People in Black & White: a discussion

[Skygod44]

I'm really enjoying going through the many threads in FoP, post-by-post, being utterly enthralled by the skills represented herein.
And I want to start some talk about photos, styles, techniques, etc...
For the top folks, let me hear your thoughts.
For people new to photography, what's your reaction?

So, this thread is about People in Black & White.
I recommend folks take a look here ->

Thread 'Post your Black and White Portraits Here!!!'

15 Nov 2023

Post your portraits in Black and White.

• Inphoto
• Replies: 270
• Forum: People

A really good look.
On a large screen, if possible.

Now, my thoughts:
1) It takes a staggeringly beautiful adult to "look good" in monochrome.
Man or woman is immaterial.
Balanced features, smooth skin, the "perfect expression", exceptional lighting...

2) For children, the above are easier to achieve,
3) but still, the scene must be positive and full of life...

BUT!
4) Characterful, emotional, expressive, story-telling, deep, moving, tragic, life-style, dark, moody, enticing...
Black and White is the perfect means of imparting the photographers stamp upon these images of people.

What do you all think?

Cheery-bye for now,
Simon

 

[ShipleyNW]

Probably not what you're looking for here, but ...

Forty years ago I was working at newspapers. That meant I shot 80% Tri-X and 80% people. My job was largely to put a face to a story. To me, portraits just mean faces, and I treated all faces as portraits, even in sports shots.

Most times, I shot available light outdoors, and indoors too if I could. Window light can be awesome, and you don't have to worry about color temp. Every light source is an option, every wall a bounce platform. If I had to, I'd use a single, off-camera strobe. I have practically zero studio portrait experience.

I loved faces and doing environmental portraits was the best part of my job. It produced the work I'm most proud of. When I left the business I kept a bunch of prints and negatives. I still have a few, but attrition has dropped me down to about 100 digital images left from that period. Some 80 of those could reasonably be considered portraits.

I don't shoot people anymore. I got no reason to be there. It's a shame.

Some cultures believe that when you take someone's portrait, you steal a little bit of their soul. I say, only if you do it right.

 

[Skygod44]

Probably not what you're looking for here, but ...

Forty years ago I was working at newspapers. That meant I shot 80% Tri-X and 80% people. My job was largely to put a face to a story. To me, portraits just mean faces, and I treated all faces as portraits, even in sports shots.

Most times, I shot available light outdoors, and indoors too if I could. Window light can be awesome, and you don't have to worry about color temp. Every light source is an option, every wall a bounce platform. If I had to, I'd use a single, off-camera strobe. I have practically zero studio portrait experience.

I loved faces and doing environmental portraits was the best part of my job. It produced the work I'm most proud of. When I left the business I kept a bunch of prints and negatives. I still have a few, but attrition has dropped me down to about 100 digital images left from that period. Some 80 of those could reasonably be considered portraits.

I don't shoot people anymore. I got no reason to be there. It's a shame.

Some cultures believe that when you take someone's portrait, you steal a little bit of their soul. I say, only if you do it right.

View attachment 148422 View attachment 148426

View attachment 148424 View attachment 148434

This is fantastic, Ken

Thank you so much for joining in.
And reading about your "past life" simply added to the pleasure.

I used to shoot Tri-X 400 back in the late-1980s to mid-1990s when I did studio work, and loved it.
But now we're mostly digital, and being able to convert to B&W is just one click nowadays...
...but *and I want to stress this again* "this is just my opinion", I think using B&W should be done with respect.

Oh, and I've deliberately left your images in my reply because I think they illustrate my point, exceedingly well.

Cheery-bye for now,
Simon

 

[paddler4]

I follow the same ideas in deciding whether people and with other images are best in color or B&W. I ask myself questions like this:

• Do colors add to the image or distract from key elements?
• To what degree is the image about textures, lines, and spaces, which are often best highlighted without color?

