B&W: Addition by Subtraction

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Virginia
Name
Steve
While participating in SiJy, I again find myself wondering about monochrome images. We all have see this phenomenon. You take a mediocre color image, remove the color, tweak it up, and you get a better photo. For example, a woods photograph can actually look more complex in monochrome than in color. Why do you think that is? Why can the black-and-white version of a good photograph looks so much better than its color version? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts or even some references.
 
Last edited:
Now that question is a challenge. As someone who likes monochrome is it just simply for me that when I started taking photographs in the early 1970's I did so in black and white and developed and printed my own and therefore my love of the medium is me harking back to a simpler time? Well no, not at all, far too simplistic a thought. Technically colour adds a further challenge to be handled which might just be a problem for me in that I'm partially blue/green colour blind and I find it difficult to judge colour casts, particularly noticeable when it comes to a colour print. Is it because those photographers whose work I admire worked in monochrome or did they work in monochrome for the reason we are trying to find? For those working in earlier times of course monochrome was the most obvious choice technically although there was a French photographer who's name escapes me who photographed world war one in colour and his images add a fascinating insight into a time when all our impressions are of a monochrome world because that's how we picture it given that the vast majority of images available to us are in monochrome.

I think colour can be a distraction in an image, a monochrome image relies on a graphic impression, a reduction of a image to its essentials, your example of a woodland scene can become more of an abstract image in monochrome than in colour.

It's not yet 05:00 hours here in the UK as I write this and as is so often the case these days I've suffered another night of restricted and poor sleep which might have dulled my thought process, so I'm aware that I might need more time to ponder this subject and perhaps return to it when my head is clearer. I hope the above short ramble has at least set out some of my thoughts on a complex subject, although on reflection it might well be more question than answer.

Hopefully others will pick this up and put some more flesh on the bone so we can chew on it some more.

Barrie
 
One theory I've read links it to the rods and cones in our eyes. We have about 6 million cones grouped in the centre of the retina or macular and they detect colour.
We have about 120 million rods spread across the retina that are more sensitive to contrast as they do not detect colour.
Removing the colour from an image reduces it to the essential elements.
 
I love monochrome images but I am here to tell you that photos of "the woods" converted to mono just looks messy to me. I find I can't distinguish between individual items as well as I might if they were colour. Then again it depends on just how much "stuff" is in there. If theres space between tree/shrubs, then it might be OK, but crammed all together, as in really bushy? Nope. Horrible. Apologies to those who love that.
 
A monochrome image shouldn't be considered as a fall back position for a "failed" colour image, it's a medium of expression within itself. I believe a cluttered image will fail, colour or monochrome. A monochrome approach to a potential image BEFORE it is even taken means that you should concentrate on form and structure which will hopefully mean you avoid that cluttered image. It's still early here (UK), before 06:00 but grey and overcast with virtually no wind, so I think today is a day for an image perhaps of a fern deep in the woods for SiJy Day 8, very low dynamic range, a monochrome subject but the challenge will be to find one that is uncluttered, one where the basic subject matter stands out from its background.

Barrie
 
I love b&w film, but am somewhat wary about going b&w in post. In my experience, I usually have to work such an image a lot more to make it work because I didn't mean it to be a b&w image in the first place. The image I posted on day 7 of SiJy 2019 is a telling example - it doesn't look a lot like the original scene, I have to admit; but that shot, though interesting, just didn't pop, and making it do so ruined it in colour. Not so in b&w - but it took quite some pushing and pulling at some sliders ... The result is certainly worthwhile, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it.

I guess it'd be more accurate to state that if you want to make a b&w image, you'd better see in b&w when taking it. That said, I have nothing against going monochrome in post. However, in most cases, saving an image by going b&w doesn't work for me (exceptions only support that impression). If, on the other hand, colour turns out not to be a major point in the composition of the image, it's certainly a viable option. Still, I much prefer getting things right in-camera.

