Why Convert Color to B&W?

[bob carnie]

Though I do agree with you Bruce regarding how this will affect ones approach to image capture, as I posted the previsulization issue does change with this method, I have to say that this workflow is new and different and I suggest it is really worth exploring.
I have seen exceptional prints using the convert to black and white then print on fibre paper, that will stand up to any bwneg to bwprint .
I believe we are at the beginning stage of a workflow process that will ultimately have wonderful results from the different workers that go down this path to the waterfall.
I do not think that those who use this method of working with digital capture and scan from colour images are thinking , *this will be/can be fixed up in post*, rather more like I wonder how this scene will work using a different approach with other options at my disposal.

The

I'll be the hard-ass.

The advantage is it doesn't require the discipline necessary to do excellent B&W work. Specifically, you don't have to work as hard at visualizing the image you want because you are going to "fix it in post." Therefore you don't have to manipulate image capture to match your vision -- you can apply a "filter" later in post. This in turn encourages the it-doesn't-work-in-color-maybe-it'll-work-in-B&W attitude. Excellent B&W is seldom an afterthought!

I believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out (GIGO) principle. I want my negatives to be as close a match to my vision as I can get, with the correct colors, correct tonal values, etc. Color or B&W. I want to do as little work in post as possible. It's part of mastering the craft for me. And part of that is knowing at exposure time whether or not the final image is going to be color or B&W.

Shooting in color and then converting to B&W may make it easier to make a good B&W print, but it makes it more difficult to make an excellent B&W print. There's more to excellent B&W than what you can do in post.

I'm sure there are exceptions - there are exceptions to every rule. And the digital capture people don't have a lot of choice due to the dearth of B&W digital capture options. But that to me is an excellent reason to continue to use film, rather than looking for work arounds.

But I like life out of the mainstream. Hell, I threw away my cell phone four or five years ago. So decide what you want to do and have at it. "There are many paths to the waterfall." I'm not terribly interesting in how you got there; I'm really only interested in your results - excellent prints speak for themselves.

[RDKirk]

There are two parts to the issue. Both have been addressed, but not as discrete considerations...rather as "right" and "wrong."

First is the technical/practical/material consideration. If you don't have a wet darkroom, it's difficult to make the best of black and white film. Maybe even impossible. If you don't have control of development, you can't take advantage of all the benefits of extending and contracting its dynamic range...and if you don't do that, you're not going to get much better than with color negative emulsions. Even if you plan to scan, you need to do your own development to use black and white to its greatest advantage (although, frankly, setting up for development alone isn't that much of a problem).

But there are also technical issues with scanning conventional black and white film because of the silver content of the negatives. I prefer using chromogenic emulsions if my intention is to shoot black and white for scanning because the negative does not retain its silver.

But beyond the technical/practical/material considerations, there is also the aesthetic thought process. Yes, if you intend a black and white end product, it's better to be thinking in that way before you press the shutter release. Your perception of the subject, your lighting of the subject, your choice of exposure (exposure is always a matter of choice), all should take into consideration whether your end photograph will be a matter of color tones or shadow tones.

Most of the color photographs I've seen rendered as black and white are, IMO, rather insipid because the photographer did not take this into account. Rarely is an effective color image going to translate into an equally effective black and white image just by removing the color.

[bob carnie]

One way to see if this method has any merit , expose a scene for black and white as you would normally, then use digital capture or colour film of the same scene, then print both ways . I believe that with this new version of PS3 and its capabilities you may be able to pull out more from the colour capture than that of the black and white neg. They will be different for sure, but both equally fine and I think there is no problem asthetically working either way.

[r.e.]

This is a really interesting thread. I have CS3, but I haven't tried this yet. Historically, I've shot colour when I want colour and B&W when I want B&W, so conversion doesn't come up much as an issue.

If this is true, it raises big questions about whether there is any point, if one is printing digitally, in shooting black and white film. There's no reason why one can't use colour stock while previsualizing with B&W in mind.

I have a question. I shoot a lot of B&W in low light and push development. To give a specific example, I often use HP5+ pushed two stops. Has anyone tried using the CS3 converter with an ISO 400 colour negative film, say Fuji Pro 400H, pushed a couple of stops?

If it works, the remaining issue for me is that with B&W I don't have to worry about filter correction (and more importantly light loss) when shooting in tungsten or fluorescent lighting.

[Frank Petronio]

Previsualization may be fine for rocks and trees... but if you want to capture movement and life it really is nice to have some post-shooting options. Cropping is a huge benefit, as is color correction.

Filtering for B&W to put the sky tones where you want them... how is that morally different than color correcting a color print? Or burning and dodging?

You can't tell me with a straight face that old Ansel knew exactly where he was going to burn and dodge the second before he made his "N minus 1.283" exposure... (which he probably bracketed btw).

If it is more "pure" then you could always let your exposed images sit around for a year or two so you're looking looking at them with a "cold" eye, ala Winogrand. Maybe that is sufficiently strident for the puritans?

[Kirk Gittings]

Frankly we convert color (a color world) to B&W every time we make a b&w image.