I shoot a lot of candids of kids (which I never post without permission of the parents, which ends up being never), and those are almost all in color. They are more about capturing a mood or an expression, not about lines and textures. I have a portrait of an old friend taken when he was about 70 which is in B&W because the colors were irrelevant and the textures were very important.

One nifty thing about Lightroom is that you can make a virtual copy and develop the photo both ways, at least to the point where it's best to export it to a pixel editor like Photoshop.

 

[stevejack]

The thing that I find with black and white is; you need to shoot for it specifically. Rarely does a photo that I exposed for and shot in colour work well as a black and white conversion. And if I take a portrait in black and white, rarely does it work when converted to colour.
This is mostly because I prefer high contrast black and white so I'm going for deep shadows, especially if it's a studio portrait. Those deep shadows just don't work in colour and everything starts to look muddy very quickly.

It's hard for me to talk about whether a particular subject works in colour or black and white... because I'll shoot the subject differently to make sure it works. For me it's the same as lens choice.
I can't make the same photograph with a 50mm that I can with a 28mm. So if I only have the 50mm with me, I will need to shoot the scene very differently to how I would if I was using the 28mm. Does that make sense? It's the same scene before me, the same lighting same subject etc... but the photographs that I make will use a very different approach different depending on which lens I'm carrying.

It's exactly the same if I'm shooting black and white versus colour. I'll adjust my approach to the scene to suit whatever medium I'm shooting with to make sure that it works.

 

[Skygod44]

Thanks for adding your wisdom.
I'm on the Bullet Train now, so have time to reply

I follow the same ideas in deciding whether people and with other images are best in color or B&W. I ask myself questions like this:

• Do colors add to the image or distract from key elements?
• To what degree is the image about textures, lines, and spaces, which are often best highlighted without color?

Yes indeed.
Colour can easily distract from a marvelously textured or intriguingly shaped object.

Point well made

I shoot a lot of candids of kids (which I never post without permission of the parents, which ends up being never), and those are almost all in color. They are more about capturing a mood or an expression, not about lines and textures.

This I find interesting
Children in B&W can (***again, stressing, that this is only my humble opinion***) look amazing...
...or tragic.

One twitch of an eyebrow, or a slight alteration in their expression can be all it takes.

It's a tightrope walk, this one, I think.

And parents can be over-the-moon, or, hate you for life if you get it wrong, or, if they personally don't like B&W photos of people, which could be cultural, because no one here around me in Southern Japan has ever approved B&Ws of their kids - I've tried

I have a portrait of an old friend taken when he was about 70 which is in B&W because the colors were irrelevant and the textures were very important.

I feel that B&W accentuates and draws attention to the "lines of experience" visible on the faces of our seniors.

But again, here, "lines on faces" is almost a swear word!

Reasons for this are many and complex, cultural and sociological I think. And not worth going into here.

One nifty thing about Lightroom is that you can make a virtual copy and develop the photo both ways, at least to the point where it's best to export it to a pixel editor like Photoshop.

Yeah...
I remember hours, days (and months! ) spent using Lightroom, and GIMP.
I've toyed with the idea of opening them up again, but no.
DaVinci Resolve for video editing and grading uses up as much time as I'm willing to devote, these days.

Thanks again, catch you in the threads.
Simon

 

[Skygod44]

Thanks for joining in

The thing that I find with black and white is; you need to shoot for it specifically. Rarely does a photo that I exposed for and shot in colour work well as a black and white conversion. And if I take a portrait in black and white, rarely does it work when converted to colour.

This is interesting to me.
So, do you shoot in colour or B&W in-camera?

I think I can "see" in B&W, but unless I'm being paid (rare, because I've basically quit doing pro work), I shoot jpgs only, and sometimes even use the "art filters" within my Olympus cameras.

So, I can adjust almost all the parameters which folks might rely on Lightroom etc. to do, before I take the shot.

How about you?

Although I have software on my PC for photos, it's mostly used as a video editing machine, optimised for DaVinci Resolve. So I mostly use the free photo app, Snapseed, on my smartphone, to edit on the fly.

