When do you use B&W, when do you use color?

[SolaresLarrave]

What are you looking for when you shoot in b&w? What do you want when you use color film?

I'm after design in B&W, something geometrical or visual. In color... I'm pretty much subject-driven. Are we not doing the same?

The PS desaturation trick doesn't count here. Thanks!

[bmattock]

Francisco,

I work with both color and B&W, pretty much equally. However, the styles of shooting I do are very different depending on which I have in my camera. I hate to have to mention PS desaturation, but I do use it as a tool - if I see an image that deserves to be B&W and all I have in my camera is color print film, I'll shoot it anyway, knowing I can change it later. Very rarely, I'll take a photograph with color print film and only later discover that it wants to be B&W instead. Never the other way around.

When I shoot color, it is often the color that matters to me. Bright, festive colors, colors that tell the story. For example, the famous Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta - 700 ballons rising up into the air at once is NOT a B&W event. Same for many of the images of the Southwest US, where I live. The setting sun on adobe strikes fire into it - this is about the color.

But B&W is what I use when the story is about form, shape, texture; or light and shadow. I would use B&W to tell the story of a older person's face, or their hands perhaps. Walls and crevices, stones and fences. These don't have much to say, generally, in terms of color. They are all about structure and shape, etc.

In color, I might take a picture of the roofs of houses, all brightly colored. In B&W, I might take a picture of a shingle on a roof, weathered and beaten.

There is also something special for me about B&W, because I have very bad color-vision defect; I am almost completely color-blind. This makes it impossible for me to use PS as it is intended - color values mean less to me than they probably do to you and most others. I am not monochromatic - I 'see' color, I just don't 'understand' color to any great extent. It's not very important to me, because it conveys less information than it might to another.

B&W however, is very much how I remember things I have seen, how I describe objects to others - in terms of their shape, size, texture, and so on. I would seldom remark on a car's paint job, but I might say something about the shape of the car, for example.

I have tried going out specifically to 'shoot B&W', but I haven't been very sucessful at it (yet). I tend to go out to take photographs, and if I 'see' something that needs B&W, then that's what I do.

I think B&W is very powerful, especially to those who see colors normally. When the color is taken away, the eye needs other cues to draw meaning from the image. Strong lines, interesting subject matter, shadows, contrast, and character all play a part. Focal point and DOF become more important than they otherwise might, because the mind compensates for poor or shallow focus when enough color is present (to some extent). You 'see' sharp images that are not - but not with B&W. So focus becomes a more meaningful way to draw attention to or away from something.

To me, B&W is more spiritual, it has a mystical quality, and I wish I were a better B&W photographer.

Color is what I use when I want to show an interesting picture. B&W is what I use when I want to tell a story.

Does that make any sense? Perhaps I'm just waxing poetic.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[r-brian]

And now for the other view from Albuquerque.

When I go out shooting its almost always with B&W. Its what I enjoy. Color is used to photograph color; the Balloon Fiesta, golden aspens and blue sky (but I can also do that it B&W), an expression of color and chasing the kids around the house. I also chase the kids around with B&W and those photos are what are displayed more often.

Ansel Adams, that's what got me into B&W. When I lived in SW Florida, I got to know Clyde Butcher, another large format B&W fanatic (clydebutcher.com, check it out.) To me there is just something about B&W. It may be the play of forms and shades. It may be the feeling of 'fine art'. Don't get me wrong, I love good color photography: John Shaw, Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe. I've taken many a fine color photo, but there is just something about B&W. I like the intimacy of B&W; the feeling that I control the final product. I take the image, I develop the film, I print the photo as I see fit. With color, the process stops after you click the shutter.

I've have never used Photoshop. I have a P166 with windows 95. No digital imaging for me. I can't afford to buy a new computer, I keep buying camera equipment.

Brian

[back alley]

for me there isn't really much of a choice. i like b&w and rarely shoot in colour.
when i was on the photo crew for the local folk music festival we were required to shoot colour and i did so happily. but for my own stuff stuff, it's almost always b&w.
i 'see' the world in b&w and in a moderate wide angle view.

that being said, i just bought a roll of colour print film to shoot some shadow pics cause i don't seem to have time to shoot, process and print lately.

joe

[Brian Sweeney]

Usually I shoot in color. Most of my pictures are of Nikki, Nina, "grandma", and the places we go.

