[World Leader Pretend]

Mine:

[Windswept]

All shots from google. Sunrain oughta like this first one.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by GSpotter A road a few hundred meters from our home:

Oh, GSpotter, the baboon is amazing and l love your dog. But *this* shot is just magnificent. How lucky you are to live near such dreamlike scenery.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by åsen It's just a random English tree, nothing extra special.

Originally Posted by Windswept Ah, but look at it. It's perfectly upright and beautifully shaped.

Originally Posted by Bryson Actually, I can think of over a hundred locations within a 5 miles of here that look that way. It's nothing special for us.

But asen and Bryson, some of us live in less favorable climes, where getting a tree to grow *at all* requires virtual divine intervention; and even then, it will never be as lush and perfect as asen's common, ordinary, everyday English tree standing anonymously and unappreciated in an unnamed field.

Harsh climes:





Wow. Just look at that rock wall in the upper right. It's just spectacular.

Photo by David Muench, whose nature work I love.

[Kickaha]

Y'know, I gave it <24 hrs before B/W nudes popped up, and leave it to Windswept to oblige, just under the wire. Heh.

No, I have nothing useful to add.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Y'know, I gave it <24 hrs before B/W nudes popped up, and leave it to Windswept to oblige, just under the wire. Heh. No, I have nothing useful to add.

Aw, you don't really consider this a nude, do you?





But how about this? Interesting, huh?

[Phoenix]

Is it just me or does it seem like B+W is being overused way to much these days? I'm not saying this thread isn't great or anything (i've really enjoyed it), i've just noticed lately that there are so many more B+W photo's out there. And most of the time they are just B+W for no reason, and it doesn't suit what they are trying to say.

I guess it's because photoshop is so easy to get hold of or something, but sometimes i look at photos and cringe because i'd much rather see them in colour.

[GSpotter]

Originally Posted by Windswept Oh, GSpotter, the baboon is amazing and l love your dog. But *this* shot is just magnificent. How lucky you are to live near such dreamlike scenery.

You weren't there when I shot this picture: It was snowing like crazy and nobody went outside if he hadn't to. I took an umbrella, my photobag and my tripod and headed for the nearby woods. Even though it was cold, after finishing the session, I was sweating (carrying several kilograms of photographic equipment and crouching next to a tripod while holding an umbrella to protect the camera takes its toll - talk about dedication )

As a bonus, here are two more pictures from that session:

Basically from the same spot than the first picture, only this time I used my super wide angle.


I few hundred meters further down the road (in the opposite direction than the above picture)

[GSpotter]

Originally Posted by Phoenix ... i've just noticed lately that there are so many more B+W photo's out there. And most of the time they are just B+W for no reason, ...

I think, as b&w is different than our own vision, it "pops out" more, so esp. in advertisement is used to draw attention.

I normally use b&w only
- when I have a subject with high contrasts which I want to emphasise,
- when the subject is rather monochromatic anyway (as in my snow shots)
- when it fits the subject (e.g. the baskerville dog, or the following pictures)

Vault at the Maulbronn Monastery:


Remainings of castle Hohennagold:

[turtle]

Originally Posted by Eugene Yeah, I was about to say rather than discarding chroma info, in those two pics it looks like a color-->grayscale conversion. Not quite the same. And that's the difference I mentioned above...Oftentimes when people want a quick, more accurate B&W conversion of the color photo, they merely discard two out of three of the primary colors RGB.

These were shot in B/W on highest JPEG. I just didn't adjust my levels on these copies since they were from my original images shot. I have a few images that were conversions, those were so I could pull out color in only a few areas of the image and leave the rest B/W.

[Powerdoc]

Originally Posted by Windswept Much nicer. (parking meter)

No surprise here : I second that

[åsen]

If anyone here uses Bibble for RAW processing, get the Andy plug-in for simulating the effects of numerous B&W film and paper brands.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Windswept But asen and Bryson, some of us live in less favorable climes, where getting a tree to grow *at all* requires virtual divine intervention; and even then, it will never be as lush and perfect as asen's common, ordinary, everyday English tree standing anonymously and unappreciated in an unnamed field.

You live in a desert? Why?

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 These were shot in B/W on highest JPEG. I just didn't adjust my levels on these copies since they were from my original images shot. I have a few images that were conversions, those were so I could pull out color in only a few areas of the image and leave the rest B/W.

