginning. I almost never drop my images from color to black and white. I shoot with black and white from the onset.
B&W lends itself to compositional examination. I can fool you with pretty colours and hide some flaws in design. In B&W, you're forced to look more closely at the subject, since the rest is only shades of grey...
It's not the conversion to black & white. It's the full use of black and white from the beginning. I almost never drop my images from color to black and white. I shoot with black and white from the onset.
Are you doing this in camera? I have found that I am able to get the "filter" I feel appropriate using PS (Yellow, Orange, Red, whatever), instead of my camera deciding on the B&W it likes.
I love B&W, and will look at things and shoot them knowing I will convert the color to B&W (that is why I made a card up with "digital filters" that emulate Portrait, XY, Warming, etc. filters-I love the B&W I get off the Portrait filter I have) and then do it later in PS.
I usually just shot black and white with my camera. I find that color doesn't come out as well. Black areas tend to get lots of random colored pixels. I also always have to do a lot of level, curves, contrast, etc. changes no matter what image I take with this camera. I really think my camera is holding me back.
However much you might want, a bad photo cannot be turned into this mythical "art" by the process of conversion to black and white. If a shot sucks it sucks in colour and in B&W.
It's not the conversion to black & white. It's the full use of black and white from the beginning. I almost never drop my images from color to black and white. I shoot with black and white from the onset.
The our eyes were not designed to view the world in black and white, at some point the light is converted (for want of a better term), be it due to capture on film, conversion in the camera or external software or during printing.
I love black and white and never vote less because of no color. I judge a picture on the quality whether it is b/w or color. Nothing is more striking than a really good black and white image.
The trouble with digital black and white, is that it allows of only 256 graduations of light - does anyone actually believe that there are only 256 shades of grey? Colour at least allows for more complexity.
Of course, for display on a computer, 256 shades is all you need, but for prints ... I think this is why high contrast images seem to work so much better in the digital b/w world.
Anyone know of a digi camera that will actually record more than that? Sounds like a whole new approach though ...
sounds like too much R&D to me ;)
with 3 colours you get about 16.6 million gradients (8 bit x 3, 24 bit colour)
Makes a nice defined photo, thats only a 8 bit AD converter on each chennel.
255 gradients per channel.
when on the computer, if you start with a colour image (remember the amount of gradients you start with), then convert it to 16 bit per channel (65536 gradients per channel) then convert it to B&W you'd have a lot more gradients..
I have not tried this, as am not so intruiged by B&W, and am not sure how many file formats allow 48bit file format, but that would work if the SW can handle it.