I have not had time to set up and use my dark room in quite a while, so I know what you mean about shooting "real B&W". But I have used some of the C41 process B&W. Usually, the "machine prints" come out too contrasty. But they do scan in, and make decent posts. You may try some in a "pinch".

For "R-Brian": I hit some of the "thrift stores" that used to get in some old camera gear yesterdays. Zero hits. I noticed that Pentium II computers go for about $50 these days. I bought Nikki (computer literate from age 2, now 5) a 2.4GHz, 256MByte, DVD R/W, 40GByte disk, 17" CRT, keyboard, mouse, Northgate computer for $500 at Staples.

Nikki age 3: Comes up to me dressed all in blue; blue shirt, blue pants, arms raised high, scariest voice for a 3-year old, "Daddy, I AM THE BLUE SCREEN!" Age 5: Hops into my lap while I am working on the laptop; grabs the mouse; 10 clicks, 8 windows close, computer shuts down; "Daddy, you can play with me now."

Kodak BWC C41 Black and white Film;
50mm F1.9 Xenon, Retina Reflex-S
(fraternal twin and compartment case companion of the IIIS)

[r-brian]

Brian

I was seriously looking at upgrading my computer. I found I could get a used/reconditioned CPU with 700meg PIII, 15 gig HD with Win98 for about $150. But then I saw (and my wife said "sure you can get it') a 4x5. Computer or 4x5, 4x5 or computer. I am now the proud owner of a 4x5. And, oh yes, the 135mm that came with it was not wide enough for my vision, so a 90mm is in the mail from Midwest Photo Exchange (great people to buy from). The computer will have to wait.

And I know what you mean about the kids. My Katie is almost 4 and is fanatical about playing 'The Magic School Bus' and 'Howie's Funhouse' on the computer. When she's done she turns the computer all the way off.

I'm planning to go shot a roll of color at the playground out back (can we think 'playgrounds' for the next monthly photo theme) and have it developed onto CD at Walmart just so I can post and show what the Himatic 7s can do.

Brian

[Doug]

It's getting muddled for me. I used to shoot B&W almost exclusively, I think in large part to avoid the troublesome color printing in the wet darkroom.

Travel pics are better in color though. And for my current environmental portraiture project I'm using almost all color. I think it portrays those environments better, it's less abstracted.

Last year I did some landscapes in B&W, because the colors weren't unexpected. Green trees, blue sky and water, grey/brown earth, wood-colored wood. :-) But for some closeups of the forest floor, there's lots of color, and of course for Fall color landscapes.

For this month's gallery theme of shadows, I naturally thought of B&W. None of the pics I shot in that (first?) roll of shadows had any significant color. But in the late afternoon sun I picked up another camera that had a partially shot roll of color film and went out and found some colorful shadows. Must be a state of mind?

[Doug]

Originally posted by Doug
...I naturally thought of B&W. None of the pics I shot in that (first?) roll of shadows had any significant color.

On second thought, I take that back. There WAS one shot that had significant color. An orange peel on the dark-grey gritty sand of the railroad station lot. That surely would have been better in color. I was using an orange filter, so the orange peel came out white in the B&W shot, hard to tell what it is, as it doesn't look like much to me!

[SolaresLarrave]

I thought I had it all figured out and you guys came to make me rethink about all my certainties. You guys are amazing teachers...

Now that I loaded one of my cameras with black & white (the C-41 kind) I should walk out in search of some decent shadows... again!

In any case, I guess we all follow the same guidelines, or, as Bill expertly put it, we use b&w if we want to tell a story, and color if we want to illustrate it. Akin to say that the visual impact both media achieve is related to an emotional impact; in one case it's a larger hit, and in the other a slightly mild one. Need I explain? You guys did it better.

One thing I like in b&w is a certain dramatic quality inherent to it (you cannot see the subtle differences lent by color film). However, I have seen Brian's shot and that's a very un-dramatic shot to me. In other words, even though there are well defined contrasts, they're not key in shaping the image. As a result, it's a most pleasing portrait. So, is color less dramatic? I would have said so until I saw Doug's shadow shot.

Keep'em coming!

[taffer]

Well guys is true that a lot can be learnt from you, and btw Doug that color shadow is an outstanding photo !

On the orange peel one I confess I didn't have the faintest idea of what that thing could be... but I liked the composition anyway!

Usually when I think in B&W I think about people, faces mainly, and also in simple graphic compositions, clear lines, shapes, high tonality differences (and shadows also) that can support the whole "weight" of the picture.

