RE: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Coming out from under the bed, Alan? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto No, more a case of this list is to busy without my ramblingsas well! I agree with what you say, but it was an interesting experiment that for this one time worked. I love photography but I do not think that I have an artistic bone in my body :-( Alan
Color Photography, WAS: I want to start a WAR
Not an experienced photographer here, but I think one could: 1. Focus on the kids' faces. 2. Use shallow depth of field that blurs out the puce. True, but my overarching point is that you can't get away from the colors that are there in the world, unless the colors are what you are choosing to photograph. I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing. It just *is*, is all. Some things don't work well in black-and-white, either. I love photographing blondes in BW, but I once photographed this girl who had strawberry-blonde reddish hair and freckles, and she didn't look good at all in BW. Here are a few great books of color photography you might want to study: Ernst Haas, _Color Photography_ William Eggleston John Szarkowski, _William Eggleston's Guide_ Joel Meyerowitz _Cape Light_ (one of the all-time photography bestsellers, by the way) Eliot Porter, _In Wildness is the Preservation of the World_ Sam Abell, _Stay This Moment_ Ralph Gibson, _L'Histoire de France_ Other color photographers you should know include Shinzo Maeda, Sheila Metzner, William Albert Allard, Marie Cosindas, Ragubhir Singh, Eve Arnold, Paul Outerbridge, Jan Groover, and Alex Webb. --Mike
Re: I want to start a WAR
There is much debate as to the evolutionary origins of color perception in humans. A commonly held theory is that color vision allowed humans to find fruit, and improving nutrition always has a strong evolutionary pressure. (Most think the subtle reliance on judging skins tones for signs of sexual health/availability as a later development, unlike some birds that rely on colored plumage) Why this matters in photography is that it gives some idea what part of the brain lights up when we perceive a bright color. If this perception does trigger an instinctive pleasure response, then it would distract from the more cerebral mental response to a BW. Steve (thoroughly enjoying complicating the issue.)
Re: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Thanks, the paper we gonna try out is called Kodak Endura Metallic, lasts a 100 years on display 200 in an album and its a RA4 colour print paper Feroze - Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:40 PM Subject: Re: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR) It has always been possible to do a BW print from color negative film (I think that Kodak made Panalure (?) paper specifically for this. A color negative records each of the colors separately. So it has the same information as a BW negative, but you can select different aspects of it. The biggest difference between color and chromogenic BW film a traditional BW film is that color/chromogenic has a dye cloud structure rather than a silver grain one, so the look can be quite different. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what happens to a colour neg when its printed in black white. My local says he can print a colour neg as black white. Does a proper BW neg have different info than a colour one? My understanding on negs is that it has 3 layers on top of one another and a BW is one. Am I missunderstanding this?
Re: I want to start a WAR
In a message dated 1/15/2003 11:40:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is much debate as to the evolutionary origins of color perception in humans. A commonly held theory is that color vision allowed humans to find fruit, and improving nutrition always has a strong evolutionary pressure. (Most think the subtle reliance on judging skins tones for signs of sexual health/availability as a later development, unlike some birds that rely on colored plumage) Why this matters in photography is that it gives some idea what part of the brain lights up when we perceive a bright color. If this perception does trigger an instinctive pleasure response, then it would distract from the more cerebral mental response to a BW. Steve (thoroughly enjoying complicating the issue.) And what a nice complication it is! I suspect, yes, it does trigger a pleasure response. Doe aka Marnie Does in me, anyway. :-)
Re: Color Photography, WAS: I want to start a WAR
In a message dated 1/15/2003 5:49:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ernst Haas, _Color Photography_ William Eggleston John Szarkowski, _William Eggleston's Guide_ Joel Meyerowitz _Cape Light_ (one of the all-time photography bestsellers, by the way) Eliot Porter, _In Wildness is the Preservation of the World_ Sam Abell, _Stay This Moment_ Ralph Gibson, _L'Histoire de France_ Other color photographers you should know include Shinzo Maeda, Sheila Metzner, William Albert Allard, Marie Cosindas, Ragubhir Singh, Eve Arnold, Paul Outerbridge, Jan Groover, and Alex Webb. --Mike Thanks very much, Mike, for the list of books. Debated plunging back into the fray, but decided not. First, I don't know enough to keep arguing. Two, I made most of my points already. Three, the discussion has petered out anyway. Read everyone's comments, and I see the other side -- as much as I can. Think I kept arguing in the first because of your comments. The problem with color is that IF you are photographing something to show what it means, the colors that also show in the picture are random. If, on the other hand, you are looking for color and that's why you shoot the picture, then the meaning is random. And... But many photographers who successfully photograph in color are responding mainly to colors; many photographers who photograph successfully in black-and-white are looking at meaning (or perhaps the light, luminance). I mean, don't you think that sounds just a tinsy winsy little bit condoscending? BW photographers get to be keepers of the flame of photography meaning, but color photographers are just interested in shooting the flame's color? Aw, come on. Doe aka Marnie But I still like and respect you too. ;-)
Re: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Coming out from under the bed, Alan? (Alan is a wonderful person who has been lurking on the list for quite a while) I did not say you could not get a nice BW picture from a color negative. I said that to get the best possible BW print from a color negative it has to be exposed differently than one that was exposed to give the best possible color print. That is a simple fact of life, we do not often use 2:1 contrast ratios for BW but it is very common in color work. In BW we want a full tonal range, in color we do not want detail buried in shadows and wased out in the highlights. It is simply that different techniques work better for one than the other. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Alan Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:53 AM Subject: RE: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR) I printed a BW picture from a colour neg . I tried it just for fun one night. The only thing I had to do was to change the grade of the print. I know that I am still a mere beginner but it turned out to be a picture that I am proud of and the people in it wanted copies.