And that's precisely what I mean. Any in-camera B&W setting is basically applying a grayscale filter to color images. The CCD has red, green and blue photodetectors. It *wants* to shoot color. In fact, modern digicams are bad in the sense that there's only one type of photodetector at each pixel location. Color is therefore interpolated from data collected by adjacent photosites. And to digicams, not all colors are created equal. HALF the photodetectors on your camera's CCD are green, leaving the other half split evenly among red and blue.

Here are examples of how different photos can look when you separate the colors from each other...I hope kgarchar doesn't mind that I borrowed one of his photos...No other adjustments made.

red:


green:


blue:


red/blue:


I chose a close-up of a face because of the fine detail you can extract or discard just by doing this. Which version is the correct version? That's arbitrary.

Pertaining to this photo only:
Red-only results in the most pleasing skin tone and good contrast. Not surprisingly, green is closest to grayscale because of the CCD's bias toward that color. Blue-only really brings out dimension and, for lack of a better word, topographical detail.. Red+Blue is a compromise between tone and texture, while the discarded green leaves the background foliage mostly dark and out of the way.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by joveblue You live in a desert? Why?

Well, joveblue, virtually one-third of the US can be categorized as 'moisture-challenged'.

The entire western US is mostly pretty darned dry, which explains the horrific wildfires many states suffer from every summer.

I remember once driving across eastern Oregon in June, and it was so hot that the trains had to stop service because the rails were melting.

Well, as it happens, I have five trees in my yard, including one magnificent ash tree, and an equally spectacular orange tree that produces the most succulently sweet oranges every spring.

But the difference is that *I* have to supply them with water, whereas asen's tree grows out there on its own, fending for itself, drinking of the bounteous moisture provided by English skies.

[sunrain]

Originally Posted by Windswept All shots from google. Sunrain oughta like this first one.

I do like, but it's up to you to figure out why.

Sorry I caught your post so late.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by Eugene And that's precisely what I mean. Any in-camera B&W setting is basically applying a grayscale filter to color images. The CCD has red, green and blue photodetectors. It *wants* to shoot color. In fact, modern digicams are bad in the sense that there's only one type of photodetector at each pixel location. Color is therefore interpolated from data collected by adjacent photosites. And to digicams, not all colors are created equal. HALF the photodetectors on your camera's CCD are green, leaving the other half split evenly among red and blue. Here are examples of how different photos can look when you separate the colors from each other...I hope kgarchar doesn't mind that I borrowed one of his photos...No other adjustments made. red: green: blue: red/blue: I chose a close-up of a face because of the fine detail you can extract or discard just by doing this. Which version is the correct version? That's arbitrary. Pertaining to this photo only: Red-only results in the most pleasing skin tone and good contrast. Not surprisingly, green is closest to grayscale because of the CCD's bias toward that color. Blue-only really brings out dimension and, for lack of a better word, topographical detail.. Red+Blue is a compromise between tone and texture, while the discarded green leaves the background foliage mostly dark and out of the way.

Thank you for explaining this. I really didn't know that. I assumed it was taking shots different than that. I guess it would be better then for me to just shoot in color and convert to B&W myself through Aperture or PS then? Also, I use a Canon which uses CMOS instead of CCD, is there a big difference in the handling of color/B&W there?

Would adjusting the Hue/Saturation to B&W be the same as removing just green, or blue and green? I'm gonna have to play some now....

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend Mine:

I really like this shot, World Leader Pretend.

Such a creative angle.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 Thank you for explaining this. I really didn't know that. I assumed it was taking shots different than that. I guess it would be better then for me to just shoot in color and convert to B&W myself through Aperture or PS then? Also, I use a Canon which uses CMOS instead of CCD, is there a big difference in the handling of color/B&W there? Would adjusting the Hue/Saturation to B&W be the same as removing just green, or blue and green? I'm gonna have to play some now....

Yeah, forget about using your camera's B&W filter, just shoot in color. Aperture's monochrome mixer is a much more powerful tool than merely setting saturation to zero; you should look at it.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by sunrain I do like, but it's up to you to figure out why.

I'm really bad at riddles, sunrain.

Why not just *tell* me.

Is it your wife in the photo?

Or could it be that you have a foot fetish?

(just kidding )

See. Wouldn't it just be easier to just *tell* me???

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Windswept Well, joveblue, virtually one-third of the US can be categorized as 'moisture-challenged'.

About 70% (estimate) of Australia can be categoriesed as 'moisture-challenged', but we don't live there... Well OK, some people do, but I don't know why... Actually you could probably describe the entire country as 'moisture-challenged' at the moment, we're a good five to ten years into a drought - yay for global warming!