To be able to work with digital b&w, I have b&w profiles ready on most of my cameras - most of the time, I use the provided ones since I'll post-process the images anyway. Using the profiles helps getting my eye in - though after a couple of shots, I usually don't need them anymore. It's good to know that some cameras come with really nice b&w presets, though (I especially like the GR's options, but surprisingly, the output of the old M8 is really quite nice as well).

As to forest images: Subject isolation (mostly through working your DoF) and careful framing (perspective!) do the trick - colour *can* be distracting sometimes, even if it seems to dominate a scene. But doing b&w in the woods can be fiendishly difficult compared to shooting in colour and thus having a means to really make sure tones don't overlap and cancel each other's contribution to the image. You also need a strong awareness towards dynamic range with b&w - or the image may turn out really flat. Don't get me wrong, I like gentle contrast - but only when used intentionally; if not done right, the image will just look grey and boring.

I think Barrie's got a real point as far as our eyes' physiology is concerned - essentially, our colour perception sits on top of our ability to distinguish minute changes of light intensity and, thus, tiny movements. I refer to my colour vision as my "search" mode (focused, intentional) and the peripheral part of my visual field as my "scan" mode (semi-subconscious, but surprisingly effective). Interestingly, many of my images start with something popping up at the edges of my perception. It's uncanny how once something is noticed, the head snaps into position and both eyes are used with all their abilities - most importantly, colour vision - to discern what's really there. But it all starts with a strong, though blurred and brief, b&w moment.

M.
 
Well, I kind of point back to early color photographers who were of the mind that color was harder than B&W. Back then, I think people paid more attention to color elements and how they stacked up in composition, along with contrast, balance, etc. Color was new enough that it made you think, and compose to feature the color. Now, we've gotten so used to natively color image-making that it's the other way around. You have to wrestle sometimes to get into the proper mindset for B&W. We don't shoot color to feature the color anymore, for the most part (at least not entirely, I make some images for that reason, but not the majority of my color images). B&W was traditionally seen as a good way to present subject matter in a straightforward way. What's more, shooting B&W helps you to focus on composition, especially if there are very light and very dark parts. For example, I shoot the high-contrast B&W on my GR, with a strong custom color filter (mostly a red filter, with some blue) that means that some of my image will be very light, and some very dark. It's not everyone's cup of tea but it helps me balance the two into interesting compositions. I do think a lot of B&W digital shooting suffers unless you intentionally choose a color filter to suit the subject matter (if your camera supports this).
 
A monochrome image shouldn't be considered as a fall back position for a "failed" colour image, it's a medium of expression within itself. I believe a cluttered image will fail, colour or monochrome. A monochrome approach to a potential image BEFORE it is even taken means that you should concentrate on form and structure which will hopefully mean you avoid that cluttered image. It's still early here (UK), before 06:00 but grey and overcast with virtually no wind, so I think today is a day for an image perhaps of a fern deep in the woods for SiJy Day 8, very low dynamic range, a monochrome subject but the challenge will be to find one that is uncluttered, one where the basic subject matter stands out from its background.

Barrie
My phrasing was pretty negative in the OP. It’s better to say that the monochrome and color versions of an image are different and the monochrome one may be more pleasing to some or even most. An even better way too state my question is to say “why can removing a certain kind of information from an image make it better?” Is it that removing the color clarifies the image in some way, like removing an unwanted spice from a soup?
 
Is it that removing the color clarifies the image in some way

I'm of the belief that removing colour from some images can indeed "improve" the image. I find that there are images in which colour detracts, often because I find many colour images are over saturated. I certainly find muted colours more acceptable. Then again I'm from an old school who started out in photography almost 50 years ago and I very soon began to do my own developing and printing (monochrome). I feel that a monochrome image is much more dependent on a strong composition and is probably better when it contains fewer elements. Most people who come into photography these days will of course begin with colour and probably never even consider monochrome, indeed rate it as out of date and irrelevant. I think that it might well be a better tool to teach compositional appreciation than working in colour.

Barrie
 
Back
Top