Re: I want to start a WAR
Interesting re tones vs colors. Been thinking more about that. I bet that is the often the basis for a preference for BW or color. (Well, in the answers to Cotty's q about BW, other reasons are also given). Marnie, Yes, I think everybody has given valid reasons. The problem with color is that it IF you are photographing something to show what it means, the colors that also show in the picture are random. If, on the other hand, you are looking for color and that's why you shoot the picture, then the meaning is random. I'll give you a trivialized example just for illustration purposes. Say you're shooting a bunch of kids. They find a dead bird. As they look at it, you notice one child has a disturbed, thoughtful expression on his face. Reacting to that, you take a picture of him. But he is also wearing a garish puce shirt. In color, your viewer might react by thinking, wow, lookit that awful puce! In black-and-white, they look at the kid's expression. Conversely, if you are shooting color film, you tend to look for colors. So shooting that same group of kids, you might notice the puce shirt and go after that. And your picture ends up being of a puce shirt and may not even include the kid's face. Okay, there is no absolute reason why you can't do both at the same time. Some photographers do. But many photographers who successfully photograph in color are responding mainly to colors; many photographers who photograph successfully in black-and-white are looking at meaning (or perhaps the light, luminance). Wildlife and nature photographers argue (successfully, I think) that the color is part of the meaning--that is, if you want to accurately show a gorge-throated mauve-winged warbler, you're got to show what color the little bugger is. I buy this; I think they're right. I don't think either color or BW are inherently superior. It's obviously not a right-or-wrong kind of thing. You and I are the lucky ones. You've said you respond strongly to color and dislike BW; I know I respond strongly to BW and don't have a lot of feeling for color. So our choices are more or less made for us. I think the unlucky photographers are the ones who don't really have a strong innate preference, who switch back and forth or shoot both at the same time. It must be tough for them to forge a vision or a style. Contrary to what some people here have claimed, I don't think there are many _great_ photographers who succeed at both. You could throw all of Ansel Adams's or Edward Weston's color work in the trash and they'd still be great photographers; throw away their BW work and nobody would ever have heard of either of them. The opposite holds true for Ernst Haas or Joel Meyerowitz, IMO. At the utilitarian, jobber level, people can be competent at both. At the artistic level, I think people are wise to take a stand based on their own gut reactions and stick to one or the other. --Mike
Re: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
IMHO, a negative that will make a supurb BW print will only make a mediocre Color print, and one that will make a good Color print will only make a mediocre BW one. This is because you need higher contrast to get a dramatic BW print, and lower contrast to get a good Color print. The above presumes you are using color negative film for both prints. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 1:56 PM Subject: Re: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR) But what happens to a colour neg when its printed in black white. My local says he can print a colour neg as black white. Does a proper BW neg have different info than a colour one? My understanding on negs is that it has 3 layers on top of one another and a BW is one. Am I missunderstanding this?
