B&W

[Sam]

I'm doing a little exercise this holiday. I'm training myself in the mindset that you don't need color to create a nice looking photo.

 

All photography shown here can be seen on my flickr and deviantART.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^142 image stitch!

[stevepole]

I'm a huge fan of b&w, so I support your experiment. :thumbup:

[Jeffwilson99]

I think B&W is overused, but I rather like this one. But 44 images? How did you manage that? And long did it take to process that? You would have had one massively epic image.

[ArmadylArcher]

I love BW photographs. There's a really good magazine you should look into for some hq stuff; BW magazine. Pretty easy to remember! Love the tones, shadow and detail in this shot. Would make a great print. Though I'm not too sure about the shadow on the left of the stone, to me that almost takes away the sprawling landscape and disrupts the balance of the picture But critique is very subjective and it's a very nice image overall.

[Shiny]

I personally feel as if this photo doesn't work in black and white. When I think black and white, I think graphic, emotive and strong. This photo doesn't have graphic form, in my opinion, and is not hugely emotive. With the whole graphic thing - things with strong geometrical shapes, outlines and form all work as black and white. Think very 'graphic-like', or perhaps 'technical drawing'. You know technical drawings, ultra detail, outlines and form being strong. With the emotion, sure, it is a lovely landscape, but lovely landscape =/= emotion. The other thing for me is the lighting. The lighting is far too harsh, with black and white, I try to have as diffused light as possible - i.e taken on an overcast day. The black and white replicates contrast which was not wholly present in the original scene.

 

Lovely image, black and white doesn't work, in my opinion.

 

Also, props on the 44 image stitch. Looks seamless.

[Sam]

I think B&W is overused, but I rather like this one. But 44 images? How did you manage that? And long did it take to process that? You would have had one massively epic image.

 

There's so many images because I like properly seamless panoramas and having the sheer amount of images enables the stitching program to be more "intelligent" in a way.

 

It didn't take very long actually. It takes around 125-150 images to make my Mac work hard to stitch/blend.

[Da_Latios]

I'm training myself in the mindset that you don't need color to create a nice looking photo.

You should train yourself to the mindset that you don't need Black & White to make a nice photo. Everybody processes black & white. It's like a way of bypassing the thought behind lighting, composition and post-processing by simply converting to black and white.

 

Here are some examples of how I've taken some otherwise not-so-brilliant photos, and converted them to ART by simply converting to black and white and vignetting a bit.

Yes, these are all my photos.

 

 

 

But now when I take the black and white away...

Not so good now is it?

 

My point here is that while black and white can be used to add a certain feel to a photo, it certainly takes more to create a good colour photo than a good black & white photo. At least when showing your photo to the average person.

I feel I've gone way off-point here. No idea why I bothered posting so many black-and-white photos, but... yeah. I just wanted to illustrate a point I guess.

[Sam]

I did try it out in color on my camera, just looked very bland, no contrast at all :|

 

I understand your perspective, but I really wanted to emphasis the texture and harshness of the rocks.

[Sam]

[Shiny]

New ones are far better.

[Ouchy]

In the third and sixth image, the sky looks really weird...

[Sam]

In the third and sixth image, the sky looks really weird...

 

That's the blue sky, in the summer here in warmish England :D

[Johannas]

These are awesome :thumbsup:

[Pirate_Felix]

Claszy.

 

 

Alszo, make partially desaturated pictures pleasze :>?

[Sam]

 

27 image stitch

 

Alszo, make partially desaturated pictures pleasze :>?

eh?

[stevepole]

Looking good. Your newest one looks goofy for some reason like a little section in the bottom middle. Do you just live by a bunch of rocks or did you take these on your latest vacation?

[Jeffwilson99]

I still don't why you are using like 100 images to show a scene you could shoot with 3-6 or whatever, if you not making a really high res and detailed image...

[Sam]

I still don't why you are using like 100 images to show a scene you could shoot with 3-6 or whatever, if you not making a really high res and detailed image...

 

I'm planning to print out a few of these photos at hi-res, and I also wanted the capture much of the dynamic range without doing HDR - doing a scene with 3-6 images in it would have nicely exposed rocks but the sky would be blown out*, if you get what I'm trying to say :)

 

*That being said, I'll probably buy a graduated filter in the near future :thumbup:

[Jeffwilson99]

Oh yeah, I see what you mean. It's just quite hard to tell because these ones are so small, you can't see any of that detail.

[Pirate_Felix]

 

27 image stitch

 

Alszo, make partially desaturated pictures pleasze :>?

eh?

Partially colored, partially desaturated?

[Sam]

The whole reason I've done this little experiment is to train myself shooting in black & white - and in all honesty, I hate selective desaturation.

 

Also another landscape:

 

Shot on the same beach where Pink Floyd did an album cover.

[Shiny]

Selective desaturation can work, just rarely. It doesn't work in the last photo, im my opinion.

[Sam]

 

Same beach, different position.

[Jeffwilson99]

I don't think it's a matter of training yourself to shoot in B&W, I don't think you should be that, "narrow" in your focus. I think it's more to do with training yourself to see light, and how it effects the scene you are trying to shoot. You may be missing some great shots that should be in colour.

[Shiny]

Overexposed, I think. Again, it has the same problems.