Anyway...back to B&W

This is mostly because I prefer high contrast black and white so I'm going for deep shadows, especially if it's a studio portrait. Those deep shadows just don't work in colour and everything starts to look muddy very quickly.

Yes, I see

It's hard for me to talk about whether a particular subject works in colour or black and white... because I'll shoot the subject differently to make sure it works. For me it's the same as lens choice.

Also interesting
You're clearly one of our better artists!

I can't make the same photograph with a 50mm that I can with a 28mm. So if I only have the 50mm with me, I will need to shoot the scene very differently to how I would if I was using the 28mm. Does that make sense?

100%

...//...
It's exactly the same if I'm shooting black and white versus colour. I'll adjust my approach to the scene to suit whatever medium I'm shooting with to make sure that it works.

I've already prompted the answer, but are you shooting in film, as well as digital?

Ah! My Bullet Train will arrive soon in Kumamoto, so I should bring this to a close.

Catch you in the threads
Simon

 

[paddler4]

So, I can adjust almost all the parameters which folks might rely on Lightroom etc. to do, before I take the shot.

I've never used Olympus art filters, but that seems hard to credit. Here are a few things I do in Lightroom when I convert to black and white:

• Change tonality by color, like using color filters but far more flexible. It offers 8 colors, and you can do a custom color with the targeted adjustment tool.
• Adjust contrast, not just overall, but for certain tonal ranges (using the curves tool) or for certain parts of the image (using selections)
• Make other global and selective tonality adjustments
• Dodge and burn, using a brush and gradients
• Change texture, clarity, and sharpness
• Add a vignette, either with the vignette tool or manually with a brush (I almost always do the latter rather than the former

I don't think one can do all of that in camera. I'm not saying that anyone else SHOULD do these things, just that they require postprocessing.

 

[Skygod44]

Thanks again for adding some expert thoughts

I've never used Olympus art filters, but that seems hard to credit.

I rarely use Art Filters, but in DaVinci Resolve, "custom presets" are an important part of video editing...
...it was this new mindset which stopped me assuming that Olympus Art Filters are amateur.

Imagine you've created the perfect "look" in Lightroom for one image, and then you save that for batch processing a few dozen more images...

I think mostly, the Art Filters are used by Instagram folks (which I'm not!), but within each one, you can adjust many settings. For example, if I want a more dramatic tonal range, "Dramatic Tone" jumps straight to that, and then I can tweak it from there, to match the mood I'm seeing in real life, onto the digital image.
Or,
I can fiddle with almost the same sliders on my PC...to get almost the same result.
The italicised words above are the key point: how much time do I need to/am I willing to give to, just one image?
As I get closer to the age my Dad died at, the answer is "not much".

Here are a few things I do in Lightroom when I convert to black and white:

• Change tonality by color, like using color filters but far more flexible. It offers 8 colors, and you can do a custom color with the targeted adjustment tool.

Just to give you a taster, the brand spanking new OM Systems OM-3 can do all this in camera.
The only benefit of doing it on a PC, is the size of the screen...
...but then that assumes that most people looking at the final image will also be viewing it on a large screen.
***Printing is, of course, a whole other discussion ***

• Adjust contrast, not just overall, but for certain tonal ranges (using the curves tool) or for certain parts of the image (using selections)
• Make other global and selective tonality adjustments
• Dodge and burn, using a brush and gradients
• Change texture, clarity, and sharpness
• Add a vignette, either with the vignette tool or manually with a brush (I almost always do the latter rather than the former

I don't think one can do all of that in camera. I'm not saying that anyone else SHOULD do these things, just that they require postprocessing.

Of course, you're completely right: not all of the above can be done in-camera...
...but it's getting closer.
(I've highlighted what I can't do in-camera, or in Snapseed.)

And when I first started developing my own negatives, and doing my own printing around 1986, I would never have imagined photography could be what it is, today.

I feel very privileged to have been alive during this technological breakthrough period.