Re: I want to start a WAR
Darn Mike, you have to quit that, here I am agreeing with you again. When an Artsy and a Techy agree something is basically wrong with their thinking. grin Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 5:27 PM Subject: Re: I want to start a WAR Interesting re tones vs colors. Been thinking more about that. I bet that is the often the basis for a preference for BW or color. (Well, in the answers to Cotty's q about BW, other reasons are also given). Marnie, Yes, I think everybody has given valid reasons. The problem with color is that it IF you are photographing something to show what it means, the colors that also show in the picture are random. If, on the other hand, you are looking for color and that's why you shoot the picture, then the meaning is random. I'll give you a trivialized example just for illustration purposes. Say you're shooting a bunch of kids. They find a dead bird. As they look at it, you notice one child has a disturbed, thoughtful expression on his face. Reacting to that, you take a picture of him. But he is also wearing a garish puce shirt. In color, your viewer might react by thinking, wow, lookit that awful puce! In black-and-white, they look at the kid's expression. Conversely, if you are shooting color film, you tend to look for colors. So shooting that same group of kids, you might notice the puce shirt and go after that. And your picture ends up being of a puce shirt and may not even include the kid's face. Okay, there is no absolute reason why you can't do both at the same time. Some photographers do. But many photographers who successfully photograph in color are responding mainly to colors; many photographers who photograph successfully in black-and-white are looking at meaning (or perhaps the light, luminance). Wildlife and nature photographers argue (successfully, I think) that the color is part of the meaning--that is, if you want to accurately show a gorge-throated mauve-winged warbler, you're got to show what color the little bugger is. I buy this; I think they're right. I don't think either color or BW are inherently superior. It's obviously not a right-or-wrong kind of thing. You and I are the lucky ones. You've said you respond strongly to color and dislike BW; I know I respond strongly to BW and don't have a lot of feeling for color. So our choices are more or less made for us. I think the unlucky photographers are the ones who don't really have a strong innate preference, who switch back and forth or shoot both at the same time. It must be tough for them to forge a vision or a style. Contrary to what some people here have claimed, I don't think there are many _great_ photographers who succeed at both. You could throw all of Ansel Adams's or Edward Weston's color work in the trash and they'd still be great photographers; throw away their BW work and nobody would ever have heard of either of them. The opposite holds true for Ernst Haas or Joel Meyerowitz, IMO. At the utilitarian, jobber level, people can be competent at both. At the artistic level, I think people are wise to take a stand based on their own gut reactions and stick to one or the other. --Mike
Re: I want to start a WAR
Darn Mike, you have to quit that, here I am agreeing with you again. When an Artsy and a Techy agree something is basically wrong with their thinking. Well, y'see, Tom, I'm pretty techy for an Artsy, and you're pretty artsy for a Techy. So we kinda lean towards splitting the difference. Y'think? --Mike
Re: I want to start a WAR
In a message dated 1/14/2003 5:27:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IF you are photographing something to show what it means, the colors that also show in the picture are random. If, on the other hand, you are looking for color and that's why you shoot the picture, then the meaning is random. Don't agree with that, but, hey, you're a BW guy. ;-) Okay, this is a trivialized example as you said... I'll give you a trivialized example just for illustration purposes. Say you're shooting a bunch of kids. They find a dead bird. As they look at it, you notice one child has a disturbed, thoughtful expression on his face. Reacting to that, you take a picture of him. But he is also wearing a garish puce shirt. In color, your viewer might react by thinking, wow, lookit that awful puce! In black-and-white, they look at the kid's expression. Conversely, if you are shooting color film, you tend to look for colors. So shooting that same group of kids, you might notice the puce shirt and go after that. And your picture ends up being of a puce shirt and may not even include the kid's face. Not an experienced photographer here, but I think one could: 1. Focus on the kids' faces. 2. Use shallow depth of field that blurs out the puce. 3. Use a type of film that has a pale palette -- one good for portraits. 4. Shoot at the kids' waist level, focusing upward. 6. Shoot down focusing on the dead bird. No argument that color presents challenges. Hehehehe. [snip] At the artistic level, I think people are wise to take a stand based on their own gut reactions and stick to one or the other. --Mike Right. You like TomatOES, I like TomAtoes... Doe aka Marnie ;-)
I want to start a WAR
Hi all, Would you purchase, form a gallery, a digital print produced by a digital printer for the same money as one printed on conventual paper? Bob Rapp
RE: I want to start a WAR
COLOR YES, BW NO. JCO -Original Message- From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I want to start a WAR Hi all, Would you purchase, form a gallery, a digital print produced by a digital printer for the same money as one printed on conventual paper? Bob Rapp
Re: I want to start a WAR
Nothing, nothing invites the eye to investigate a picture more than Black and White. Color intoxicates the eye and the mind and one normally does not look critically at the image. Bob - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] COLOR YES, BW NO.
