I did a Q&D convert to B&W, and, to my eye, it looks better than in color. But then, I learned to shoot and process B&W, I generally "see" in B&W, and in many instances find color to be a clutter and a distraction in photographs. I like B&W movies as well. Why? Well color photographs ~may~ be more real, although that's an arguable point with me these days since so much color work is overly saturated, and that which isn't doesn't always represent the true colors found in a scene.
Because this photo in particular has such subtle colors, I don't think it would lose a thing being in B&W, and I think that B&W makes a sronger image. As for sepia, again, I don't see it quite the way you do, as for years and years there have been warm toned papers that have produced a subtle sepia tone. And many silver prints were toned as a matter of course in aprt for artistic value and in (perhaps a greater part) for archival value. Toning, and warm toned papers, have always been a part of the image in my mind, not about process. Sepia does not have to be in-your-face and intense. We will not come to agreement on this. Shel > [Original Message] > regarding> > http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/2213/display/2790694> > > > I'd like to see this in B&W, or with a slight sepia tone. People shoot > > too > > much color, perhaps because it's what they're used to seeing, or because > > it's simpler to do (esp in digital), and a lot of photos are diminished by > > that apoproach. A ~good~ thoughful B&W conversion may lift this from the > > ordinary into something a bit more interesing and with greater impact. > > > I disagree with you here on a couple of points: First, I don't think *this* > image is diminished by being in colour; there are few colours here with the > clothes being B&W and the other elements being muted colours. > > Second, I think the application of *sepia* generally makes the finished > product about the process rather than what was going on in front of the lens. > The original picture then becomes an ingredient in the production of a piece > of what the producer considers artwork; I think in this case the image is > about sharing something the photographer saw and a moment he experienced. > (For that reason, the tilt doesn't bother me.) > > Third, I think that b&w vs. colour *is* largely a matter of taste and > opinion, and I disagree with your opinion that "people shoot too > much color" although I agree that the reason for all this colour shooting is > that they see in colour. To me, for instance, colour photographs are more > interesting to look at than b&w ones because they are more "real". To hold my > attention, a black & white photograph has to be REALLY compelling in its > content (some people on this list consistently shoot such compelling > monochrome images.) > > My own history with black & white may explain my prejudices in this area: > Although I have taken a few b&w photographs because I thought the subject > matter needed b&w, most of the b&w I have ever shot was done in that medium > either because I was restricted by my budget (years ago) or because I was > restricted by the end use. I've read somewhere the suggestion that b&w > photography would've never come up if the first technology to produce > photographs had produced colour; frankly I suspect this is true. It started > out as a limitation of the technology! like coarse grain in low-light shots, > and sometimes reintroducing the limitation serves no purpose. > > Of course, sometimes it DOES serve a purpose ... > > But, this photograph we're discussing has a pretty clear content; isn't > cluttered with any brightly-coloured distractions; doesn't need > any "artistic" help like conversion to black and white or (shudder) sepia or > (retch) infrared or cross-processing or (scream!) semi-conversion to negative > to improve it. It's a slice of life and as such, is great just the way it is. > IMO. > > Of course, I am in no way suggesting that your opinion ("people shoot too > much color ... ") is not valid but since I hold an opposing opinion, I > thought I would share it. > > ERNR