But sometimes, as it's happening just now, I grab the only remaining roll of film from the refrigerator, and that was Elite 100 slide film.

Color tells something, B&W tells something completely different, in this case I recognize that I can "discover" new pics with PS often, an even more since I apply the monochrome layer adjustment mask, which can give you easily the effect of color filters on b&w film (see below).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...w_better.shtml

What I'd really like is being able to "extract" all the juice to the kind of film I'm using at that moment, that is, see B&W pics when I'm carrying it, and the same with color. The most difficult part here is that you must see the pictures in your mind before taking them...

Even though sometimes pictures seem to fall at your feet like leaves in the autumn

So yes, I'm guilty of PS manipulation

[GeneW]

I have a foot in both technologies -- film and digital -- and my shooting generally follows this pattern:

col = digital
b&w = film

When I'm shooting outdoors (nature), I'm primarily interested in colour and use long lenses and macro lenses the most. All digital. I carry a rangefinder in my bag loaded with Tri-X or HP5+ and use that when I see things that I think would look good in B&W.

In the city I mainly carry RF's loaded with B&W and most of my family shots are B&W.

No wet darkroom anymore -- just a changing bag and film development. My B&W's are scanned and my darkroom is PhotoShop.

Gene

[rover]

Great thread. As I now have a scanner and PS Elements I tend to shoot with color film and adjust afterwards. That can be for two reasons, first I have a stock of color film which I want to get through, secondly I have more flexability digitally. I take a lot of color shots knowing that I want the image in B&W.

This being said, I will be changing that. After all of those post on film developing, I just need a couple more items and I will be developing my own film and intending to scan the negatives. I think if I capture something that I want blow up or frame I will take the negative to a pro lab for printing. This takes away the final negative (I should say downside) about developing B&W prints, the cost.

In general though I want to shoot B&W. I shot a lot of people shots, and for that I think B&W is much more expressive. I think Doug's shot above though is a perfect color image. The bright red door makes that a much different image than it would be in B&W and adds to the end result.

[lars]

Originally posted by Gene
When I'm shooting outdoors (nature), I'm primarily interested in colour and use long lenses and macro lenses the most. All digital. I carry a rangefinder in my bag loaded with Tri-X or HP5+ and use that when I see things that I think would look good in B&W.
[snip]
No wet darkroom anymore -- just a changing bag and film development. My B&W's are scanned and my darkroom is PhotoShop.

Gene, what scanner, scanner software and film developing recipes are you using? I sometimes have difficulty scanning my Tri X and HP5. I am going to try over exposing a tiny bit and under developing a bit.

...lars

[lars]

I shoot colour for travel because I want to capture all the details and the photos are more for memories than "art."

Other than that, I always keep my Bessa R with me and it's loaded with b/w. I also carry Olympus Stylus Epic loaded with Fuji Superia 400 colour. If I don't have room for the Bessa, I will always keep the Epic + colour with me.

The Bessa is for the creative urges, the Epic is for the recording urges.

I find colour to get in the way sometimes, because it is another facet that has to be correct for the picture to come together. With black and white, there are fewer pieces of the puzzle that need to be arranged. On the other hand, some pictures only work in colour.

I mostly shoot b/w because I shoot available light as well as indoors. With b/w, artificial light doesn't look weird like it does on colour film. Also, I bulk load and develop my own film so it's cheaper than colour.

I am looking forward to buying a decent digital camera so I can shoot colour indoors using the white balance feature.

...lars

[GeneW]

Originally posted by lars
Gene, what scanner, scanner software and film developing recipes are you using? I sometimes have difficulty scanning my Tri X and HP5. I am going to try over exposing a tiny bit and under developing a bit.

...lars

Lars, what kinds of problems are you experiencing? What scanner do you use?

In general, negs that are slightly thinner than usual seem to scan better. Scanners sometimes have troubles with dense negatives.

My fav combo is HP5+ (rated at 400) in HC-110 dil H (1:63) @ 9.5 min 20C. I'm now using a Minolta Scan Elite 5400. Previous to that I used a Minolta Scan Elite II and before that a Canon CanoScan 2710. My main scanning software is VueScan.

Gene

[lars]

Originally posted by Gene
Lars, what kinds of problems are you experiencing? What scanner do you use?

Minolta Dimage Scan II. Problem is with thick negs.

In general, negs that are slightly thinner than usual seem to scan better. Scanners sometimes have troubles with dense negatives.