Right! It's time here to get up and feed the cats

Thanks again,
Simon

 

[paddler4]

Interesting. I just looked at the OM systems video explanation of these functions, https://learning.omsystem.com/OM-3/en/index.html. It certainly does more than I expected. Less than LR. For example, you can set one color filter for any hue. That's better than the film days, when most of us had at most 3 filters. Lightroom, however, allows you to make changes to the tone of multiple colors. And one very big difference: you have to do all this before you shoot, which is only practical if your subject stays put. Still, I can see how some people would find this very useful.

It looks like maybe OM is intending to compete with Fuji for people who want more advanced controls for JPEGs. I'm just not one of them. I enjoy having the control of processing. It's a big part of the creative process for me.

I'll post a pair that I often use to show the limits of 'getting it right in camera'. I was carrying a little lumix lx-100 (MFT, 12 MPX) when I stumbled on this in Bergen.

 

[Skygod44]

Interesting. I just looked at the OM systems video explanation of these functions, https://learning.omsystem.com/OM-3/en/index.html. It certainly does more than I expected. Less than LR. For example, you can set one color filter for any hue. That's better than the film days, when most of us had at most 3 filters. Lightroom, however, allows you to make changes to the tone of multiple colors. And one very big difference: you have to do all this before you shoot, which is only practical if your subject stays put. Still, I can see how some people would find this very useful.

It looks like maybe OM is intending to compete with Fuji for people who want more advanced controls for JPEGs. I'm just not one of them. I enjoy having the control of processing. It's a big part of the creative process for me.

I'll post a pair that I often use to show the limits of 'getting it right in camera'. I was carrying a little lumix lx-100 (MFT, 12 MPX) when I stumbled on this in Bergen.

Thanks again
And that's a lovely example.

I've just been out to pick up some milk.
As usual I had my PEN E-P7 with me, and a handful of lenses, so I decided to try as much editing in-camera as I could using the "monochrome switch" on the front of the body...
...and I found that it too, has the option to shoot "through coloured filters" editable around a colour wheel with various degrees of filter strength.
Plus shadows, mid tones, and highlights all editable at the same time.
Too much fun, tbh

I might have a go, and see how these images all look after exporting, but at the end of the day, I think every option we have simply adds to the enjoyment.

Catch you later,
Simon

 

[stevejack]

This is interesting to me.
So, do you shoot in colour or B&W in-camera?

I think I can "see" in B&W, but unless I'm being paid (rare, because I've basically quit doing pro work), I shoot jpgs only, and sometimes even use the "art filters" within my Olympus cameras.

So, I can adjust almost all the parameters which folks might rely on Lightroom etc. to do, before I take the shot.

How about you?

Although I have software on my PC for photos, it's mostly used as a video editing machine, optimised for DaVinci Resolve. So I mostly use the free photo app, Snapseed, on my smartphone, to edit on the fly.

Well I use a Leica Monochrom for black and white most of the time, so that's either the rangefinder window or sometimes with the attached Visoflex which lets me see the black and white image. I prefer shooting with the visoflex, you can't beat being able to see the black and white image and get your exposure etc bang on in-camera.
If I'm using a regular camera, I'll essentially just do a black and white conversion and tweak the white + black points and that's it. I don't mess with the colour sliders generally - I only touch those if I've made a mistake shooting and need to try to separate a subject from the background a little more. But I can't remember the last time I played with the colour sliders. I do use an orange or red filter on the monochrom sometimes though. 99.5% of all my edits are in Lightroom, and I just bring the image into photoshop for resizing and saving the final jpeg.

I've already prompted the answer, but are you shooting in film, as well as digital?

Mostly digital. I shoot 35mm with an old M3 leica and medium format with a Rolleiflex. Almost all tri-x because I can develop and scan that at home, though I still send it to the lab about half of the time.
As much as I love the tactile experience of film, and I do love the aesthetic of film, I much prefer the convenience of digital... I'm scanning film and bringing it into lightroom anyway so it seems a bit pointless sometimes. If I had a proper darkroom and made wet prints, I would appreciate film a lot more I think.