I remember once driving across eastern Oregon in June, and it was so hot that the trains had to stop service because the rails were melting.

That's severe.

</thread derailment>

Had a cute black and white photo of my dog, but can't find it

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by GSpotter You weren't there when I shot this picture: It was snowing like crazy and nobody went outside if he hadn't to. I took an umbrella, my photobag and my tripod and headed for the nearby woods. Even though it was cold, after finishing the session, I was sweating (carrying several kilograms of photographic equipment and crouching next to a tripod while holding an umbrella to protect the camera takes its toll - talk about dedication )

I *do* admire your dedication, GSpotter.

And you certainly have some fantastic shots to show for it.

I've never had blizzards to contend with, but when traveling I do stop the car and climb up or downhill to get a perfect shot of some lovely scene.

Sometimes the climbs are perilous, and they are always time-consuming; but I think it's well worth it when the perfect shot is at stake.

[World Leader Pretend]

Originally Posted by Windswept I really like this shot, World Leader Pretend. Such a creative angle.

Thanks! I though it was pretty cool too when I saw the angle and snapped a picture.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 Thank you for explaining this. I really didn't know that. I assumed it was taking shots different than that. I guess it would be better then for me to just shoot in color and convert to B&W myself through Aperture or PS then? Also, I use a Canon which uses CMOS instead of CCD, is there a big difference in the handling of color/B&W there? Would adjusting the Hue/Saturation to B&W be the same as removing just green, or blue and green? I'm gonna have to play some now....

Nah, CMOS or CCD doesn't really matter...except for the Foveon X3, they all apply Bayer interpolation to capture images.

Hue/Saturation is one way to do it...here's how to do it with live feedback:

1. Create a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer, type: Color.
2. Create a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer above it, type: Normal. Slide Saturation to -100
3. Go back to the first adjustment layer and move the Hue slider around.

A more flexible way to do it is to hit up the channel mixer, flick the monochrome box and mess with the RGB values.

[World Leader Pretend]

Kinda in a dull mood. There's a river.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Eugene Which version is the correct version?

The one where she's not wearing clothes.

(seriously though, a useful explanation you provided for the uninitiated).


WLP: Very cool architectural abstract, actually pretty similar to my style as well. I shall now use some B&W powers from the future to post something groovy here (good thread idea).

[Moogs]

Mayberry anyone?

http://forums.applenova.com/attachme...1&d=1162863769

[Powerdoc]

Eugene. If my memory is correct, you were much interested by the foveon technology.
Are you going to invest in a new sigma camera, like the one who are going to be shipped ?

[stevegong]

Here's one that I shot


I typically find Black and White to be less exciting than colour because it's leaving out so much. I also think that a lot of amateur photographers like black and white because it takes an otherwise mundane photograph and makes it "artistic" just because the medium is so much associated with fine art, and more of a novelty these days.

Colour if done well can make the photos look so much more exciting.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by stevegong Colour if done well can make the photos look so much more exciting.

However, a common problem with snapshots is too much information: photos full of clutter that detracts from the subject matter. The solution is often to move closer (not "zoom in" which just flattens everything and makes for boring photos), but simply removing the colour also has a clutter-reducing effect which can make terrible snapshots marginally more attractive.

In other words, it takes more skill to shoot good colour than good black and white, although obviously the whole Ansel Adams approach to photography is extremely technical and scientific (to the detriment of overall interest, in my opinion). I have the Ansel Adams trilogy (Camera, Negative, Print) which devotes a lot of its 750 pages of very dense technical discussion to the Zone System. After studying it in some detail I came to the conclusion that few photographers need to know this stuff, although a good knowledge of exposure is essential to avoid the I-wonder-how-that-photo-will-"come-out" syndrome, or its modern day equivalent: shooting dozens of digital shots while chimping (even the pros do it!). Ansel Adams' Zone System can certainly produce ethereal tonality, but the type of people who are capable of fully understanding the Zone System rarely have a creative bone in their bodies. Ansel Adams himself was no exception.

Jeff Spirer is a wonderful black and white photographer (and colour photographer too). He has a large fan base on photo.net where he regularly posts street photos. Jeff has a knack for finding the graceful in the ugly, and the redeeming humanity of the brute. Here's one of his pictures, taken outside a McDonald's restaurant. I plan to buy a print of this (when I graduate and get a job! ). In this version the Golden Arches is quite subtle, which is how I would like it on my future print; however, I think he should dodge the logo a bit for the casual viewer who might not notice the logo during a brief glance.