RE: I want to start a WAR
Did you misunderstand me? I said YES I would accept a color digital over conventional, but NO I would not accept a digital BW over conventional BW conventional prints BLOW AWAY digital BW prints in my experience. I was not saying I didnt like BW, quite the contrary. I was just saying digital BW is unacceptable compared to the far superior conventional BW prints. JCO -Original Message- From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I want to start a WAR Nothing, nothing invites the eye to investigate a picture more than Black and White. Color intoxicates the eye and the mind and one normally does not look critically at the image. Bob - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] COLOR YES, BW NO.
Re: I want to start a WAR
And.. What I am saying is exactly the same thing (regarding BW). What I am also saying is that Color prints do not invite the eye to look closer. BW, 35mm or larger) deliver a crisper image than Color, format for format. - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you misunderstand me? I said YES I would accept a color digital over conventional, but NO I would not accept a digital BW over conventional BW conventional prints BLOW AWAY digital BW prints in my experience. I was not saying I didnt like BW, quite the contrary. I was just saying digital BW is unacceptable compared to the far superior conventional BW prints. JCO
Re: I want to start a WAR
In a message dated 1/13/2003 5:42:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And.. What I am saying is exactly the same thing (regarding BW). What I am also saying is that Color prints do not invite the eye to look closer. BW, 35mm or larger) deliver a crisper image than Color, format for format. Well, maybe a war *is* started. I am no photography expert -- far from it. But I find BW boring. Put some color photos next to BW photos and my eye will skip right over the BW to the color. It reminds me too much of the BW TV I grew up with. And everyone on the street was estactic when they finally got a color TV! Our family certainly was, because we got ours later than some. I instantly found TV more interesting (not necessarily a good thing as a child, but you get the idea). Yes, I can see why people like BW photos and like using BW film -- for the abstraction -- but my vision isn't BW and never has been, so they always look like they are lacking something to me. In newspapers and books that don't print a lot of color, okay. But even that has changed over time. Also photographs can be abstracted by what they include/exclude in/from the frame; it simply does not REQUIRE the subtraction of color. Subtract a lot of background clutter instead or focus in closer for abstraction. That all said -- phooey to any broad generalizations re photography. It really depends on the picture. Backing up somewhat out of fear of retaliation -- my experience is very limited, so I admit have not cultivated a palate for BW photographs. That is not to suggest I will someday, but I realize that they may be an acquired taste. So maybe no war after all. As long as all the BW fans don't beat up on me. Hey, to each his own. If everyone liked the same thing it would be one boring world. Doe aka Marnie ;-)
Re: I want to start a WAR
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, I can see why people like BW photos and like using BW film -- for the abstraction -- but my vision isn't BW and never has been, so they always look like they are lacking something to me. In newspapers and books that don't print a lot of color, okay. But even that has changed over time. Doe aka Marnie ;-) have you seen Ansel Adam's color work? if you have not, i highly recommend it. he may be known for his BW work, but he continually experimented with color but never published much of it because he felt he could never achieve the control he wanted. some of that was because of the limitations of the medium of his day, but some was that BW does allow a lot more control over certain aspects of reproduction. i know to some, his BW work will always be the better work, but for me, his color work is. Herb...
Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Doe aka Marnie (alright if I call you Aka for short?) writes: But I find BW boring. Put some color photos next to BW photos and my eye will skip right over the BW to the color This led me to do some thinking relating to digital. When shooting film, one makes a cognitive decision to load either colour or black and white film into the camera, usually based on anticipation of the sort of shots to be captured. With digital, this decision is made after the shots are made. This invites a whole new way of thinking. Framing for colour and framing for mono can be totally different. Seeing a result in glorious colour can easily dissuade removing the colour to produce a mono picture, in my experience. I have done it, but I haven't yet put my thinking cap on and gone out specifically with the intention of shooting 'black and white'. I suspect as digital makes more and more of an inroads into people's photography, we will slowly see mono retreat to museums and art shops? Staying on topic, with the Pentax DSLR imminent, and with Optios apparently a hot seller, this is something to think about. Discuss! Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Cotty, I think you can add more fuel to the fire. A while back I was requested to shoot BW for a client and so I went to my lab (Agfa D-Labs) to see what BW film they work best with. They told me to shoot color and the D-Lab would de-saturate. So I brought in a bunch of negatives of different films and had them do some BW prints. They turned out just fine. I did the shoot on Portra 160NC and had them printed BW off the D-Lab. They client was pleased and I didn't have to choose between BW or color. I have subsequently done this quite a bit with family protraits and weddings and have the clientele pick some BW and some color images from the same roll. Doesn't even take a digital camera, just a digital lab. So certainly the digital age may have a profound effect on the prevalence of color vs. BW. My feeling is that BW popularity will increase. On many prints I have had them printed both ways so my clients can see what they like. Bruce Monday, January 13, 2003, 9:58:56 AM, you wrote: C Doe aka Marnie (alright if I call you Aka for short?) writes: But I find BW boring. Put some color photos next to BW photos and my eye will skip right over the BW to the color C This led me to do some thinking relating to digital. C When shooting film, one makes a cognitive decision to load either colour C or black and white film into the camera, usually based on anticipation of C the sort of shots to be captured. C With digital, this decision is made after the shots are made. This C invites a whole new way of thinking. Framing for colour and framing for C mono can be totally different. Seeing a result in glorious colour can C easily dissuade removing the colour to produce a mono picture, in my C experience. I have done it, but I haven't yet put my thinking cap on and C gone out specifically with the intention of shooting 'black and white'. C I suspect as digital makes more and more of an inroads into people's C photography, we will slowly see mono retreat to museums and art shops? C Staying on topic, with the Pentax DSLR imminent, and with Optios C apparently a hot seller, this is something to think about. C Discuss! C Cotty C C Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! C http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ C C Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at C http://www.macads.co.uk/ C
Re: I want to start a WAR
Hi Marnie... This is an interesting comment. I have another, somewhat anecdotal example of the opposite viewpoint. My mom, a high school arts teacher in a small, rural community recently brought her photography students to an exhibit of some of Ansel Adam's BW work here in Portland. The exhibit also included color prints of similar locations done by Adam Bacher, an accomplished local outdoor photographer. (You can find his gallery by searching on Google.) To my surprise, the students all agreed that the BW work had a greater visual impact than the color work, although they were both technically excellent. t On 1/13/03 3:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I find BW boring. Put some color photos next to BW photos and my eye will skip right over the BW to the color. It reminds me too much of the BW TV I grew up with. And everyone on the street was estactic when they finally got a color TV! Our family certainly was, because we got ours later than some. I instantly found TV more interesting (not necessarily a good thing as a child, but you get the idea).
RE: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Indeed you gain flexibility, decide later if it has to be B+W or colour. And also the kind of filtering: if you take a colour shot with the intention to get finally B+W, you decide on the filtering in the digital darkroom. This will work for most filters except ofcourse for pola filters and filters to reduce haze. I like the flexibility: now I go out sometimes with three bodies, one filled with B+W, one with IR and one with colour or slide! What you lose in the process is typical grain. Who said that grain is the brushstroke of the photographer? Greetings, Jos -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Verzonden: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:59 PM Aan: Pentax List Onderwerp: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR) Doe aka Marnie (alright if I call you Aka for short?) writes: But I find BW boring. Put some color photos next to BW photos and my eye will skip right over the BW to the color This led me to do some thinking relating to digital. When shooting film, one makes a cognitive decision to load either colour or black and white film into the camera, usually based on anticipation of the sort of shots to be captured. With digital, this decision is made after the shots are made. This invites a whole new way of thinking. Framing for colour and framing for mono can be totally different. Seeing a result in glorious colour can easily dissuade removing the colour to produce a mono picture, in my experience. I have done it, but I haven't yet put my thinking cap on and gone out specifically with the intention of shooting 'black and white'. I suspect as digital makes more and more of an inroads into people's photography, we will slowly see mono retreat to museums and art shops? Staying on topic, with the Pentax DSLR imminent, and with Optios apparently a hot seller, this is something to think about. Discuss! Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
In a message dated 1/13/2003 12:58:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This led me to do some thinking relating to digital. When shooting film, one makes a cognitive decision to load either colour or black and white film into the camera, usually based on anticipation of the sort of shots to be captured. With digital, this decision is made after the shots are made. This invites a whole new way of thinking. Framing for colour and framing for mono can be totally different. Seeing a result in glorious colour can easily dissuade removing the colour to produce a mono picture, in my experience. I have done it, but I haven't yet put my thinking cap on and gone out specifically with the intention of shooting 'black and white'. Oh, interesting, didn't know that. But now that you've said it it makes completely logical sense that that is the way digital does BW. And, yes, I would think one would head out to shoot differently with BW or color, so it might create a problem with digital. I suspect as digital makes more and more of an inroads into people's photography, we will slowly see mono retreat to museums and art shops? Staying on topic, with the Pentax DSLR imminent, and with Optios apparently a hot seller, this is something to think about. Discuss! Cotty I'm just glad no one came after me to whip me with wet noodles (or PC cords). Not the wisest post I have ever made. Doe aka Marnie :-) Sometimes that reply button gets pushed a little too fast.
