On Dec 21, 2004, at 7:00 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 21/12/04, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
One of the things that's often overlooked in discussions of this sort is
lighting. When shooting "real" B&W, one is concentrating on tonality, and
would often be using the light in a scene differently than when shooting
color. So, converting color to B&W is often not the ideal way to get the
best B&W result. The problem is compounded by the number of people who
think they're making good B&W conversions who've never worked with B&W
film. Some images just don't lend themselves well to conversion, regardless
of the method used.
This is a very good point.
So my question is, if using digital, do folk see the colour shot and then
look for pics to convert to mono later, or do folk see a mono shot at the
taking stage?
Personally I see a mono pic staring me in the face, I ignore the colour completely and shoot for black and white. Of course, there's always the ones that pop up later on the monitor and I think hmmm that would be better in mono.
The fact that I stare down a mono electronic viewfinder for a couple of hours a day may play a part here - I tend to think more in mono terms than colour, oddly enough.
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