 

[Skygod44]

Well I use a Leica Monochrom for black and white most of the time, so that's either the rangefinder window or sometimes with the attached Visoflex which lets me see the black and white image. I prefer shooting with the visoflex, you can't beat being able to see the black and white image and get your exposure etc bang on in-camera.
If I'm using a regular camera, I'll essentially just do a black and white conversion and tweak the white + black points and that's it. I don't mess with the colour sliders generally - I only touch those if I've made a mistake shooting and need to try to separate a subject from the background a little more. But I can't remember the last time I played with the colour sliders. I do use an orange or red filter on the monochrom sometimes though. 99.5% of all my edits are in Lightroom, and I just bring the image into photoshop for resizing and saving the final jpeg.


Mostly digital. I shoot 35mm with an old M3 leica and medium format with a Rolleiflex. Almost all tri-x because I can develop and scan that at home, though I still send it to the lab about half of the time.
As much as I love the tactile experience of film, and I do love the aesthetic of film, I much prefer the convenience of digital... I'm scanning film and bringing it into lightroom anyway so it seems a bit pointless sometimes. If I had a proper darkroom and made wet prints, I would appreciate film a lot more I think.

Thanks so much for giving a detailed reply

In reverse order:
Yes, film has its advantages, but the disadvantages are pretty tiresome when you know you can just transfer from a digital camera into an editing suite and have a play on there, without stinking the house out.

You also talked about "colour sliders"...
A technique I enjoy is looking at a scene I want in B&W, and trying to "see" how emphasising a particular colour deliberately could accentuate the final B&W image, before pushing the shutter button.

It's almost like using a coloured filter, but in reverse.

And finally you said you use Lightroom, and then Photoshop to resize and export as a jpg...
I don't use Lightroom anymore, but feel that when I did, I didn't need to use other software for that final step.

Have things changed in Lightroom?

And really finally, Leica...hey?
Oh how yummy!
Although built under a collaborative arrangement, my Panasonic/Leica 8-18mm lens is almost delicious enough to eat!

There certainly is something about what that company makes, but sadly, I won't be buying one soon.


Catch you later, in the threads.
Simon

 

[paddler4]

And finally you said you use Lightroom, and then Photoshop to resize and export as a jpg...
I don't use Lightroom anymore, but feel that when I did, I didn't need to use other software for that final step.

I've been using Lightroom for many years, and it's never been necessary to use Photoshop to resize and export as a JPEG. A JPEG file has only one set of dimensions: pixels. Lightroom lets you set the pixel dimensions when exporting as a JPEG. In fact, depending on how you use your photos and where you post them, Lightroom allows you to skip storing JPEGs entirely. You can print directly from the edited raw or from a PSD or TIFF from Photoshop or another editor. I post on Smugmug and link from there, and I use a Lightroom plugin that creates the JPEGs to my specs, uploads it to the gallery where I want it, and closes without storing the file on my hard drive. I have almost no JPEGs in my photo directories.

 

[Skygod44]

I've been using Lightroom for many years, and it's never been necessary to use Photoshop to resize and export as a JPEG. A JPEG file has only one set of dimensions: pixels. Lightroom lets you set the pixel dimensions when exporting as a JPEG. In fact, depending on how you use your photos and where you post them, Lightroom allows you to skip storing JPEGs entirely. You can print directly from the edited raw or from a PSD or TIFF from Photoshop or another editor. I post on Smugmug and link from there, and I use a Lightroom plugin that creates the JPEGs to my specs, uploads it to the gallery where I want it, and closes without storing the file on my hard drive. I have almost no JPEGs in my photo directories.

Thanks for adding that

I had a feeling that @stevejack didn't need to use other software.
Maybe he can get advice from you what steps to take, to then make life easier.

Thanks again,
Simon

 

[Skygod44]

Today I was out having snap-happy fun, and came across this lovely old man taking photos of a wooden, toy-boat he's making for one of his grandchildren.