Re: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
In PS, using Channel Mixer, output to Gray, you can get any typical BW filter effect you want. A little work with Curves and you can get just about any look. There will always reasons to shoot BW film, but they won't necessarily be to just get a BW image. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cotty, I think you can add more fuel to the fire. A while back I was requested to shoot BW for a client and so I went to my lab (Agfa D-Labs) to see what BW film they work best with. They told me to shoot color and the D-Lab would de-saturate. So I brought in a bunch of negatives of different films and had them do some BW prints. They turned out just fine. I did the shoot on Portra 160NC and had them printed BW off the D-Lab. They client was pleased and I didn't have to choose between BW or color. I have subsequently done this quite a bit with family protraits and weddings and have the clientele pick some BW and some color images from the same roll. Doesn't even take a digital camera, just a digital lab. So certainly the digital age may have a profound effect on the prevalence of color vs. BW. My feeling is that BW popularity will increase. On many prints I have had them printed both ways so my clients can see what they like. Bruce
Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] With digital, this decision is made after the shots are made. This invites a whole new way of thinking. Framing for colour and framing for mono can be totally different. Seeing a result in glorious colour can easily dissuade removing the colour to produce a mono picture, in my experience. I have done it, but I haven't yet put my thinking cap on and gone out specifically with the intention of shooting 'black and white'. i shoot for color and occasionally see if an image that has particulary strong shapes and textures works in BW. i don't intentionally look for BW and stopped as soon as i could afford to buy color slide film. Herb
RE: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I like the flexibility: now I go out sometimes with three bodies, one filled with B+W, one with IR and one with colour or slide! What you lose in the process is typical grain. Who said that grain is the brushstroke of the photographer? Greetings, Jos many digital cameras are sensitive in the near infrared and work well with a visually opaque infrared filter. Herb
RE: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Your right Herb, and I'm quite sure that in future digital camaras will have a switch to select infra red modes I hope that it will show the beautifull combination of infra red sensitivity plus grain and the halos as is given now by the Kodak infra red film. Greetings, Jos -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] many digital cameras are sensitive in the near infrared and work well with a visually opaque infrared filter. Herb
Re: I want to start a WAR
In a message dated 1/13/2003 7:18:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: have you seen Ansel Adam's color work? if you have not, i highly recommend it. he may be known for his BW work, but he continually experimented with color but never published much of it because he felt he could never achieve the control he wanted. some of that was because of the limitations of the medium of his day, but some was that BW does allow a lot more control over certain aspects of reproduction. i know to some, his BW work will always be the better work, but for me, his color work is. Herb... Ohh, neat. I didn't know that he had even shot color. Thanks for the info. Now I am intrigued and will definitely look for it. I will be curious to see how similar/different it was to/from his BW. Doe aka Marnie :-)
Re: I want to start a WAR
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ohh, neat. I didn't know that he had even shot color. Thanks for the info. Now I am intrigued and will definitely look for it. I will be curious to see how similar/different it was to/from his BW. Doe aka Marnie :-) i think it is a lot different. his color work would blend right in to a modern color landscape photography gallery without looking dated. i think Eliot Porter's work wouldn't survive as well in a modern gallery despite Porter shooting mostly in color. Herb...
Re: I want to start a WAR
my vision isn't BW and never has been, so they always look like they are lacking something to me. In newspapers and books that don't print a lot of color, okay. But even that has changed over time. Gee, Marnie, up till now I liked you! s Just kidding. Actually I respect your viewpoint, even though I personally have always reacted exactly the opposite. As I said in one essay on the subject, Tones move me. Colors don't. I don't know why. I even went out and bought a BW TV as a second TV. phooey to any broad generalizations re photography. It really depends on the picture. Bravo. And if everyone had the same taste, the world would really be boring. --Mike
Re: I want to start a WAR
On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 02:58 AM, Bob Rapp wrote: Hi all, Would you purchase, form a gallery, a digital print produced by a digital printer for the same money as one printed on conventual paper? Bob Rapp Yes. Dan Scott