There are limitations in converting color to B&W digitally. The amount of tonal change is really dependent on how saturated the colors are. The more the saturation, the more you can move the tonalities. Hence it is in your interest say if you want a black sky from a light blue sky you need to saturate the blues in the scan (if you do it later in PS you will get more aggravated noise-shows up as a kind of grainyness). Trying to get extremely dramatic skies from a low saturation image in PS is not possible just via B&W conversion. Whereas you can do it easily with B&W film and filters.

I have done a ton of this. You see allot of it on the web with big dramatic tones, but what looks cool on the web might print like crap. This is not a cure all, just another tool. If you know what you want from a scene, I still think it is preferable to shoot a filtered b&w that way.

[bob carnie]

I think a few months ago someone started a thread which conveyed that we were in the most wonderful period of time for photography, I think this is so , and I am glad I am of age to benifit.

[tim atherton]

I dunno

To date (and I've looked at a lot of this stuff) I have almost never seen colour converted to greyscale that doesn't look like... colour converted to greyscale (however well it's actually done).

This is especially so for a workflow that's digital all the way through (so far, those who seem to be going to the bother of shooting colour film and then scanning it and converting it are in something of a minority - just not the same amount out there as digital greyscale from start to finish)

I've tested most of the filter options out there (Tri-X plug-ins etc), as well as the funky new options in PS3 and I've yet to see much that looks good.

I don't have the same response when I look at b& w film that has been shot, digitized and printed.

These are some particularly heinous examples of this look - not the out out there, but pretty blah (scroll through)

http://singularimages.wordpress.com/

To my mind, it's greyscale photography, not black and white photography

(mind you, I'd be interested in seeing some of Bob's stuff though)

[bob carnie]

Tim
When you are in Toronto next , give me a call and drop by, we just hung 70 framed pieces in our lobby . 1/3 enlarger fibre prints and 2/3 digital fibres from all kinds of input and media. Lots of different toning techniques in this group. This body of work will be up until Jan, then we are taking it on a bit of a travelling road show to Conneticut and New York .
Bob

I dunno

To date (and I've looked at a lot of this stuff) I have almost never seen colour converted to greyscale that doesn't look like... colour converted to greyscale (however well it's actually done).

This is especially so for a workflow that's digital all the way through (so far, those who seem to be going to the bother of shooting colour film and then scanning it and converting it are in something of a minority - just not the same amount out there as digital greyscale from start to finish)

I've tested most of the filter options out there (Tri-X plug-ins etc), as well as the funky new options in PS3 and I've yet to see much that looks good.

I don't have the same response when I look at b& w film that has been shot, digitized and printed.

These are some particularly heinous examples of this look - not the out out there, but pretty blah (scroll through)

http://singularimages.wordpress.com/

To my mind, it's greyscale photography, not black and white photography

(mind you, I'd be interested in seeing some of Bob's stuff though)

[mikeb380]

I'll be the hard-ass.

The advantage is it doesn't require the discipline necessary to do excellent B&W work. Specifically, you don't have to work as hard at visualizing the image you want because you are going to "fix it in post." Therefore you don't have to manipulate image capture to match your vision -- you can apply a "filter" later in post. This in turn encourages the it-doesn't-work-in-color-maybe-it'll-work-in-B&W attitude. Excellent B&W is seldom an afterthought!

I believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out (GIGO) principle. I want my negatives to be as close a match to my vision as I can get, with the correct colors, correct tonal values, etc. Color or B&W. I want to do as little work in post as possible. It's part of mastering the craft for me. And part of that is knowing at exposure time whether or not the final image is going to be color or B&W.

Shooting in color and then converting to B&W may make it easier to make a good B&W print, but it makes it more difficult to make an excellent B&W print. There's more to excellent B&W than what you can do in post.

I'm sure there are exceptions - there are exceptions to every rule. And the digital capture people don't have a lot of choice due to the dearth of B&W digital capture options. But that to me is an excellent reason to continue to use film, rather than looking for work arounds.

But I like life out of the mainstream. Hell, I threw away my cell phone four or five years ago. So decide what you want to do and have at it. "There are many paths to the waterfall." I'm not terribly interesting in how you got there; I'm really only interested in your results - excellent prints speak for themselves.

Amen, Bruce!
While in NYC, I worked printing theater and dance photos, in wet lab, for Max Waldman and there is no way to duplicate what I did using PS. Won't happen. Just point and shoot and "I'll fix it in PS" is the lazy way. I taught classes here for members of the photo club and pushed all manual. People didn't want to do that, after all they had $2000 point and shoot cameras and they wanted to use the "features"

I shoot digital and if the photo isn't right as it comes out of the camera, it goes in the bit bucket. There is no way to "fix" a lousy photo, whether in wet lab or in PS. People today are just too lazy, they want to buy the easiest way of doing things. I have an EOS 300D and see no reason to "upgrade" to anything else.

No color film is going to approach the results of using B&W film properly exposed and printed. That's why I'm setting up a darkroom in my apartment, I'm anxious to get my hands wet and smell the perfume of stop bath! do this, shoot a gray scale on color slide film and put it in PS, convert to B&W and see how many of the steps you can differentiate. Print it out and let us know how it turned out.

Michael