So I've discovered. :-(

My fav combo is HP5+ (rated at 400) in HC-110 dil H (1:63) @ 9.5 min 20C. I'm now using a Minolta Scan Elite 5400. Previous to that I used a Minolta Scan Elite II and before that a Canon CanoScan 2710. My main scanning software is VueScan.

I just bought a 100' roll of HP5+ and I'm an HC-110 user so I'm quite pleased to see that you have a suggested recipe for it. I've never tried dilution H before and I've already pre-mixed the entire bottle for dilution B. Oh well, I'll try your recipe when I use up the current batch. Got a suggestion for B? Is 9.5 min the recommended time for HP5+ in dilution H?

I just tried Vuescan the other day and it did a better job than the Minolta s/w.

...lars

[GeneW]

Originally posted by lars
I just bought a 100' roll of HP5+ and I'm an HC-110 user so I'm quite pleased to see that you have a suggested recipe for it. I've never tried dilution H before and I've already pre-mixed the entire bottle for dilution B. Oh well, I'll try your recipe when I use up the current batch. Got a suggestion for B? Is 9.5 min the recommended time for HP5+ in dilution H?

I just tried Vuescan the other day and it did a better job than the Minolta s/w.

Michael Covington has the best resource I've come across for HC-110:
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

His recommended time for dil H is 10 min but I trim that slightly (my water supply etc may be different than yours). I don't think there's any advantage to dil H over dil B except processing times. B is too short for me so I use H.

VueScan is the fav scanning software for almost everyone who scans B&W. The Minolta software tends to clip both whites and blacks. I like the Minolta software for colour, though.

Gene

[lars]

Thx for the info, Gene.

...lars

[back alley]

a couple of other things to consider.
b&w negs will last forever while colour will tend to fade over the long years.
a study was done years ago, with people watching films in b&w and in colour. people remembered more details from the b&w movie than they did from the colour movie.
for me, b&w just has more impact. the subject is more prominant while in colour i find often it's the colour that is the subject.

joe

[taffer]

if a photo is by itself a 2D abstraction of a 3D world, then a B&W photo is a double abstraction

I like B&W, but I also like color and I think I couldn't decide if I had to keep only one.

btw, I've been thinking of doing my own b&w film processing at home, using a changing bag, any advices ?? It's the Agfa Rodinal the true legend some people tell ?

Oscar

[bmattock]

Oscar,

In my experience, developers all do pretty much the same thing. I'd say find one you like and stick to it. I like Kodak D-76, but that's just me. B&W processing at home is dead easy, and you only need a couple of things to do it. I do my own B&W processing, and then scan the negatives. I don't have a darkroom, no enlarger, just process the negs and scan them.

It's a lot of fun, I'd encourage everyone to try it!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[taffer]

Thanks for the advice Bill ! I thought that as I'm direclty scanning negs and slides too, processing b&w at home would be the next logic step.

Do you use that "stopper" chemical to stop the action from the developer or simply wash negatives inside the tank with water during more time ? I remember reading about both methods when looking for info about it some time ago.

It's some kind of "i wish i had" thing, as I couldn't get into the photo lab group when I was in high school.

Best !

Oscar

[bmattock]

Oskar,

I use stop bath on my negs, but I'm told that you really don't have to. Oh well. I suspect that it does no harm, anyway. The whole thing is so simple to do that everyone should try it - not very expensive if you're just processing your own negatives, too!

My favorite B&W film so far is Ilford Delta 100. I am told that Fuji Neopan Acros 100 is pretty good too, but haven't tried it yet.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[rover]

Oscar, make the jump, I just did. Actually I have to wait for just a couple items I ordered today from B&H because my local pro shop didn't have them. I of course went overboard and spent too much money, but you can get started for a very reasonable price.

I also ran into the Dean of the School of Art at a local university here and had a nice conversation with him. An avid amature photographer, and rangefinder fan.

[Brian Sweeney]

Flash Back. In college (late '70s) I shot nothing but Panatomic-x developed in Microdol and shot with an F2a or old Photomic F with a 55mm F3.5 Micro-Nikkor, 105mm F2.5, and 24 F2.8. I still have the cameras and the 105. Talk about sharp (for 35mm).

The 24 got traded off 10 years ago with an N8008 28~85 for an S4 with 5cm f1.4, 10.5cm, and 3.5cm. My second interchangeable lens RF, after the IIIf.