We got chatting, and he insisted I pop around the corner to his house, to see his workshop.

It's encounters like this which make life so rich, I think.

And it reminded me of my theory that B&W is tricky for people...
...unless it's textures you're after.
(Not impossible, but should be done with aforethought).

Simon

 

[tony-s]

Still shooting film and almost always B&W. Big fan of Fuji Acros, but Delta 100 and 400 are good, too. Most of my processing is with Perceptol or Xtol.

My Sigma sdQuattro is a fantastic digital B&W camera, but it pretty much has to be shot at ISO 100 or 200. Anything higher than that and noise (which is NOT grain) becomes a problem. And of course, my Fujifilm X-T4 has Acros built-in as an in-camera JPEG option. Not the same as the film, though.

 

[stevejack]

I've been using Lightroom for many years, and it's never been necessary to use Photoshop to resize and export as a JPEG. A JPEG file has only one set of dimensions: pixels. Lightroom lets you set the pixel dimensions when exporting as a JPEG. In fact, depending on how you use your photos and where you post them, Lightroom allows you to skip storing JPEGs entirely. You can print directly from the edited raw or from a PSD or TIFF from Photoshop or another editor. I post on Smugmug and link from there, and I use a Lightroom plugin that creates the JPEGs to my specs, uploads it to the gallery where I want it, and closes without storing the file on my hard drive. I have almost no JPEGs in my photo directories.

Thanks for adding that

I had a feeling that @stevejack didn't need to use other software.
Maybe he can get advice from you what steps to take, to then make life easier.

Thanks again,
Simon

Correct - to clarify you don't need to go into photoshop just to resize, but I use a resize and web sharpening method which is in the TkActions panel from Tony Kuyper, a plugin for photoshop. I've been using this for so many years now it's probably just habit.. but I do delve into the nuances of the action sometimes because it allows you to tweak separate elements of the sharpening effect - for example if I need to reduce halos on some edges or adjust the opacity of the sharpening layer over the original resized image it gives me options for that.
The basic resizing method it uses is a double-down approach where the image is first resized to 1.667 times the final dimension, before being reduced again to the selected size. I don't understand the nuances of it, but when I tested it I got much better results than other methods available at the time.

The actions panel is mostly used by me for luminance masking, which I don't tend to use with black and white but I use it quite a bit on colour photos if I need to target specific mid-tones areas or certain ranges within the highlights.

But again, most of my process is just habit from a workflow I've been using for so many years - and Lightroom has certainly gained a lot more features now compared to when I started out with it. For re-sizing and sharpening there could be little to no difference these days.

 

[Skygod44]

Correct - to clarify you don't need to go into photoshop just to resize, but I use a resize and web sharpening method which is in the TkActions panel from Tony Kuyper, a plugin for photoshop. I've been using this for so many years now it's probably just habit.. but I do delve into the nuances of the action sometimes because it allows you to tweak separate elements of the sharpening effect - for example if I need to reduce halos on some edges or adjust the opacity of the sharpening layer over the original resized image it gives me options for that.
The basic resizing method it uses is a double-down approach where the image is first resized to 1.667 times the final dimension, before being reduced again to the selected size. I don't understand the nuances of it, but when I tested it I got much better results than other methods available at the time.

The actions panel is mostly used by me for luminance masking, which I don't tend to use with black and white but I use it quite a bit on colour photos if I need to target specific mid-tones areas or certain ranges within the highlights.

But again, most of my process is just habit from a workflow I've been using for so many years - and Lightroom has certainly gained a lot more features now compared to when I started out with it. For re-sizing and sharpening there could be little to no difference these days.

And there we are

Well, if you're happy with that workflow, nobody can tell you not to be.

Catch you later, in the threads.
Simon

 

[stevejack]

To follow up I actually think this sharpening method was based on something which is discussed here
I'm sure in the years since this was written that methods for resizing and sharpening in Lightroom etc. have advanced to the point where much of this is un-necessary but to be honest it's such a quick and simple workflow for me and I've always appreciated the results.