These days, with digital photography, making a picture B&W (or sepia or monochrome or anything else for that matter) is so frighteningly easy, literally a one click operation, that I am never quite sure when it will contribute to my photo or look like a cheap effect.
However.
I have a theory. I've never read any books on the subject so maybe I'm an idiot. Nonetheless, this is what I've found:
It seems to me that making an image B&W simplifies it. It removes the element of color. And I think it changes the focus of the photo to the light and shadow and the shapes in it. So when I have a photo that has just a few simple shapes, like silhouettes, where the focus is on one or two main objects, it often looks better in B&W.
However I am a firm believer that plant and flower photography should be in color. Maybe that is an exception in a studio where you can manipulate the lighting. But all my flower and plant shots look very cheap and artificial when I make them black and white. Which goes to illustrate my point, that this effect can be overused.
Here are two examples of the color shot and the black and white shot. Tell me which you think is better.
Posts
I like to see B&Ws with a bit more...shaddow, I guess the term is. Nothing like the 35mm film camera sort of look, eh? Such a classic look :)
ReplyDeleteexposure down, yes?
ReplyDeletefor a B&W to work you really need the right amount of contrast and a good focal point. I find a busy nature scene difficult in b&w because there is so much going on you have no colour cues where to look, it all tends to blend in. That's why the second set works for me so much better while the birds get a little lost.
ReplyDelete