There goes the neighborhood!
Yup, that’s me…
Hi Cole,
In one of your YT videos with he-who-shall-not-be-named, you said something like, “there’s no reason an image should ever be in color.” Sometimes I see an image in b/w in the field and process it that way; the choice is clear. Other times, when I spend time processing an image in b/w in the spirit of exploring different possibilities, the resulting photo has lost an energy that drew me to it in the first place. Part (maybe a huge part) of that is my novice-level skill in b/w processing… but…
My question(s): assuming it’s a decent photo to begin with, do you believe any subject/scene can be made into a compelling b/w image? And even before that, when you know the final image will be b/w, how does that influence the way you approach the scene in the field? Is it any different than if one was assuming a color output?
Thanks for your insights!
“there’s no reason an image should ever be in color.”
Hi Beth, that is a true statement…for me! (and of course there’s a little hyperbole in there)
I see in b&w, I love b&w and I believe that any subject looks great in b&w. But that’s me and my Vision. Clearly others have a different Vision and a different view.
My Vision is formed before I take the shot, and consequently everything I do is affected by that Vision. The way I compose is determined by the graphical lines that will appear in my b&w image. How I expose is also impacted, I’m generally underexposing by 1-2 stops, to help create the dark and contrasty look that I love.
This means that my RAW file would not work well for a color image. If I were shooting for color, the composition and exposure would be different.
I suspect that shooting for color and then converting to b&w would be easier to do. But I do believe that the best results will be always be achieved when your Vision forms first, and that directs the shot and processing.
Vision, Vision, Vision! Everything else will flow from that.
Oh it’s DEFINITELY the hair!
1st, I love your vision as displayed in your work.
Earlier on I read, in your description of process, that you were working with JPGs. Later, you referred to RAW files.
I’ve seen you demonstrate working in Photoshop using some old school destructive techniques (dodging and burning on the image, e.g.). I suppose JPGs could work for this. But I was wondering, which file format do you use from the camera, RAW or JPG, and why?
I shoot in RAW + JPG so that I can use the JPG to do my initial sorting. I work on a PC and Windows takes a while to create a thumbnail for the RAW file, so I use the JPG.
But I only process the RAW file.
Once I was in Death Valley with a new camera and I had set it up incorrectly, and shot everything in JPG + Mono! An entire month of shooting in an 8 bit JPG file, it was a disaster.
First, I could not do the color to b&w conversion and had to accept the b&w image the way the camera saw it. Second, I do a lot of dodging and burning in the skies, and doing so on an 8 bit file is not very pretty.
I learned an important lesson about setting up a new camera!
My six steps for processing an image in Photoshop are:
-
Bring the image in via camera raw, play with the sliders and save it as a 360ppi, 16 bit TIFF.
-
Convert two black-and-white using Photoshop’s black-and-white conversion tool.
-
Use the levels tool to ensure a true black and a true white.
-
using a pen and tablet, dodge and burn.
-
Add contrast so that it will print well.
-
Spot the image.
Old school simple. I only add a new step or technique if it’s needed to execute my Vision.
Thanks for that question Victor.
This topic was automatically closed after 26 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.